Transcript of Hearing & Testimony Case 07-20124-01 Marietta Parker US Attorney Yellow House Store Owners

Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 150 Filed 11/03/2008 Page 1 of 257
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)
Plaintiff, ) Criminal Action
) Case Nos. 07-20124-01 and
) 07-20124-02
vs. ) Kansas City, Kansas
)
CARRIE MARIE NEIGHBORS and ) July 18 & 21, 2008
GUY MADISON NEIGHBORS, )
)
Defendants. )
)
MOTIONS
BEFORE THE HONORABLE JAMES P. O'HARA, Magistrate Judge
TRANSCRIPT ORDERED BY: Ms. Parker
APPEARANCES:
For the Government: Ms. Marietta Parker

Ms. Terra D. Morehead
Assistant US Attorney
Office of the US Attorney
500 State Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
For the Defendant Mr. John Duma

Carrie Neighbors: Attorney at Law
303 E. Poplar
Olathe, KS 66061
For the Defendant Ms. Cheryl A. Pilate

Guy Neighbors: Morgan Pilate LLC
500 E. Santa Fe Drive, Suite A
Olathe, KS 66061
Transcript Prepared Theresa E. Hallberg, RMR, CRR

By: 511 US Courthouse
500 State Ave.
Kansas City, Kansas 66101
913-551-5647
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

1 I N D E X i
Page
2
3 DEFENDANT'S WITNESSES:
4 WITNESSES
6 Mickey Rantz:
8 Direct Examination by Ms. Parker 18
9 Cross-Examination by Mr. Duma 39
10 Cross-Examination by Ms. Pilate 42
11 Redirect Examination by Ms. Parker 76
12 Examination by The Court 78
14 Recross-Examination by Ms. Pilate 84
15
16 Mike McAtee:
17
22
23 Walter Robert Schaefer:
24

1 Cross-Examination by Mr. Duma 193ii
2 Cross-Examination by Mr. Pilate 201
4 Matthew D. Sarna:
9 Recross-Examination by Ms. Pilate 214
10
11 David Nitz:
12
16
17
18
19 EXHIBITS
20 OFFERED RECEIVED
21 Government's Exhibit No. 1A 8 8
22 Government's Exhibit No. 1B 8 8
25 Government's Exhibit No. 2C 8 8

1 Government's Exhibit No. 2D 8 8 iii
2 Government's Exhibit No. 3 8 8
12 Government's Exhibit No. 8D 8 8
13 Government's Exhibit No. 8E 8 8
14 Government's Exhibit No. 8F 8 8
15 Government's Exhibit No. 8G 8 8
16 Government's Exhibit No. 8H 8 8
20 Government's Exhibit No. 9D 8 8
21 Government's Exhibit No. 9E 8 8
22 Government's Exhibit No. 9F 8 8
23 Government's Exhibit No. 9G 8 8
24 Government's Exhibit No. 9H 8 8
25 Government's Exhibit No. 9I 8 8

1 Government's Exhibit No. 9J 8 8 iv
2 Government's Exhibit No. 9K 8 8
3 Government's Exhibit No. 9L 220 220
13
14 Defendant's Exhibit No. 1 127 127
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 150 Filed 11/03/2008
Page 6 of 257
2
1 THE COURT: At this time the Court calls
2 the criminal case styled United States of America,
3 plaintiff, versus Guy Madison neighbors and Carrie
4 Marie Neighbors, defendants, Case Number
5 07-20124-01 and 2 respectively, both bearing the
6 suffix CM.
7 The appearances, please.
8 MS. PARKER: Yes. Good afternoon, Your
9 Honor. Marietta Parker, Assistant United States
10 Attorney and Terra Morehead, also Assistant United
11 States Attorney, appear on behalf of the
12 government.
13 MR. DUMA: May it please the Court, Carrie
14 Neighbors personally and by her attorney, John
15 Duma.
16 MS. PILATE: Good afternoon, Your Honor,
17 Guy Neighbors is present personally at counsel
18 table with counsel, Cheryl Pilate.
19 THE COURT: Very well. Would both
20 defendants please stand so you can be sworn in.
21 (Whereupon, the defendants were duly
22 sworn.)
23 THE COURT: Very well. The record should
24 reflect that we convene today to conduct an
25 arraignment for the defendants with respect to the

Page 7 of 257
3
1 Second Superseding Indictment that's been returned
2 by the grand jury and also to take up the
3 government's May 1, 2008 motion to revoke the
4 defendants' bond, which is in the file as document
5 number 65.
6 Miss Parker, if you would, please,
7 summarize for the defendants' benefit, as well as
8 mine, the material changes that are presented by
9 the Second Superseding Indictment.
10 MS. PARKER: Yes, Your Honor. There are
11 two material changes. There were a number -- a
12 half dozen or so -- typographical errors, but the
13 material changes are that former Count 17, which
14 related to money laundering was deleted and former
15 Count 20 was also deleted. So in effect, the
16 Indictment has been shorted. Other than that there
17 has been no material change in the charges.
18 THE COURT: Thank you, Miss Parker.
19 MS. PARKER: Oh, I'm sorry. In paragraph
20 44, which is a forfeiture paragraph, we did delete
21 any reference to the residence that had been
22 contained in 44 as a forfeitable asset under that
23 theory.
24 THE COURT: Very well. Mr. Duma, have you
25 had sufficient time to review the Superseding

Page 8 of 257
4
1 Indictment, the second one, with Ms. Neighbors?
2 MR. DUMA: Yes, Your Honor.
3 THE COURT: And is she prepared to proceed
4 with arraignment and waive formal reading of the
5 charges?
7 THE COURT: Ms. Pilate, with respect to
8 your representation of Mr. Neighbors, would the
9 same apply?
10 MS. PILATE: Yes, Your Honor.
11 THE COURT: Very well. Would the
12 defendants please stand.
13 Folks, mindful that the charges in the
14 Second Superseding Indictment have been trimmed
15 down a little bit from what was in the earlier
16 Superseding Indictment and further mindful that the
17 charges applicable to those -- excuse me, the
18 penalties applicable to those charges have been
19 explained to you, I'm going to call upon you to
20 enter your plea at this time.
21 Ms. Neighbors, how do you plead with
22 respect to the charges against you?
23 DEFENDANT CARRIE NEIGHBORS: Not guilty.
24 THE COURT: And Mr. Neighbors, how do you
25 plead?

5
1 DEFENDANT GUY NEIGHBORS: Not guilty, Your
2 Honor.
3 THE COURT: Very well. Please be seated.
4 The Court notes and accepts the defendants'
5 not guilty pleas to all of the charges against them
6 in the Second Superseding Indictment. In light of
7 the way in which the case is simply been trimmed
8 down, I would not envision the need for any amended
9 scheduling order in the case but if any counsel
10 feels differently about that, speak now or forever
11 hold their peace. Maybe not forever, but at least
12 speak your peace.
13 MS. PILATE: Your Honor, I think I've
14 previously informed the Court and counsel in
15 chambers that due to the execution date on one of
16 my clients, my schedule is unpredictable and out of
17 my control. I will endeavor to communicate with
18 everyone on Monday and let them know if I'm able to
19 make the motion deadline or not. I apologize for
20 the difficulties that this may present for anyone
21 else, including the Court. But it is simply a
22 situation that, for obvious reasons, controls me
23 rather than me controlling it and I am doing my
24 very best to meet all of my responsibilities.
25 THE COURT: Just so I'm clear on this, the

Page 10 of 257
6
1 motion deadlines that were in place before I
2 inherited this case, at least for today's purposes,
3 from Judge Waxse, have already run.
4 MS. PILATE: Your Honor, there is a pending
5 motion to extend pretrial motions.
6 MR. DUMA: Judge, I thought there -- I
7 thought there was a motion granted that gave us
8 until the 28th of July.
9 MS. PILATE: The motion was filed,
10 Miss Parker filed a response, I don't know if it's
11 been ruled.
12 THE COURT: Evidently not. At least I'm
13 looking at the ECF docket and it would indicate
14 that the motions deadline, at least it was last
15 calendared on ECF, would be February 15, 2008 and
16 the case is presently set for a motion hearing on
17 August 20th, 2008 and set for trial on September
18 22, so...
19 Very well. Well, subject to whatever
20 ruling might be made on the pending motion to
21 extend, I'm not going to enter an amended
22 scheduling order at this time.
23 Turning to the motion to revoke bond,
24 counsel, are there any evidentiary stipulations
25 that you wish to place on the record at this time?

Page 11 of 257
7
1 MS. PARKER: Yes, Your Honor. I believe
2 that the parties have agreed to stipulate to the
3 foundation for the admissibility of the exhibits
4 which were contained -- attached to the
5 government's pleading in this case, the initial
6 pleading, which would be Exhibits 1A --
7 THE COURT: Excuse me. Hold on just a
8 second. Very well. Counsel, I'll just for the
9 record, because of the lack of (inaudible) request
10 for review or subsequent (inaudible), simply remind
11 everybody to speak clearly into the microphone at
12 the podium and also counsel. With that, go ahead.
13 MS. PARKER: Your Honor, I believe the
14 parties have agreed to the admissibility of
15 Exhibits 1A through 9K, which were attached to the
16 government's initial pleading in this case. And I
17 would tender those in the form of a binder and
18 (inaudible).
19 THE COURT: So I'm clear, am I correct that
20 the parties are stipulating not only to the
21 foundation and authenticity of these various
22 exhibits, but also their ultimate admissibility for
23 purposes of this hearing?
24 MS. PARKER: That's my understanding, yes.
25 THE COURT: Mr. Duma, does that square with

8
1 your understanding?
3 THE COURT: Miss Pilate?
4 MS. PILATE: Yes, Your Honor.
5 MS. PARKER: In addition I believe --
6 THE COURT: Excuse me, just a second.
7 MS. PARKER: I'm sorry.
8 THE COURT: For the record then, the Court
9 receives into evidence by stipulation of the
10 parties, solely for purposes of this hearing
11 Exhibits 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 3, 4, 5A, 5B, 5C,
12 6, 7, 8A, 8B, 8C, 8D, 8E, 8F, 8G, 8H, 9A, 9B, 9C,
13 9D, 9E, 9F, 9G, 9H, 9I, 9J, 9K, 10 --
14 MS. PARKER: No, Your Honor --
15 THE COURT: -- 11, 12 --
16 MS. PARKER: -- I'm sorry --
17 THE COURT: 13, 14 and 15.
18 MS. PARKER: No, after 9K the government
19 intends to lay a foundation for those. They should
20 not be included in the notebook that we've just
21 tendered to you.
22 THE COURT: Very well. But they are on the
23 exhibit sheet?
24 MS. PARKER: They are.
25 THE COURT: Everything that I mentioned

Page 13 of 257
9
1 through 9K is in as part of the record for all
2 purposes.
3 MS. PARKER: And it is also my
4 understanding that the defendants have agreed to
5 the admission of Government's Exhibit Number 13,
6 which is a document that indicates or that shows
7 that telephone number (785) 840-5038 is a number
8 that is associated with Mrs. Carry Neighbors and
9 the Yellow House.
10 THE COURT: Again, that's by stipulation,
11 is that correct, Mr. Duma?
12 MR. DUMA: That's correct.
13 THE COURT: To the extent that this may
14 implicate your client, is there any objection,
15 Miss Pilate?
16 MS. PILATE: Your Honor, the only point I
17 wish to make is that we are stipulating to their
18 admissibility purely for the purposes of this
19 hearing. But I am not waiving any First Amendment
20 relevance. We will be making arguments essentially
21 saying all of this is irrelevant to the issue
22 before the Court based on the First Amendment
23 grounds. But other than that, there's no other
24 challenge for admissibility.
25 THE COURT: Very well. Thank you.

