Response to Motion to Revoke

Embed Doc
Copy Link
Readcast
Collections

CommentGo Back

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSASUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,))Plaintiff,))Case No. 07-20124-CMv.))GUY MADISON NEIGHBORS)and)CARRIE MARIE NEIGHBORS,))Defendants.)DEFENDANT GUY NEIGHBOR’S RESPONSE TOUNITED STATES’ MOTION TO REVOKE BOND

Defendant Guy Neighbors, by and through his counsel, hereby submits hisResponse in opposition to the United States’ Motion to Revoke Bond. This Court shoulddeny the United States’ motion for the following reasons:1. The vast majority of the material on Mr. Neighbor’s web site consists of protected First Amendment speech.2. The government has not charged Mr. Neighbors with any crimes allegedlycommitted while on pretrial release and, further, has failed to establish probable cause toshow that Mr. Neighbors committed any felony while on pretrial release.

See

18 U.S.C. §3148.3. The government makes conclusory assertions that certain statements by Mr. Neighbors are false and defamatory, but provides no proof in support of these assertions.

24. Absent probable cause to believe Mr. Neighbors committed a felony while on pretrial release, the burden rests with the government to show that no condition or combination of conditions would suffice to prevent the defendant from fleeing or posinga danger to any member of the community.5. The government seeks the extreme measure of revoking bond while ignoringthe possibility of less restrictive alternatives, such as seeking a protective order under 18U.S.C. 1514(b)(1).6. During the pretrial period, the presumption of innocence applies, and pretrialdetention can only be imposed if the defendant is found, after an adversary hearing to pose a threat which no condition of release can dispel.

United States v. Salerno

, 481 U.S.739, 755 (1987).Because the government’s arguments fail to justify the extreme measure suggested,its motion should be promptly denied.I. Mr. Neighbor’s Web Site Consists of Core First Amendment SpeechThe robust and frank discussion of public issues stands at the heart of the FirstAmendment. As stated in

New York Times v. Sullivan

, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964), thedebate on public issues should be “uninhibited, robust and wide-open, and . . .it may wellinclude vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.” Expression on public issues – such as the administration of justice – “has always rested on the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values.”

3

Carey v. Brown

, 447 U.S. 455, 467 (1980). Indeed, speech concerning public affairs is“more than self-expression; it is the essence of self-government.”

Garrison v. Louisiana

,379 U.S. 64, 74-75 (1964).The government’s motion to revoke is replete with statements that fall clearlywithin the First Amendment. Mr. Neighbors’ blog states that the government should “dothe right thing by dropping the charges” (govt. motion at 12), that the prosecutors are potential witnesses (motion at 12) and that the case is a “gross miscarriage of justice thathas been allowed to continue for too long” (motion at 13). All of these statementsconstitute protected First Amendment speech on a matter of public concern. Further,there is nothing defamatory or “corrupt” about these statements; they simply express thewriter’s belief in the injustice of the criminal charges. As such, the statements are protected opinion on issues of public importance.II. The Government Has Filed No Criminal Charges Concerning the ConductAlthough the government repeatedly blasts Mr. Neighbors’ commentary as notonly offensive but also as defamatory, corrupt and malicious, it has not charged Mr. Neighbors with any of the cited crimes. An inspection of the statements on Mr. Neighbors’ web site establishes why the government has brought no charges of “criminaldefamation,” alleged “witness tampering” or “influencing an officer.”

See

K.S.A. 21-4004, 18 U.S.C. § 1512, and 18 U.S.C. § 1503 (cited on pages 3, 7 and 9 of thegovernment’s motion). All of these statutes demand a high level of

mens rea

– either

of 00

Leave a Comment