Page 14 of 257
10
1 MS. PARKER: And just for the record, this
2 exhibit and that telephone number are being offered
3 on the issue of contact with a witness in the case.
4 THE COURT: And that's, again, Exhibit 13,
5 correct?
6 MS. PARKER: Yes.
7 THE COURT: With respect to the various
8 blog postings, are there any stipulations among the
9 three parties that would clarify which blog
10 postings were posted by which defendant?
11 MS. PARKER: Your Honor, we believe that if
12 the Court reviews the blogs, it will see that most
13 of the time Carrie Neighbors is associated with the
14 blog that's entitled Corruption In Justice and that
15 most of the time Mr. Neighbors posts on the Yellow
16 House blog spot. But also from the reading of the
17 blogs themselves, it indicates that from time to
18 time they interchange and either both post at the
19 same time on a particular blog or use each other's
20 blogs. But for the most part, based upon
21 photographs and the contents of the blogs, it would
22 appear Mrs. Neighbors is associated with Corruption
23 In Justice and Mr. Neighbors with the Yellow House
24 blog spot.
25 THE COURT: Is there any dispute as between

Page 15 of 257
11
1 the two defendants as to whether the other has
2 access to both blogs for purposes of posting
3 material?
4 MR. DUMA: Your Honor, our stipulation that
5 these blogs that are (inaudible) representations as
6 blogs that have been sent from different sites. I
7 think most of the blogs that are relatively
8 self-explanatory as to who sent them. But my
9 client is not denying that the blogs were sent and
10 she has not been known that she has access to the
11 Corruption In Justice site, but she's not denying
12 that she has access to the Yellow House blog.
13 THE COURT: Well, let me ask the question a
14 better way. What I was driving at is if, for
15 instance, a blog indicates on its space that it was
16 posted by Ms. Neighbors or that it was posted by
17 Mr. Neighbors, anybody have any difficulty or
18 concern about my attributing those statements to
19 just that one person?
20 MR. DUMA: (Inaudible).
21 THE COURT: Miss Pilate, is that agreeable?
22 MS. PILATE: That is, Your Honor.
23 THE COURT: Ms. Parker?
24 MS. PARKER: No. But as I said, there are
25 some blogs where it's clear that both of them are

Page 16 of 257
12
1 blogging. In that case we would request that the
2 Court consider attributing that blog to both.
3 THE COURT: I mean, are there blog entries
4 where both of them sign off?
5 MS. PARKER: There are blog entries
6 where -- and I think it's cited in our pleading.
7 And if I can get to that, there was a blog on the
8 Corruption In Justice site on April the 24th, which
9 is the subject of footnote number 4 of the
10 government's motion where -- and if it's all right
11 I'll read to the Court.
12 THE COURT: Go ahead.
13 MS. PARKER: The text of this blog
14 establishes that both defendants participated in
15 drafting the message. I'm on page 12 of the
16 government's initial pleading. The photo attached
17 to the posting is that of defendant Guy M.
18 Neighbors and the caption reads, quote, pictures --
19 picture show, the new hat my family sent me for
20 standing up for my rights and refusing the
21 so-called deal, unquote. That was Exhibit 7 at
22 page 1 and 2.
23 Later in the body of the message, the
24 author refers to, quote, my attorney Phil Gibson,
25 who was the attorney for Ms. Neighbors before he

Page 17 of 257
13
1 was removed -- he resigned from the case. So in
2 that case, given the entries in the blog itself,
3 it's apparent that both were involved in the
4 drafting of that blog -- or that posting.
5 THE COURT: In terms of narrowing down
6 what's still in dispute in this case -- I'm not
7 going to require this, but can the government
8 isolate those statements in the various blog
9 postings which it believes constitutes either
10 criminal defamation or witness intimidation and not
11 say crime.
12 MS. PARKER: We had planned to do that as
13 each witness testifies, to go specifically to a
14 blog entry and have the witness quote it and then
15 testify about it. And as we do that -- I can stop
16 and do it now if the Court would like, but it may
17 be more meaningful if we do it as we go along.
18 THE COURT: It's your call. I'll let you
19 present your case. That's fine.
20 MS. PARKER: And the government would like
21 to start initially with what I hope is the easiest
22 part. And that is I would like to proffer to the
23 Court information about the allegations that have
24 been made against me. And specifically there is
25 one that is quoted in -- it's quoted on page 11 and

Page 18 of 257
14
1 12 and it is found in Exhibit 6 and I believe it is
2 highlighted. I can read that for the Court if you
3 would like me to read it into the record.
4 THE COURT: Please.
5 MS. PARKER: All right. The -- on April
6 the 22nd, the defendants falsely asserted in their
7 internet Yellow House blog spot site that counsel
8 for the government had used racial epitaphs in her
9 office three times. The defendants next posed a
10 series of rhetorical questions, including could
11 these words be directed at me because I happen to
12 be a black man and a pain in her side because I
13 have been posting the laws she has broken trying to
14 get me in jail? Who could leave such a e-mail on
15 my blog site? Could it be someone who was sick of
16 watching her violate people's Civil Rights and
17 would like to see her in jail someplace where she
18 would not be able to continue making a mockery out
19 of the US justice system.
20 Then further down in the blog the defendant
21 goes on to -- what the government contends is make
22 clear his intent in these bloggings and that is the
23 prosecutors could make it easy on themselves and do
24 the right thing by dropping the charges because we
25 are never going to take a plea and give up, not in

15
1 a million years.
2 This, the government believes, is a
3 statement that relates to trying to influence an
4 officer. And I tender to the Court and proffer to
5 the Court the information that I have never used
6 the N-word as this defendant -- or these defendants
7 claim in their blog site. That is a total fallacy.
8 And the rest of it speaks for itself. But I do
9 want to clarify the record on that false statement.
10 I would offer to the Court Government's
11 Exhibit Number 18, which is a blog that was posted
12 on January 26th of 2007 which claims that -- and
13 first of all, let me offer Exhibits 18 and 19.
14 Exhibit 18 is a blog which is entitled Is Marietta
15 Parker Selling Property From The Evidence Room To
16 Pawn Shops? Exhibit Number 19, is a blog on the
17 larryville.com blog site, which is entitled, US
18 Attorney, Marietta Parker, Uses Search Warrant
19 Unethically. I have provided copies of these to
20 the counsel for the defendants and I just located
21 these this morning, so I apologize for not having
22 these available earlier. I would offer
23 Government's Exhibits 18 and 19.
24 THE COURT: Any objection, Mr. Duma, to
25 either?

16
1 MR. DUMA: No objection.
2 THE COURT: Ms. Pilate?
3 MS. PILATE: No.
4 THE COURT: Very well. Exhibits 18 and 19
5 are admitted without objection.
6 MS. PARKER: And I would state for the
7 record the second page of Government's Exhibit 18
8 is put there only to show the photograph more
9 clearly of the individuals that are posted on that
10 blog site, which are these two defendants, Guy and
11 Carrie Neighbors.
12 But as I said, in that blog spot, there is
13 an allegation that the government has been
14 involved -- or that I personally have been involved
15 in selling items from the police property room.
16 And I offer to the Court the information that under
17 no circumstances have I ever done that or is there
18 any truth in that.
19 And the third e-mail -- I'm sorry, the
20 third blog (inaudible), which is the Larryville
21 posting that I -- that the counsel for the United
22 States has used search warrant unethically. And
23 the allegations in there are that I served a search
24 warrant to get information that would allow me to
25 hack into the defendants' blog site. That is a

Page 21 of 257
17
1 fabrication. I have never obtained a search
2 warrant for any of the defendants' blog sites.
3 And the allegation that I have -- that
4 because certain icons appear on the attachments to
5 the government's exhibit which are different than
6 they apparently appear on the defendant's website,
7 that that's proof that I had hacked into their
8 website and made changes and deleted things.
9 The last page of Government's Exhibit 19 is
10 an e-mail from Ted Shelkey, S H E L K E Y, who is
11 the assistant director of security at the executive
12 office of the United States Attorney. When that
13 allegation was made, I immediately reported it
14 because it is an allegation of wrongdoing. The --
15 Mr. Shelkey and his department immediately
16 segregated my computer, did their own search and
17 the e-mail there is their reply, it came in just
18 earlier this week, indicating that there is
19 absolutely no ground for an allegation that the
20 government has -- has hacked into the defendants'
21 website or made any changes that those icons change
22 depending upon what computer is being used.
23 That is the proffer the government has on
24 the issues that have been alleged against the
25 United States. With the Court's permission, we

Page 22 of 257
18
1 would call our first witness, would be Officer
2 Mickey Rantz.
3 (Whereupon, the witness is duly
4 sworn.)
5 MICKEY RANTZ,
6 called as a witness on behalf of the
7 Government, having been first duly sworn to tell
8 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
9 truth, testified as follows:
10 DIRECT EXAMINATION
11 BY MS. PARKER
12 Q. Would you state your full name and spell your last
13 name for the record, please?
14 A. My name is Mickey Rantz, R A N T Z.
15 Q. Where are you employed?
16 A. I'm an officer with the Lawrence, Kansas Police
17 Department.
18 Q. How long have you been so employed?
19 A. Since the fall of 2001.
20 Q. All right. And in the course of your employment,
21 have you been involved in an investigation of activities
22 at the Yellow House in both Lawrence and Topeka, Kansas?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. All right. And are -- have you performed actual
25 investigative functions as a result?

19
1 A. Yes, I have.
2 Q. All right. And have you been told by me that you're
3 going to be a witness in this case?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. All right. Now, in the course of your work on this
6 case, have you been following certain blog sites that have
7 been posted, either the Yellow House blog site -- I'm
8 sorry, Yellow House blog spot or Corruption In Justice or
9 the Larryville forum?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. All right. And have you found allegations that were
12 posted against you on those blog sites?
13 A. Yes, I have.
14 Q. All right. And how long has this been going on, to
15 the best of your knowledge?
16 A. Uh, I believe '06 is when they started.
17 Q. 2006?
18 A. 2006, yes.
19 Q. All right. And we're going to confine ourselves now
20 to just certain ones. And I'd like to direct your
21 attention first to Exhibit 1B and ask you if you have
22 reviewed that and are there -- is there an allegation in
23 here about wrongdoing on your part?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And would you call the Court's attention to where

20
1 that is?
2 A. Right next to the pictures of the patrol car, number
3 1 it says, "Videos of Lawrence, Kansas Police Department
4 allegations of corruption, Mickey Rantz accused of
5 stealing this guy's $3,000." And then later it goes on to
6 37 guns -- or 39 guns that I stole from the same
7 individual.
8 Q. And have you reviewed a videotape that was posted
9 elsewhere or here?
10 A. Yes, I have.
11 Q. Did you recognize the person who was on that video?
12 A. I did not until I talked to some additional officers
13 to identify who he was.
14 Q. And have you identified the speaker --
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. -- who was making the allegation?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. All right. And who was that?
19 A. It's Jeremy Boyd.
20 Q. Jeremy Boyd. And do you know Jeremy Boyd?
21 A. Not personally, no.
22 Q. Have you ever been in contact with Jeremy Boyd?
23 A. In the -- October of 2007, I was the back officer on
24 a traffic stop where he was arrested for driving while
25 suspended, but during the contact there was no

Page 25 of 257
21
1 conversation with him and nothing occurred between him and
2 I. I was simply the back officer.
3 Q. And that was when?
4 A. October of 2007.
5 Q. So in July -- on July 29th of 2007, when this blog
6 was posted, you had not had any contact with Jeremy Boyd?
7 A. That is correct.
8 Q. All right. Have you -- how have you verified
9 about -- so that you can testify about the contact you've
10 had with Mr. Boyd?
11 A. Well, there seems to be some confusion. We also
12 have an Officer Mickey Ramsey at our police department as
13 well as me, Office Mickey Rantz. And in some of the blogs
14 it even refers to Mickey Rantz, a.k.a. Mickey Ramsey.
15 Just so happens on the October 21st, 2007 arrest of Jeremy
16 Boyd, Mickey Ramsey is the primary officer that stopped
17 him for a traffic violation and then I showed up as the
18 back officer. Through Mickey Ramsey, who has arrested the
19 subject two or three times, that's how I was able to
20 confirm who Jeremy Boyd even was.
21 Q. And did you interview Officer Ramsey to see if he
22 ever stole $3,000 from Jeremy Boyd?
23 A. Yes, I did.
24 Q. And what was the result?
25 A. I asked him about the allegations that were made in

Page 26 of 257
22
1 the blog sites and he adamantly denied anything like that.
2 Q. Did he say whether or not he ever even recovered any
3 cash from Mr. Boyd?
4 A. He said he had never recovered any cash and he had
5 never recovered any guns.
6 Q. Moving on to Exhibits 2A and 2C. Let's just --
7 MS. PARKER: Well, Your Honor, all of the
8 evidence as Mr. -- I'm sorry, as Officer Rantz has
9 testified to, goes to the issue of witness
10 intimidation.
11 Q. (By Ms. Parker) I'll direct your attention to
12 Exhibits 2A.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Are you familiar with that?
15 A. Yes, I am.
16 Q. All right. And is there an allegation of
17 wrongdoing -- a false allegation of wrongdoing made
18 against you?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. What is that?
21 A. This is from the Corruption In Justice Department
22 blog spot site, it says -- caption on the article says,
23 "Lawrence Police Officer Mickey Rantz Plants Evidence in
24 Yellow House Case Trash."
25 Q. And that's on the second page of Exhibit 2A?

23
2 Q. All right.
3 A. Actually -- yes, page 2.
4 Q. All right. And then there is information contained
5 in that blog is more detailed or is there?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. What does that say?
8 A. It says, "On February 25th, 2008 it was presented to
9 the federal judge in federal court that Lawrence police
10 officer Mickey Rantz had clearly filed a false statement
11 and committed the crime of planting evidence in the
12 defendants' trash. The report claiming to have found
13 contraband evidence in the Neighbors' trash pull that was
14 clearly nonexistent, fabricated and if the described
15 evidence does truly exist, then clearly it was planted and
16 would not have any fingerprints or DNA connected to the
17 defendants."
18 Q. And was a similar allegation made in Exhibit 2C?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. What was that?
21 A. It says -- this would be on page 2 of 4, "On
22 February 25th, 2008, it was presented to the federal judge
23 in federal court that Lawrence, Kansas police officer
24 Mickey Rantz had clearly filed a false statement,
25 commission the crime of planting evidence in the

24
1 defendants' trash. The Court -- "
2 Q. Let me stop you here.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. You say 204?
5 A. 2 of 4.
6 Q. 2 of 4.
7 A. Page 2 of 4.
8 Q. Okay. And where in the body of that?
9 A. It would be under -- the first page has a picture of
10 Officer Bileck and myself. And under the caption,
11 Saturday, March 15, 2008 Lawrence, Kansas police officer
12 Mickey Rantz and John Bileck plant evidence in the Yellow
13 House investigation should be fired and prosecuted."
14 Q. And do you know what their -- these two blogs are
15 referring to, what recovery?
16 A. I have no idea. There were seven trash pulls during
17 the investigation that were done on the house and there
18 were a total of 15 trash pulls that were done on the
19 business during the course of the investigation.
20 Q. In the course of the investigation in those trash
21 pulls, did you ever recover any evidence of drug dealing
22 or drug use?
23 A. Yes.
25 A. There were three what I would call marijuana roach

Page 29 of 257
25
1 cigarettes that have been now sent to the lab for DEA
2 analysis.
3 Q. And have you since seen blogs that claim that those
4 were planted?
5 A. I have not seen specifically that the marijuana was
6 planted, they just say that we planted them.
7 Q. And did you plant any evidence in this case?
8 A. No.
9 Q. So is that statement a fabrication?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. All right. Moving, then, to -- it's still saying on
12 Exhibit 2C, are there allegations that you obtained search
13 warrants with forged signatures?
14 A. Yes, about --
15 Q. What is that allegation?
16 A. The bottom one-fourth of the page, it goes into what
17 rights were violated in regards to the defendants. The
18 sentence starts off, "Use of excessive force and
19 misconduct, including kidnapping, false arrest, torture,
20 jailed for eight hours with no food, searches with ten
21 warrants with Judge Six's name forged on them."
22 Q. And are you the officer who obtained the state
23 search warrants in this case?
24 A. I am the affiant on those search warrants.
25 Q. And what did you do with those search warrants after

26
1 you had prepared the affidavit?
2 A. I took them to Judge Stephen Six in his office, he
3 reviewed the warrants and subsequently sworn me in and
4 signed them.
5 Q. And did you take all ten warrants at the same time?
6 A. Well, there are not ten warrants, first of all.
7 Q. I'm sorry.
8 A. There were bank records -- I think the initial one
9 was five warrants, two for the business, then you had eBay
10 records, Pay Pal records and Sunflower broadband and then
11 some bank records. So it would have been initially. And
12 then the only other warrant that I applied for was a
13 piggyback warrant subsequent to that after finding a
14 marijuana grow in the Neighbors' residence. And then
15 there was a federal search warrant later on --
16 Q. But Judge Six wouldn't have signed that?
17 A. He did not sign that.
18 Q. All right.
19 A. No. It would have just been the initial seven.
20 Q. You personally presented those search warrants to
21 Judge Six, correct?
22 A. Yes, I did.
23 Q. And did he sign them in your presence?
24 A. Yes, he did.
25 Q. Did you forge any of his signatures on there?

27
1 A. No, I did not.
2 Q. Have you spoken with Judge Six since those -- since
3 these allegations have come up?
4 A. Yes, I have.
5 Q. All right. Would you tell the Court about the
6 discussion you had with Judge Six?
7 A. It was actually made aware to Judge Six that this
8 allegation was out there.
9 Q. Did you tell him?
10 A. No.
11 Q. All right.
12 A. He just made mention that, I see that your
13 defendants in the federal case are claiming that these
14 search warrants were forged.
15 Q. All right. And is that -- how did -- was he still
16 Judge Six when you had this conversation with him?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. All right. He's now what?
19 A. He's now the Kansas State Attorney General.
20 Q. All right. And did he say anything else when you
21 and he were having this discussion about the allegations
22 made about his signature?
23 A. No. I believe it was just more in passing, as I
24 recall. I think I was actually in there having another
25 search warrant signed unrelated to this case.

Page 32 of 257
28
1 Q. He did not indicate to you that -- that his
2 signature had been forged those --
3 A. No.
4 Q. -- affidavits, did he -- or the search warrants?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Again, on Exhibit 2C, does the -- is there an
7 allegation in there that the inventory list for those
8 search warrants was switched?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Was it?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Tell the Court about the search -- the list of items
13 seized that's left at the residence as opposed to the list
14 that is actually compiled as the evidence is logged into
15 evidence room.
16 A. Yes. In our search warrant affidavit attachment and
17 search warrant, then we have an inventory list that's all
18 part of one departmental search warrant packet. When we
19 leave the list from the search warrant packet it has very
20 generic detail, as in 11 guns seized or marijuana plants
21 seized or stolen property -- certain stolen property
22 seized. Then when we actually have to log all that stuff
23 in accountability-wise, there's an actual evidence custody
24 sheet that has a detailed description, serial numbers for
25 each item that is then logged into the evidence -- into

29
1 our evidence room.
2 Q. Is leaving a broadly worded inventory at the scene
3 in accordance with Lawrence Police Department practices
4 and procedures?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And it's also in accordance with the practices and
7 procedures to prepare a more detailed, more specific list
8 of the items that were sealed that is actually then
9 provided to anyone who needs to see what was recovered?
10 A. Yes. There's a very detailed one for the report and
11 then a very kind of generic one that's left at the scene.
12 Q. Were you also in Exhibit 2C accused a thief -- of
13 theft of evidence from -- regarding some items taken from
14 the --
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. -- residence and the business? Would you point the
17 Court to that allegation.
18 A. Continuing on with the same paragraph -- or the same
19 section following the ten search warrants it goes, "And
20 receipts for same inventory switched and forged several
21 times. Chain of custody violations, theft of evidence
22 from the evidence room, missing laptops."
23 Q. And how is it that you allege that that's an
24 allegation against you personally?
25 A. Because we have gone through every single piece of

Page 34 of 257
30
1 evidence that's logged in for this case and had
2 accountability, either it being in our evidence custody
3 room or showing it's signed back over to the Neighbors.
4 Q. And I understand that every piece that has been
5 seized has been accounted for, but why is it that you
6 believe that allegation is against you personally?
7 A. Because as the affiant of the search warrant naming
8 those, I then become responsible for the search warrant.
9 Q. And is there also an allegation in Exhibit 8F in the
10 same vein?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And where is that? Well, let me ask you this. Let
13 me point you to the bottom of page 2 of that exhibit.
14 A. Of which exhibit?
15 Q. I'm sorry, 8F. Got it?
16 A. Yes. Bottom of page 2?
17 Q. Bottom of page 2.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Where it says, "Could it be that Parker and Morehead
20 were also responsible for 90% of the evidence missing that
21 was collected from the Neighbors' home and business"?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Do you believe that's an allegation against you?
24 A. Yes, I do.
25 Q. Why is that?

Page 35 of 257
31
1 A. Because, again, as being the affiant and being
2 responsible for the search warrants, I also become
3 responsible for the evidence that was seized.
4 Q. Is 90% of the evidence missing?
5 A. Absolutely not.
6 Q. And have you personally been involved in a review of
7 all of the items and the inventory list and assured
8 yourself that every piece of evidence that was listed on
9 the longer list of evidence is accounted for?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Are there claims in Exhibit 2C that you altered
12 undercover videos?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. All right. Where is that in that exhibit?
15 A. On page 3 of 4, third line down, right in the middle
16 of it says, "Altered Videos." The altered videos would --
17 the only videos that I know of short of surveillance
18 videos are the undercover videos where, during my
19 undercover operation with Ms. Neighbors, I wore a body
20 camera to record what was going on.
21 Q. Turning to Exhibit 8B, as in boy, is there a
22 reference there to -- anywhere in that exhibit to internal
23 affairs complaints being filed?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And where is that?

Page 36 of 257
32
1 A. It starts off, "The question of prosecutor's ethics
2 during ongoing investigation that began December 2005 and
3 has continued through 2007 when Lawrence, Kansas citizens
4 Guy and Carrie Neighbors submitted complaints to Lawrence
5 Police Department's internal affairs sergeant, Dan Ward,
6 for investigation instead of forwarding these complaints
7 to the FBI in Topeka, Kansas or the KBI for unbiased
8 investigation by an outside agency, these complaints were
9 forwarded to the prosecuting US Attorney, Marietta Parker,
10 for evaluation and ultimate decision-making."
11 Q. Now, are you aware that there have been
12 allegations -- formal complaints lodged against you and
13 other investigators in this case?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Do you know how many?
16 A. According by their accounts, 29. According to
17 Captain Zarnowiec, 22.
18 Q. Can you spell Zarnowiec?
19 A. It's Z A R N O W I E C.
20 Q. All right. And he's informed you that there have
21 been 22 formal complaints filed against you personally?
22 A. And -- complaints involving the Yellow House
23 investigation.
24 Q. All right. Many of them involving specific
25 allegations against you?

33
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. All right. And have you been privy to any of those?
3 A. I was -- the actual complaint or the investigation
4 itself?
5 Q. Either one.
6 A. I have not been privy to the complaints, I was
7 interviewed, had initial statement taken from me by
8 Sergeant Danny Ward when he was the internal affairs
9 sergeant, but because it's an ongoing investigation my
10 initial statement was taken and I don't know what is
11 happened in regards to the rest of the internal affairs
12 investigations.
13 Q. Has the fact that there are 22 allegations made in
14 the course of this investigation, some of them against
15 you, had any effect on you?
16 A. Oh, yes.
17 Q. All right. And has it had a professional effect?
18 A. Yes.
20 A. Well, credibility is our primary thing the officer
21 has to have. Not only in filling out these affidavits --
22 search warrant affidavits, but probable cause arrest
23 affidavits and just complaining reports and coming in and
24 testifying, whether it be in state or federal court. When
25 these internal affairs complaints are out there, officers

Page 38 of 257
34
1 know that I'm being brought into internal affairs as a
2 result of this investigation, which was a long -- which
3 has spanned almost three years now. They don't know,
4 having not seen this huge case file that goes with this,
5 whether or not there's any validity to it or not. All
6 they have is me saying I didn't do anything wrong and this
7 is completely frivolous. So yes, it -- and as far as my
8 job with supervisors and other officer co-workers,
9 definitely it's created stress.
10 Q. All right. Any personal stress?
11 A. Mostly as a result of my wife coming upon the blogs
12 from the two different websites and seeing what is being
13 put on the internet in regards to me stealing evidence and
14 falsifying reports. Mostly because I think she sees that
15 within her profession there's a lot of people that know
16 what I do and I think just other people seeing that and
17 not knowing whether or not it's true, I think -- I know
18 it's created stress with her, which then ultimately gets
19 passed on to me.
20 Q. How about the false allegations that relate to your
21 credibility? Does that have any affect at all on your
22 ability to do your job now or in the future?
23 A. Yes, both now and in the future.
24 Q. What's that?
25 A. Because with those things being out on the internet

Page 39 of 257
35
1 and not having any way to answer to them, it's not like I
2 can now create a website that says, I am completely
3 innocent of all these accusations or have my own press
4 release to defend this stuff. I basically have to wait
5 till the trial is finished. Have I talked to an attorney
6 about a civil lawsuit? Most definitely. But I don't want
7 to put any kind of civil lawsuit out there that is going
8 to hamper what has taken three years for us to
9 investigate.
10 Q. How important is your credibility in your job?
11 A. It is everything. Without it, there's no way you
12 can do the job.
13 Q. Do you feel -- is it your opinion that these false
14 postings will have had or will have had an effect, could
15 have an effect on your credibility?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Why?
18 A. Because I have a feeling as this thing continues on
19 and I have to testify in state court and federal court
20 there are -- there are going to be defendants and defense
21 counsel that bring it up and want to know if it's true.
22 Q. Turning to Exhibit 2D, is there a statement in there
23 which is a posting on -- it's an e-mail from Guy N or Guy
24 Smiley at Hotmail, do you see that?
25 A. Yes.

Page 40 of 257
36
1 Q. All right. And do you know who Guy Smiley is?
2 A. Yes, I do.
3 Q. Who is that?
4 A. That is -- Guy Smiley is the e-mail address to Guy
5 Neighbors.
6 Q. And you know that from documents that were obtained
7 in the course of this investigation?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. All right. And is there anything in that e-mail
10 dated March the 7th of 2007 that caused you any concern
11 personally?
12 A. Yes. About half-way through the second page, he's
13 been referring to Officer Bileck and myself throughout the
14 e-mail. Then it gets to about half-way through the second
15 page and it says and I quote, "I say to these dirty
16 officers should be worried about pissing me off. They
17 should not have messed with my wife. I have made my peace
18 with God. My family knows I love them all and I am not
19 afraid of dying or going to jail."
20 Q. And what is it about that that concerns you?
21 A. Well, my initial reading of, I believe he was
22 prepared for some kind of life or death confrontation with
23 law enforcement or Officer Bileck or myself.
24 Q. But that has not happened --
25 A. No.

Page 41 of 257
37
1 Q. -- with you? You have not been confronted at all
2 by --
4 Q. -- by the defendant? All right. Finally, going to
5 Exhibit 5A, is there an allegation in there that you and
6 Officer Bileck posted as FBI agents?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. What is that allegation?
9 A. This actually started off during the course of the
10 investigation, the allegation that Officer Bileck and I
11 were posing as FBI agents as we confronted witnesses.
12 This specific e-mail says, "We have others who have stated
13 the police have posed as FBI agents."
14 Q. All right. But in other blogs there have been
15 specific that you and Officer Rantz have posed as FBI
16 agents?
17 A. Myself and Officer Bileck.
18 Q. I'm Officer Bileck. You are Officer Rantz.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Is that true?
21 A. Absolutely not.
22 Q. Do you know if an FBI investigation was conducted
23 into the allegations that you and Officer Bileck posed as
24 FBI agents?
25 A. Yes.

38
1 Q. And who did that?
2 A. Agent Bob Shaffer(ph) with the FBI.
3 Q. All right. And were you interviewed by him?
4 A. It was actually him and the detective sergeant, Mike
5 Patrick.
6 Q. So you know from your own personal knowledge that
7 there was an investigation?
8 A. Yes. In fact, the lady who was alleging this, we
9 had made a recorded interview with her and turned that
10 recording over to Sergeant Mike Patrick and the FBI.
11 Q. All right. And in that recording -- in that
12 interview with her, did you make clear, you and
13 Officer Bileck, the nature of your employment?
14 A. Yes. In fact, we even gave business cards with
15 Lawrence Police Department.
16 Q. Is there any other allegation that has been made
17 against you that you consider to be particularly damaging
18 or detrimental to you or your career?
19 A. No. It's just that we -- basically what has
20 happened as a result of these allegations, a number of
21 people that have contacted me, everywhere from city
22 commissioners to city attorneys, to judges, to the FBI, to
23 the KBI, to the ATF, all have had -- either scanned
24 through the blog site or actually had complaints sent to
25 them alleging wrongdoing on my part. I basically have to,

Page 43 of 257
39
1 every time that's brought up, defend myself saying, no,
2 this is absolutely false. But short of things being taken
3 off the internet and all of it retracted, there's no way
4 for me to take a public stand to basically voice what's
5 really going on.
6 MS. PARKER: I don't believe I have any
7 additional questions of this witness. Thank you,
8 Your Honor.
9 THE COURT: Mr. Duma, you may
10 cross-examine.
11 CROSS-EXAMINATION
12 BY MR. DUMA:
13 Q. Officer Rantz, I would assume that in your law
14 enforcement career this is not the first time that someone
15 has made an allegation about your professional conduct as
16 a police officer. Would you agree with that?
17 A. Never to this extent.
18 Q. I was going to get to that next.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. But there have been other times where someone maybe
21 accused of a crime has accused you of doing something that
22 was outside of the scope of what you're supposed to do as
23 a police officer, correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. All right. And some of that comes just by the

Page 44 of 257
40
1 nature of the job that you're doing, correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Because you're involved in investigating people and
4 they're going to be accused of committing crimes, correct?
5 A. Correct.
6 Q. And sometimes they say those things just as a way to
7 get under your skin, correct?
8 A. Uh, I guess that could be correct. I don't know
9 what their motive is.
10 Q. But you've dealt with it in the past?
11 A. I have dealt with allegations, just not to this
12 extent.
13 Q. All right. Now, how often do you get on this blog
14 site -- and let me just talk about Yellow House -- to
15 check it out?
16 A. Oh, usually when it's brought to my attention.
17 Mostly because I know right now there's no way for me to
18 address it and stop it. And all it does is frustrate me
19 to read what they're putting out there and know that it's
20 not true. So usually when co-workers and supervisors are
21 up in arms with something that's going on and bring it to
22 my attention or the US Attorney's Office is bringing it to
23 my attention this is going on, that's when I will get on
24 there and look at it.
25 Q. All right. So typically would you agree with me

Page 45 of 257
41
1 that it's somebody either in your department or somebody
2 from the US Attorney's Office that brings it to your
3 attention that there might be another new allegation
4 that's on up on this Yellow House blog site?
5 A. Yes. Or Officer Bileck who is still assigned to the
6 case full-time. Somebody associated with the case.
7 Q. Now, I would assume that your wife has gotten onto
8 the blog site and read it?
9 A. She did, yes.
10 Q. And that caused her grief or stress?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. All right. And I assume you said, you know, honey,
13 these are just people that are way out of line, don't get
14 on the blog site?
16 Q. And really, if the US Attorney's Office and the
17 people in your department didn't get on the blog site,
18 then you wouldn't have any knowledge about what's
19 occurring on that blog site, would you? That be a fair
20 statement?
21 A. Except for other people outside of the investigation
22 that have seen it.
23 Q. And all you have to do is tell them everything that
24 is on there is just not true, these are people charged
25 with crimes, you probably say something like they're just

Page 46 of 257
42
1 outrageously frivolous and -- and you know me and I'm --
2 and that's pretty much the end of it, would you agree with
3 that?
4 A. I do tell them that, among other things, yes.
5 Q. Okay. Would you say that the blogs that have been
6 placed out there and the things that you've read have
7 strengthened your resolve in investigating this case or
8 lessened your resolve in investigating this case?
9 A. I think it's strengthened it.
10 MR. DUMA: No further questions. Thank
11 you.
12 THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Duma,
13 Ms. Pilate.
15 BY MS. PILATE:
16 Q. Good afternoon, Officer. I think you testified
17 early on about inventory receipts and you stated there was
18 a generic receipt that would leave -- that would be left
19 behind with the occupants of the dwelling, correct?
21 Q. And you keep copies of those generic receipts?
22 A. Yes, I do.
23 Q. And you have copies of all those generic receipts in
24 this case?
25 A. They're in the case book, yes.

Page 47 of 257
43
1 Q. And those are available for inspection?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. I think you also stated you've been called into
4 internal affairs, is that correct?
5 A. That's correct.
6 Q. Upon how many occasions have you been called into
7 internal affairs for an interview?
8 A. I've been pulled in once on this case to give my
9 initial statement and told that at the conclusion of this
10 case that I would be called in to answer for each one of
11 the complaints.
12 Q. Okay. And when you say an initial statement, does
13 that mean you were broadly interviewed about the overall
14 allegations in this case and gave a limited response that
15 would be followed by a more detailed response later?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Okay.
18 A. In essence, just denied the allegations.
19 Q. And that statement was tape-recorded, is that
20 correct?
21 A. I don't know.
22 Q. Was it documented in some way?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Okay. And is that statement available for
25 inspection?

Page 48 of 257
44
1 A. You would have to talk with internal affairs on
2 that.
3 Q. And were you represented in the course of giving
4 that statement?
5 A. With the attorney? No.
6 Q. Were you represented by another officer who went
7 with you?
8 A. No.
9 Q. So you attended that interview yourself?
11 Q. And you were interviewed by one officer or two?
12 A. One.
13 Q. Okay. And who was that, please?
14 A. Sergeant Dan Ward, who's now Captain Dan Ward.
15 Q. Okay. And when did this interview take place?
16 A. I believe it might have been the fall of '06.
17 Q. Okay. And the sum and substance of your response at
18 that time was what?
19 A. I just denied the allegations.
20 Q. Okay. And what were the allegations facing you at
21 that time?
22 A. I don't -- as I recall, it might have been the FBI
23 allegation, I'm not -- there's been so many allegations
24 launched at this point, I'm not even sure which one I
25 answered.

Page 49 of 257
45
1 Q. So it was just one allegation you were responding to
2 rather than the broad allegations made over a number of
3 complaints?
4 A. I don't really recall what -- what the specific
5 question was that he asked.
6 Q. It was one question or more than one question?
7 A. I don't recall. I was in there for a while, so --
8 but I don't remember exactly what he asked because in my
9 mind I didn't do anything wrong and I told them that. And
10 I told them more than happy to look at the case file and
11 all the recordings that went with it, but that I hadn't
12 done anything wrong.
13 Q. So this interview occurred in the fall of '06 with a
14 Sergeant Dan Ward who was assigned to internal affairs, is
15 that correct?
17 Q. And does your department call it internal affairs?
18 A. Yes, they do.
19 Q. And does he function free of the administrative
20 apparatus that governs the rest of the department?
21 A. Yes, he does.
22 Q. And you recall that that interview lasted, quote,
23 quite some time, is that correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. But you don't recall if it covered one allegation or

46
1 several allegations?
2 A. No, I don't.
3 Q. And is the reason you don't recall that because you
4 knew you didn't do anything wrong and you decided to put
5 it out of your mind?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Okay. So you weren't particularly concerned about
8 it after you left?
9 A. I was concerned that somebody could come in and just
10 make the allegations and that I was going to have to
11 answer for them at some point with each of these 20 some
12 allegations or complaints that they've come in and filed.
13 But no, I was not worried at all about having done
14 anything wrong.
15 Q. Okay. But you were not concerned enough that you
16 made any mental note to yourself about what you'd just
17 been interviewed about?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Okay. And so that's just kind of gone from your
20 recollection, would that be safe to say?
21 A. Yeah. I don't remember what the specific questions
22 were.
23 Q. And you didn't talk to anybody about it afterwards?
24 A. I just -- I just remember telling maybe Mike McAtee,
25 who's the LPOA president that I'd been called into

47
1 internal affairs on it.
2 Q. And Detective McAtee?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Okay. He is a union representative?
5 A. He is our Lawrence Police Officer Association
6 representative.
7 Q. Is he the president of the union?
8 A. He is the president.
9 Q. And you had a right to have him with you at the time
10 of the interview?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Okay. But you chose not to?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Okay. Because you weren't particularly concerned
15 about it, were you?
16 A. Because I knew I didn't do anything wrong.
17 Q. So you weren't --
18 A. I just knew there were allegations.
19 Q. -- you weren't excessively worried about it?
20 A. I just knew there were allegations I hadn't done
21 anything wrong.
22 Q. So that means you weren't worried, correct?
23 A. I can't say I wasn't worried because there's still
24 allegations that I'm going to have to clear up and they
25 were still going to be in the IA file.

Page 52 of 257
48
1 Q. Okay. But you trust the investigative apparatus of
2 the department to function as it should, correct?
4 Q. And you had every confidence that upon an
5 investigation being conducted by Sergeant Dan Ward that
6 you would be cleared of any wrongdoing, correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Okay. So it's kind of a no sweat deal, wasn't it?
9 A. I don't know if IA is never -- ever no sweat deal,
10 but it wasn't anything that -- I didn't do anything wrong,
11 so I wasn't worried about it.
12 Q. So unpleasant, maybe --
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. -- to go in to answer questions, but not something
15 you gave a whole lot of thought to afterwards, correct?
17 Q. And you had the right to have someone with you, but
18 you chose not to have another officer with you, correct?
19 A. Correct.
20 Q. Because you weren't really worried about it, were
21 you?
22 A. No, I knew I didn't do anything wrong.
23 Q. Let me ask you, you weren't really worried with it,
24 were you?
25 A. Uh, well, you say I wasn't worried about it, but I

Page 53 of 257
49
1 can be worried about it and still not feel I did anything
2 wrong.
3 Q. Okay. And if you had been concerned to the point of
4 wanting to have someone with you, that would have been a
5 right available to you, correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And you chose not to have someone with you?
9 Q. Because you had confidence that the investigative
10 apparatus of internal affairs would function as it was --
11 as it is supposed to and you'd be cleared of any
12 wrongdoing?
13 A. Yes.
14 THE COURT: Ms. Pilate, let's move along,
15 that's the third time you've asked that question.
16 MS. PILATE: Okay, sir.
17 Q. (By Ms. Pilate) Now, I think you said also with
18 Mr. Duma that you had had some familiarity with other
19 internal affairs complaints or, in fact, been complained
20 about before?
22 Q. But, quote, not to this extent, right?
24 Q. And on how many other occasions have you given an
25 interview to internal affairs?

50
1 A. I believe only once.
2 Q. Okay. And when was that?
3 A. '04, '05. Must have been '04, fall of '04, spring
4 of '05.
5 Q. And what was the allegation in that instance?
6 MS. PARKER: Objection, Your Honor, that's
7 irrelevant to these proceedings.
8 THE COURT: What is the relevance,
9 Ms. Pilate?
10 MS. PILATE: I don't believe so, Your
11 Honor. One of the things that may be at issue here
12 is what my clients' good faith beliefs were,
13 they've been told a number of things by people in
14 the community who've had experiences with these
15 officers, whether these reports to my clients
16 are -- or my client is correct or not is another
17 matter. We're talking about good faith belief and
18 whether or not other complaints have been made on
19 Officer Rantz and have been, therefore, something
20 that filtered through the community that
21 Mr. Neighbors or Ms. Neighbors would have become
22 aware of and therefore rendering their statements
23 on their blogs as something done in good faith I
24 think is very much at issue here.
25 MS. PARKER: Your Honor --

Page 55 of 257
51
1 THE COURT: Well, are you representing this
2 as an officer Of the court, though, Ms. Pilate,
3 that that was in part the basis of your client's
4 postings with respect to this matter? Or are you
5 just trying to get information? Because if it's
6 the latter, the objection is sustained. If
7 it's the former --
8 MS. PILATE: No.
9 THE COURT: -- I'll allow you to go.
10 MS. PILATE: Your Honor, I am not trying to
11 just get information. My client has repeatedly
12 represented to me that numerous individuals who --
13 some of whom show up on these videos, some of whom
14 have had conversations with Mr. Neighbors or
15 perhaps with Ms. Neighbors, have told them about
16 allegations made by other people.
17 I also have an independent good faith basis
18 for asking these questions because I will
19 personally represent I've been informed by sources
20 that I regard as credible that there may have been
21 other complaints. I mean, there are people who
22 have been active in the law enforcement community
23 and in the defense community in Lawrence who have
24 contacted me and suggested certain questions that
25 maybe ought to be asked.

Page 56 of 257
52
1 And I'm not saying that I have
2 independently investigated those. That's not been
3 my job here. I've been more concerned about
4 whether Mr. Neighbors has had a good faith basis
5 for these writings. And I will represent to this
6 Court I have had contact with a number of counsel,
7 as well as a member of, shall we say, former law
8 enforcement -- two former members of law
9 enforcement, who've suggested to me that probing
10 these areas is not something that would be
11 frivolous. I don't know the specifics about
12 Mr. Rantz -- Officer Rantz, excuse me, but I --
13 think these questions are very much in line.
14 There's a motion to revoke bond because
15 Mr. Neighbors has written things on his blog that
16 this officer is testifying upset him or caused him
17 concern and caused him stress and affected his
18 credibility and his reputation. And so I think I'm
19 entitled to find out if perhaps other things
20 affected his reputation or other things he may
21 have -- when he's talking about his credibility, I
22 think I'm entitled to probe whether there are other
23 things that may have impacted that credibility.
24 Surely this is not the only complaint that's ever
25 been made on Officer Rantz.

Page 57 of 257
53
1 And I have no desire, Your Honor, none, and
2 I think the Court is well aware of my position, to
3 question these officers about this matter. But the
4 government has opened this up and since they've
5 opened it up, I believe I have a right to
6 cross-examine on all of this and, frankly, we could
7 be here for days if I were to do that because I
8 have some material -- frankly, if this issue is
9 going to be something that everybody wants to make
10 a full record on, I may bring in our own witnesses
11 because I do have some folks who have consulted
12 with me about this.
13 I don't know that I want to put them on the
14 stand, I, frankly, think this is a waste of time.
15 Because my clients are willing, and I've expressed
16 this to the Court, to cease and desist some of this
17 blogging so we can all get on with what matters
18 here, which is the case.
19 THE COURT: Okay. We're launching into
20 closing arguments.
21 MS. PILATE: Okay.
22 THE COURT: We're dealing with an
23 objection.
24 MS. PARKER: I would object that this is a
25 fishing expedition, that unless counsel can

Page 58 of 257
54
1 represent to the Court that Mr. or Mrs. Neighbors
2 knew the contents of the other complaint or can
3 prove that there was an adjudication of another
4 complaint, which they cannot, I have review the
5 officer's (inaudible) and this is nothing more than
6 a fishing expedition and it's not relevant to the
7 issues here.
8 THE COURT: Well, I am going to overrule
9 the objection. I'm going to allow counsel to fish,
10 but fish briefly. We're not going to be here for
11 days on a bail revocation hearing. So let's get
12 that out of your mind right now.
13 MS. PILATE: Oh, Your Honor, I don't want
14 to be here either for days, but I do believe I'm
15 entitled to inquire.
16 Q. (By Ms. Pilate) Officer Rantz, could you please
17 identify when this other complaint to internal affairs
18 regarding your conduct occurred and what was the subject
19 matter of that complaint?
20 A. It would have been either been the fall of '04,
21 spring of '05, a female made a complaint that when I
22 cleaned a meth lab up out of their car that $40 or $50
23 disappeared during the evidence collection. It was
24 investigated by Sergeant Mike Patrick who was in charge of
25 the detective division because it would have been a

Page 59 of 257
55
1 criminal IA complaint. And after investigation I was
2 notified by Sergeant Patrick that I had been cleared of
3 any wrongdoing.
4 Q. Okay. So no discipline was imposed in that instance
5 is what you're saying?
7 Q. And you were fully cleared?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Have there been any other complaints against you?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Have you ever heard about other citizens discussing
12 allegations against you, not in a formal sense to internal
13 affairs, but that citizens have complained that anything
14 improper has happened with evidence or with drugs or with
15 money?
16 MS. PARKER: Objection, irrelevant. Now
17 we're really on a fishing expedition.
18 THE COURT: Overruled.
19 MS. PARKER: I mean, how would he even know
20 if there were any -- well, all right. I'll sit
21 down.
22 A. I've never heard that, no.
23 Q. (By Ms. Pilate) Have you ever been disciplined by
24 the department for anything?
25 A. No.

Page 60 of 257
56
1 MS. PARKER: Objection, irrelevant. But
2 it's been asked and answered, so...
3 THE COURT: It's moot.
4 Q. (By Ms. Pilate) Have you ever testified in any case
5 or been an officer working an investigation in any case
6 where any evidence has been suppressed because of
7 something you did or didn't do in the course of your
8 investigation?
9 MS. PARKER: Your Honor, I object unless
10 counsel can come forward with a good faith basis
11 for that question. This really is just fishing.
12 MS. PILATE: Your Honor, I do have a good
13 faith basis.
14 MS. PARKER: Well, somebody else --
15 THE COURT: Well, what might that be?
16 MS. PILATE: Your Honor, I don't --
17 THE COURT: Specifically.
18 MS. PILATE: Okay. May I approach the
19 bench?
20 THE COURT: Yes.
22 (Whereupon, the following proceedings were
23 had between Court and counsel at the bench:)
24 MS. PILATE: Your Honor, I've gotten
25 information from other counsel who have worked

Page 61 of 257
57
1 cases in Lawrence that there have been cases where
2 evidence has been suppressed or deals have been
3 given so that officers did not have to testify in
4 court because something irregular occurred. Now,
5 as far as investigating the specifics of that,
6 that's a side event from what we're concerned about
7 in this case.
8 But I have discussed with defense counsel
9 the particular -- when I say defense counsel, I
10 mean contacts that I have in the defense community
11 who do cases in state court in Lawrence and are
12 familiar with the Lawrence Police Department. And
13 I have discussed with them the names of particular
14 officers involved in this case because I've had to,
15 to properly represent my client, deal with good
16 faith query.
17 And I can assure the Court that there has
18 been information going around for years in that
19 community about irregularities in investigations,
20 some of which has concerned at least some of the
21 officers in this case, some of which has not. Do I
22 want to take the time and unravel all of those
23 rumors and allegations? No, I don't.
24 But I just got an e-mail not that long ago
25 from someone who said, you know, I represented

Page 62 of 257
58
1 defendant so-and-so in such-and-such a case and my
2 client told me that some drugs disappeared that he
3 had on him and that the drugs he was alleged to
4 have had were much less than what he really did
5 have. Now, most defendants wouldn't want to bring
6 this up, to be honest, but the lawyer raised some
7 questions about the propriety of the officer's
8 actions and the next thing you know she had a
9 really sweet deal.
10 And those -- I can't -- Your Honor, I'm not
11 saying that I'm here to support the truth of that
12 or not, but I have a basis to ask the question.
13 MS. PARKER: It's not a valid basis, Your
14 Honor. There's rumors and allegations that go
15 around constantly and she can't even indicate that
16 this defendant -- I mean, this witness is one of
17 the officers who accused of it. This is
18 irrelevant.
19 THE COURT: Objection sustained.
21 had in open court:)
22 THE COURT: Counsel, we're probably going
23 to be needing a break. We need to welcome another
24 defendant into the federal criminal justice system.
25 So we'll take a short break and take up another

59
1 case, another first appearance. You may step
2 across the hall.
3 (Whereupon, recess was had and the
4 following proceedings were had in open court with
5 all parties present:)
6 THE COURT: We're back on the record in the
7 Neighbors case in the middle of Miss Pilate's
8 cross-examination of Officer Rantz. Counsel, you
9 may proceed.
10 Q. (By Ms. Pilate) Officer Rantz, do you recall an
11 occasion of when you traveled to the Yellow House store
12 with Officer Bileck for the purpose of returning an item
13 of property?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Okay. And was that item of property a camera?
16 A. It was a digital camera, yes.
17 Q. And that camera was returned to Ms. Neighbors by
18 you, is that correct?
20 Q. Okay. And the reason it was returned was that the
21 camera had not been logged into inventory, is that
22 correct?
23 A. It had been located in a -- basically a paper ream
24 box full of paperwork that had been confiscated and it did
25 not show up on an evidence custody sheet so it was

60
1 returned to the defendant.
2 Q. So that was an item of property that did not show up
3 on an inventory of items seized, correct?
5 Q. Okay. And for that reason it was returned, correct?
7 Q. And are you aware that a complaint was made to
8 internal affairs about the failure to log in that item of
9 property that had been seized?
10 A. I did not know about that specific complaint, no.
11 Q. Okay. Did anyone ever bring that shortcoming or
12 failure to your attention?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Okay. What brought it to your attention?
15 A. I believe her attorney at the time was Mr. McKee(ph)
16 had contacted the US Attorney's Office about dropping off.
17 If I needed to drop anything -- if anything else needed to
18 be dropped off, needed to contact him first.
19 Q. Okay. Did he say anything about the camera?
20 A. We told him that the camera -- I'd refer -- I can't
21 remember if we actually told him or Ms. -- if told --
22 Ms. Parker told one of them, you know, it was in -- just
23 in a box of paperwork and as the paperwork was being
24 sorted through and copied, found the camera and it was
25 returned.

Page 65 of 257
61
1 Q. Okay. But someone brought that to your attention
2 that the camera had not been logged in, correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Okay. And were you aware that that happened after a
5 complaint had been made to internal affairs?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Okay. And no one had discussed with you the
8 internal affairs complaint?
9 A. Specific to the camera?
10 Q. Yes.
11 A. Not that I recall.
12 Q. Okay. And in terms of the internal affairs
13 complaints made by the Neighbors, can you tell us what you
14 recall about allegations made, other than what you have
15 already identified you were interviewed about.
16 A. No, I don't recall.
17 Q. Okay. So you simply have no recollection of what
18 those allegations are, is that correct?
20 Q. Okay. Has there been any occasion of when a
21 prosecutor has expressed to you a concern about an
22 allegation that a defendant in a case has made about
23 conduct on your part?
24 MS. PARKER: Objection, irrelevant.
25 THE COURT: Sustained. The question is

Page 66 of 257
62
1 impermissibly overbroad given the scope.
2 MS. PILATE: Okay. I can narrow it.
3 Q. (By Ms. Pilate) Has a prosecutor ever brought to
4 your attention any allegation made by a defendant in any
5 case where you've been involved that the defendant has
6 alleged that you engaged in any improper or illegal
7 conduct in the course of your investigation?
8 MS. PARKER: Objection. Again, it's
9 overbroad. Unless it's relating to any of the
10 allegations that have been made in this case, it's
11 irrelevant.
12 THE COURT: Sustained.
13 MS. PILATE: May I address that to preserve
14 it for the record, Your Honor? Again, this goes to
15 information that has been circulated in the
16 community that my client, Mr. Neighbors, would have
17 been aware of and that would have been the basis
18 for perhaps some of the blog entries that have been
19 made and matters that have been addressed in the
20 blog. Since Officer Rantz has discussed his
21 distress about credibility issues, I think I am
22 entitled to explore this area.
23 Also for the reason that he's concerned
24 about his credibility. Are there any other issues
25 involving his credibility that have come to light

Page 67 of 257
63
1 in the course of the cases that he has testified
2 in?
3 THE COURT: How are you going to tie this
4 up? I mean, specifically who's going to come to
5 this Court and testify to these rumors, that they
6 have any connection with this officer?
7 MS. PILATE: Your Honor, what I can say is
8 I have -- as an officer of the Court, I can -- I
9 can represent -- I feel very comfortable
10 representing that I have a good faith basis for
11 these questions.
12 THE COURT: That wasn't my question. My
13 question was what witnesses will come into this
14 Court to tie up this allegation?
15 MS. PILATE: You're asking me to tell you
16 now what witnesses would come into Court? I may
17 have some witnesses. I don't -- I'm not
18 comfortable giving a name right now, but --
19 THE COURT: Are there witnesses here today?
20 MS. PILATE: Not here today.
21 THE COURT: Objection sustained. You can
22 make your record for purposes of a motion for
23 review, you can make a proffer.
24 MS. PILATE: Your Honor, if -- it's
25 apparent that this hearing is likely to be

Page 68 of 257
64
1 recessed. If it is recessed, I would like to
2 preserve the right, if need be, to recall Officer
3 Rantz and question him about these matters when I
4 would be in a position to put on a witness to
5 address situations in which defendants may have
6 made allegations about his conduct in a particular
7 case.
9 THE COURT: Counsel, I'm a little bit -- I
10 inherited this case from Judge Waxse. I seem to
11 recall being told by the lawyers that were looking
12 at a hearing of approximately two hours. We spent
13 the first hour or so joint with counsel in chambers
14 trying to get a resolution to this case. That did
15 not happen. So unless you're telling me you've got
16 a basis to tie this up, this an impermissibly broad
17 fishing issue. That there is no reasonable
18 (inaudible) the already pretty voluminous
19 exercises.
20 MS. PILATE: Your Honor, if I may, Officer
21 Rantz has testified credibility is everything,
22 seemingly reflecting that his credibility is the
23 most important thing to him. This -- these
24 allegations by the Neighbors are so serious they
25 could affect his credibility even though he was

Page 69 of 257
65
1 obviously not too concerned about the internal
2 affairs investigation and the implication being
3 that there's never been any other allegation about
4 Officer Rantz' credibility.
5 It would be similar to a defamation case in
6 which the background of the person being defamed is
7 relevant. I mean, do they have a spotless
8 reputation so that injury can be proven or is this
9 someone who does not enjoy a spotless reputation?
10 And that's -- you know, that's obviously relevant
11 in a defamation case.
12 I don't want to do these things, Your
13 Honor. I don't want to be here, to be honest. I
14 think all of this is an unnecessary sideshow,
15 especially in light of what we're going to agree
16 to. But if the government, the United States, is
17 going to present his testimony all about the vast
18 importance of his credibility to him and how he's
19 frightened about the blogs that Mr. Neighbors has
20 written about, you know, his feelings and his great
21 stresses and this is besmirching his reputation,
22 I'm entitled to inquire into these matters.
23 THE COURT: And I agree to that to a
24 limited extent. So we're clear, so the record is
25 clear should there be a request for a review, if

Page 70 of 257
66
1 you have a specific instance about what you want to
2 inquire of this officer that reasonably relates to
3 his credibility that the government has by
4 (inaudible), fire away. But I'm not going to let
5 you just say, have you ever heard anybody ever say
6 that they heard somebody else impugn your
7 credibility? That is way too broad in any case,
8 it's certainly way too broad in my judgment
9 (inaudible).
10 Q. (By Ms. Pilate) You're familiar, are you not, with
11 the term Giglio or Giglio material, are you not?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Okay. It there any Giglio material in your
14 personnel file?
15 MS. PARKER: Objection, calls for a legal
16 conclusion. And if the Court would like to inquire
17 of the prosecutor on that issue, I would be happy
18 to answer.
19 MS. PILATE: He said he was familiar with
20 the term Giglio material. In my experience, most
21 officers area familiar with the term Giglio
22 material because most of them want to keep Giglio
23 material out of their file. They even use Giglio
24 as a verb as in I got Giglioed.
25 THE COURT: Counsel, approach, sidebar,

67
1 please.
3 had between Court and counsel at the bench:)
4 MS. PILATE: Your Honor, I have a good
5 faith basis for asking --
6 MS. PARKER: What is it? I'm tired of this
7 nameless good faith basis. Who's told you and what
8 have they told you? That's how you make a record.
9 MS. PILATE: I'm sorry, I apologize, Your
10 Honor. Well, my -- my concern, frankly, is -- is
11 compromising my defense of the case at this point.
12 You know, if -- he is continuing.
13 THE COURT: What -- I mean, what's
14 compromising your case?
15 MS. PILATE: Well, there are -- there are
16 matters I may not be ready to reveal at this point
17 that I'm investing with an eye for trial, Your
18 Honor. And, you know, obviously -- you know, it's
19 all fair game in trial. If my client testifies or
20 Ms. Neighbors testifies, certainly their
21 credibility will be attacked on numerous grounds.
22 You know, certainly we're going to be investigating
23 credibility issues ourselves as well.
24 What I can tell you is that I have had
25 conversations with a number of people connected

Page 72 of 257
68
1 with -- and these are credible people, I would not
2 be doing this if they were not credible --
3 connected with the legal community in Lawrence who
4 have told me that these concerns have arisen for
5 years, that there are specific cases where they
6 have arisen, that evidence has been thrown out in
7 some cases because of the conduct of Lawrence
8 police officers. I've been told that Officer Rantz
9 has been at the center of certain situations.
10 Have I had time, Your Honor, to pull court
11 files and write up memos? No, I've not. I wish I
12 had. Unfortunately, this detracts from my
13 investigation of the merits of the case and I've
14 also been busy with my death penalty matter. But I
15 can assure the Court that I have talked to credible
16 persons associated with the legal community in
17 Lawrence who have assured me that these concerns
18 about the credibility of these officers are not
19 wholly in the imagination of Mr. Neighbors and
20 Ms. Neighbors. These are not things they are
21 sitting down and simply fabricating. They have
22 heard things.
23 THE COURT: Irrespective of what this
24 officer might say in response to the question
25 posed, how -- how does everything get tied up in

Page 73 of 257
69
1 terms of your clients saying a particular basis for
2 making a particular statement?
3 MS. PILATE: Because --
4 THE COURT: I mean, maybe I'm wrong,
5 assuming they will not testify -- maybe it's an
6 incorrect assumption, but assuming they don't
7 testify, who's going to come in and say, for
8 instance, I told Mr. and Mrs. Neighbors that
9 Officer Rantz was a dirty cop based on the
10 evidence?
11 MS. PILATE: I -- I don't know that it has
12 to be someone who spoke directly to Mr. Neighbors.
13 I can tell you this information is rampant in the
14 community and that long before my involvement in
15 this case I had heard it. Unsolicited.
16 MS. PARKER: May I make a statement, Your
17 Honor?
18 THE COURT: Yes.
19 MS. PARKER: The issue of Giglio has come
20 up. I have firsthand knowledge of what is in the
21 officer's file as it relates to Giglio. And as an
22 officer of the Court I am here to represent to you
23 and defense counsel there is no Giglio material in
24 this officer's file. Which is all that we are
25 required to do is to -- we don't even have to go

Page 74 of 257
70
1 make our own examination of the file. We often
2 are -- leave that up to legal counsel with the
3 police department.
4 In this case, because of the allegations, I
5 personally went and reviewed this officer's file
6 and there is no Giglio material in it.
7 THE COURT: In light of where we can go --
8 MS. PILATE: Your Honor, I have credible
9 information from sources tight with law
10 enforcement --
11 MS. PARKER: Who?
12 MS. PILATE: Marietta, I don't think it is
13 appropriate for me to disclose that at this point.
14 MS. PARKER: Then it's not appropriate to
15 ask the question.
16 THE COURT: The objection is sustained.
17 Move along.
18 MS. PILATE: Uh-huh.
20 had in open court:)
21 Q. (By Ms. Pilate) Officer Rantz, I think that you
22 testified earlier about the stresses that you feel you've
23 suffered -- or that you testified you suffered as a result
24 of the blogging conducted by Mr. Neighbors and
25 Ms. Neighbors. Do you recall that testimony?

71
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Okay. As a police officer you recognize, however,
3 that you are trained to deal with stressful situations,
4 are you not?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And you're trained to deal with situations that may
7 involve matters of life and death, correct?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And you're trained, are you not, to deal with a
10 situation that may even involve the need for deadly force,
11 correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And you're trained, as an officer, to act out of
14 your training and not your emotions, correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And yet you're saying that some words in a blog by
17 somebody that you discredit have caused you stress in your
18 professional and your personal life, is that right?
19 A. I'm not sure of the first part, it was something
20 about discrediting the defendant, was that -- did I
21 understand -- I guess I didn't understand your question.
22 Q. What I'm saying is despite the fact that you are
23 trained to deal with the most stressful situations,
24 including those that may even involve deadly force, what
25 you're saying is, despite your training, you find that --

Page 76 of 257
72
1 or you're testifying that you have experienced stress as a
2 result of words that Mr. Neighbors has written in his
3 blog, even though those words are coming from someone
4 whose point of view you discredit and place no reliance
5 on, is that correct?
7 Q. And you say that you've suffer this stress in your
8 personal life?
10 Q. And you say that you've suffered this stress in your
11 professional life, is that correct?
13 Q. And have you sought any assistance to deal with this
14 stress?
15 A. No, I have not.
16 Q. So you haven't spoken to any departmental counselor
17 or anything like that, is that correct?
19 Q. Okay. And I think you also mentioned that you were
20 maybe thinking about suing, is that correct?
21 A. Possibly.
22 Q. Okay. And that would be filing a lawsuit against
23 whom?
24 A. The Neighbors, Guy and Carrie Neighbors.
25 Q. Okay. And you would be suing based on what kind of

73
1 claim?
2 A. Defamation.
3 Q. And this is a claim that you would bring at what
4 point in time?
5 A. At some time at the conclusion of this case if I
6 chose.
7 Q. Okay. And you believe that the Neighbors have some
8 assets, correct?
9 A. I don't know what kind of assets they have.
10 Q. You've been to Yellow House, correct?
11 A. To the business?
12 Q. Yes.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And you know if you file a lawsuit that one of the
15 very few ways that our legal system provides redress is
16 money damages, correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Okay. And that would be what you'd be seeking,
19 would it not?
20 A. I believe the government's seeking the business.
21 Q. Okay. But what you would be seeking in a lawsuit
22 would be money damages, is that correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Have you complained to anyone about those blog
25 postings?

74
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And who would that be?
3 A. I've complained to my administrators directly over
4 me, which would be Captain Zarnowiec, I have complained to
5 the chief, I've complained to the US Attorney's Office.
6 Q. And their responses have been what?
7 A. Well, as like me, nobody else has ever had this
8 situation where the defendants have gone on such a
9 campaign, basically a smear campaign.
10 Q. You're aware of the presumption of innocence, are
11 you not?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Okay. So that you're aware at this point in time
14 that Ms. Neighbors and Mr. Neighbors are presumed
15 innocent, correct?
16 MS. PARKER: Objection, irrelevant.
17 MS. PILATE: I can link this up with the
18 next question.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. (By Ms. Pilate) Are you familiar with any of the
22 press coverage in this case?
23 MS. PARKER: Your Honor, I'm sorry, I don't
24 see how that first question was tied up with the
25 second. So I renew my objection.

Page 79 of 257
75
1 THE COURT: Patience is a virtue. Overrule
2 the objection.
3 A. Am I aware of the press coverage of it?
4 Q. (By Ms. Pilate) There's been press coverage of this
5 case, has there not been?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And I think you just testified that what bothers you
8 is false accusations, correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And you're aware, are you not, that Mr. Neighbors
11 and Ms. Neighbors have been written about quite a bit in
12 the press, are you not?
13 A. In like the Journal World --
14 Q. Yes.
15 A. -- newspaper? Yes.
16 Q. So you're aware of that?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And are you familiar with the fact that the Lawrence
19 Journal World has quoted the official statement of the
20 Lawrence Police Department being that at the time of the
21 arrest that the investigators, quote, suspected the Yellow
22 House the a center of a large, sophisticated fencing ring
23 that's been involved selling stolen goods on site and on
24 the eBay auction site online, correct?
25 A. Yes.

Page 80 of 257
76
1 Q. And you're aware of statements like that in the
2 press?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Okay. So based on the fact that you have felt some
5 stress from the blog and the postings that have been made
6 there about you, would it be fair to assume that perhaps
7 you could understand that the Neighbors might feel some
8 stress from these kinds of statements in the local press?
9 MS. PARKER: Objection, calls for
10 speculation.
12 A. I'm sure they have stress being defendants in
13 federal court.
14 MS. PILATE: That's all I have.
15 THE COURT: Redirect?
16 MS. PARKER: Just a couple questions.
17 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
18 BY MS. PARKER:
19 Q. Mr. Duma asked you if -- you know, how you were
20 being made aware of the blogs and your answer was that
21 people were calling them to your attention?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. All right. And among those has this office called
24 them to your attention?
25 A. Yes.

Page 81 of 257
77
1 Q. And when you and I talk about the blogs, do I ask
2 you to do things?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. What do I ask you to do?
5 A. Ask me will you follow up leads as they present --
6 present somebody who alleges that -- in this case Jeremy
7 Boyd alleges we stole this. Look at this and -- is -- do
8 we know who this is, is this credible. We have to
9 basically generate additional investigative leads off
10 stuff that is put out on the internet.
11 Q. You have to run down the evidence to disprove these
12 false allegations, correct?
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. Does this take you away from your other duties?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. So does that affect your professional career?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And your life?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. All right. You were also asked by Ms. Pilate about
21 a camera that you returned to the Neighbors?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And that was returned because it was discovered in a
24 box of papers?
25 A. Yes.

78
1 Q. And it hadn't been logged in?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Well, what did you do with it?
4 A. Returned it to the owner.
5 Q. You didn't steal it?
6 A. No.
7 Q. You didn't hide it?
8 A. No.
9 Q. All right. And you -- when you returned it to them,
10 did you explain what had happened and why it was there?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. All right. And is that evidence that's missing from
13 the room -- from the evidence room?
14 A. There's no evidence missing from the evidence room.
15 Q. All right. But that particular camera, although it
16 was seized, is still accounted for, correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And it's accounted for because it was returned --
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. -- because it had been taken by mistake?
21 A. Yes. And I wrote a report about that.
22 MS. PARKER: Thank you. I have nothing
23 further.
24 THE COURT: Officer, I have a few
25 questions.

79
1 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
2 THE COURT: With respect to the accuracy of
3 the statements that were made by the defendants on
4 these various blogs, has anybody, whether it be a
5 superior officer within the Lawrence Police
6 Department, a fellow line officer, a member of the
7 media, member of the public, ever stated or implied
8 to you that they believed the accusations to be
9 true, as they pertain to you?
10 THE WITNESS: I believe I have to treat it
11 that way. Once that complaint's is filed, I
12 believe they have to investigate it and have to
13 answer it. Fellow officers, when they've inquired
14 about it, don't know about the seven or eight
15 thousand page document that supports the case. And
16 so while I was gone for 15 or 16 months just doing
17 this investigation, they don't really know what
18 happened with it other than stuff that they see on
19 the internet or stuff that they read in the paper.
20 I would sure hope that my professionalism
21 they would not believe, but -- I can't control what
22 people believe, but I know what they present to me
23 and say, hey, do you know this is going on, this is
24 what they're alleging now, this -- or Officer
25 Mickey Ramsey, who has never had a single contact

Page 84 of 257
80
1 with the Neighbors other than stopping a car in
2 front of their parking lot, is now, if you look
3 on-line, their headings actually say, Mickey Rantz
4 a.k.a. Mickey Ramsey. So he gets pulled into this
5 mess, having never done anything.
6 So yeah, I think -- I think it affects it,
7 but I sure hope that the professionalism I've had
8 and all the other investigations that I've done in
9 the last ten years that they would say, hey,
10 there's something going on.
11 THE COURT: Bear with me. And I'm going to
12 ask you some questions about the internal affairs
13 process. We'll put that aside.
14 THE WITNESS: Okay.
15 THE COURT: But has anybody in any quarter
16 of the community stated or implied to you or
17 indicated by their behavior that that person
18 believed one iota of what these two defendants said
19 about you?
20 THE WITNESS: Nobody has said to my face
21 that they believed what the Neighbors...
22 THE COURT: Has anybody repeated to you
23 that that person has talked to a third party who
24 believed one iota of what these two defendants
25 said?

Page 85 of 257
81
1 THE WITNESS: Not to my knowledge, no.
2 THE COURT: Have you seen any media
3 accounts, whether it be in the Journal World or on
4 the radio that put any stock in any of these
5 allegations or claims that these two defendants
6 have made?
7 THE DEFENDANT: Yes. There for several
8 months the Journal World ran multiple articles in
9 regards to the FBI investing me for impersonating
10 an FBI agent.
11 THE COURT: And specifically -- I mean, I
12 haven't seen the evidence on that yet, we just
13 haven't focused on it.
14 THE WITNESS: Yeah. There are specific
15 Journal World articles that say Lawrence police
16 officers were investigated by the FBI for
17 impersonating FBI agents in the Yellow House
18 investigation.
19 THE COURT: But beyond the investigation
20 being conducted into in allegation, has the media,
21 in other words the newspaper or radio, ever
22 suggested in their reporting that there was merit
23 to these allegations?
24 THE WITNESS: No, I think they just list
25 that we are being investigated for impersonating

82
1 FBI agents.
2 THE COURT: And in coming back to the
3 internal affairs process, if a member of the public
4 comes in to internal affairs and makes a complaint
5 against an officer, is it absolutely required by
6 procedure that some investigation into that
7 allegation be made, regardless of how credible or
8 incredible it is?
9 THE WITNESS: I'm not sure exactly how they
10 go about their investigations. I know if somebody
11 comes in and wants to fill out an internal affairs
12 complaint, there's a packet that they are given.
13 Those packets are then given to internal affairs
14 and, yes, you are brought in to give a statement on
15 it. If there is an ongoing criminal investigation
16 associated with the complaint, the initial
17 statement is taken and then that is kept an open
18 file -- that IA complaint is kept in an open file
19 until that case is concluded and then it's further
20 investigated.
21 THE COURT: Let me ask the question this
22 way. Does internal affairs have any discretion not
23 to open up some sort of investigation?
24 THE WITNESS: Not once the packet is
25 complete.

Page 87 of 257
83
1 THE COURT: So if a citizen comes in and
2 says, Officer Jones abused me while arresting me
3 when the sun was coming up in the west, that would
4 have to be investigated?
5 THE WITNESS: There would some kind of
6 investigation, yes.
7 THE COURT: Officer, based on your work on
8 this case, do you have any knowledge that would
9 shed light on the motivation of these two
10 defendants in making the statements about you?
11 THE WITNESS: I don't know what's
12 motivating them, but I think, based on the
13 evidence -- videotape evidence we have and
14 statements that are contained, I don't know if they
15 feel this is a way to somehow murky up the -- murky
16 up the water to hide what really happened. That's
17 the only thing I can figure out and why at this
18 point we would be making such outlandish comments
19 about officers.
20 THE COURT: Would that be a fair
21 statement -- would it be a fair statement that's an
22 inference you've drawn based on your involvement as
23 opposed to anything you know of your own knowledge?
24 THE WITNESS: Yes.
25 THE COURT: Thank you, officer.

Page 88 of 257
84
1 Ms. Parker, do you have any follow up questions of
2 Officer Rantz based on the few that I've asked of
3 him?
4 FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION
5 BY MS. PARKER:
6 Q. Based upon your investigation in this case and what
7 you know about these defendants' behavior, do you have an
8 opinion about whether or not they're trying to discourage
9 witnesses from attending and testifying in this case.
10 A. Oh, I think there's no doubt. When you list out
11 criminal history for people who have testified in grand
12 jury and list out punishments for people who are set to
13 testify in trial and list out punishments they could have
14 for perjuring themselves, that they're attempting to
15 dissuade that witness from testifying.
16 Q. And filing official complaints with the police
17 department, 22 of them, do you have an opinion about --
18 A. Well, 29 --
19 Q. -- that?
20 A. -- by their count, yes, 22 by ours, yes.
21 Q. But do you have an opinion about whether or not
22 that's an attempt to dissuade the officers from continuing
23 to participate in this case?
24 A. I think it -- I think it very well could be.
25 Q. Or the police department --

Page 89 of 257
85
1 A. I don't know what their actual motive -- motivation
2 is other than to try to discredit the officers who are
3 involved.
4 Q. And the Lawrence Police Department in general?
5 A. Yes.
6 MS. PARKER: Thank you.
7 THE COURT: Mr. Duma, any follow-up
8 questions?
9 MR. DUMA: No, thank you, Your Honor.
10 THE COURT: Miss Pilate.
11 RECROSS-EXAMINATION
12 BY MS. PILATE:
13 Q. To your knowledge, who reads the blogs of
14 Mr. Neighbors?
15 A. Anybody who has internet access could access that.
16 Q. But who do you personally know in terms of telling
17 us who they are, their names, who reads the blogs of
18 Mr. Neighbors and Ms. Neighbors?
19 A. I have no way of knowing who. I know people -- like
20 I know Ms. Parker does, I know I do, I know Officer Bileck
21 does, Agent Netz(ph), by their own accounts in their own
22 blogs they talk about their worldwide readership. So I
23 don't know who all was reading it.
24 Q. So putting aside what they say about what they
25 perceive their readership to be, the people that you know

Page 90 of 257
86
1 who read the blog or blogs would be yourself and
2 Inspector Netz, Marietta Parker -- and I'm sorry, did you
3 say one other?
4 A. People directly involved in it, yes.
5 Q. Okay. So --
6 A. And officers within our department.
7 Q. Okay. So law enforcement?
8 A. Well, obviously there's a lot more than just law
9 enforcement. Because if you look at the top of the blogs
10 it has a number counter of how many people have accessed
11 the site, there's a lot of people accessing the site.
12 Q. Okay. And do you know who those people are?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Do you know how many times a day, for instance,
15 Inspector Netz may access the site?
16 A. I have no idea.
17 Q. And do you have any idea how many times a day
18 Ms. Parker might access the site?
19 A. I have no idea.
20 Q. And do you have any idea how many times a day
21 somebody else connected with law enforcement may access
22 the site?
23 A. I don't know who's accessing the site so I have no
24 idea.
25 Q. Okay. So sitting here today, the only names you can

Page 91 of 257
87
1 provide to us of people who you know read the blogs would
2 be people connected with this case, is that correct?
3 A. People connected with the case, people connected
4 with the city. As I've already said, I've had
5 commissioners contact me, I've had the city attorney
6 contact me, I've had -- actually, the people that live --
7 I actually had a soldier that I was in the military with
8 15 years ago who now lives in Chicago happened upon my
9 name associated with Yellow House on the internet.
10 Q. Ran across it?
11 A. Ran across it.
12 Q. And would was the name of the city commissioner be?
13 A. I think was Mike Amyx.
14 Q. Okay. Mike Amyx?
15 A. Uh-huh.
16 Q. And the city attorney?
17 A. Scott Miller.
18 Q. Anybody else you can think of?
19 A. (No response.)
20 Q. So this is the whole universe of people that you're
21 aware of who saw -- to your knowledge, who've read these
22 blogs postings about the case, is that correct?
23 A. Other than my wife, yes.
24 Q. Okay.
25 MS. PILATE: That's all I have.

Page 92 of 257
88
1 THE COURT: Anything else, counsel?
2 Officer, you may step down, thank you very
3 much.
4 (Witness excused.)
5 THE COURT: Ms. Parker, before we move to
6 any further testimony, I want to make sure I'm
7 understanding correctly the government's position.
8 As part of your direct examination of
9 Officer Rantz, you placed directly in issue how
10 these blog postings may have impacted him, his
11 wife, his credibility, his career, et cetera. And
12 I want to make sure I'm understanding where you're
13 going and get that sort of evidence. In light of
14 argument made in your written submissions, most
15 notably page 5 of the reply brief where you state,
16 quote, "The effect on the witness' reliable
17 statements is irrelevant to the analysis," period,
18 end quote.
19 It continues, "Rather it is the intent of
20 the defendant when he posted the false statements
21 is the proper focus of the probable cause analysis
22 and under the circumstances presented here the
23 defendant intended to interfere with official
24 proceedings by harassing potential witnesses,"
25 period, end quote. So --

Page 93 of 257
89
1 MS. PARKER: That argument relates to the
2 allegations as it relates to the statute for
3 witness tampering. The case law is clear, it's the
4 intent of the defendants that is really at issue,
5 not how it was received. On page 10 of the same
6 pleading, we file a motion under 1514 for a civil
7 action to restrain. And if you look down toward
8 the bottom of the page where it's single spaced,
9 subsection C says, "As used in this section, the
10 term harassment means a course of conduct directed
11 at a specific person that, A, causes substantial
12 emotional distress in such person and cause --
13 serves no legitimate purpose." It is as it relates
14 to this section. It's offered for a different
15 purpose than as it would relate to a tampering with
16 the witness.
17 THE COURT: And only for that purpose?
18 MS. PARKER: Oh, absolutely, yes, sir.
19 THE COURT: Thank you.
20 MS. PARKER: We would call -- first, I
21 would submit to the Court the affidavit of Officer
22 Jay Bileck who is out of the state and unavailable
23 at this time. We have previously made copies of
24 this available to defense counsel. And we would
25 offer that -- on the issue -- the information

Page 94 of 257
90
1 contained in there on the issue of witness
2 tampering.
3 THE COURT: Any objection, Mr. Duma?
4 MR. DUMA: Your Honor, I think I just
5 received this document for the first time today.
6 MS. PARKER: I'm sorry, I thought you --
7 I'm sorry, but...
8 MR. DUMA: So, honestly, I haven't had a
9 chance to read it. But I would think that having
10 the ability to cross-examine this officer about the
11 same sorts of things that we were able to talk to
12 Officer Rantz about does make it almost impossible
13 to take this document in the appropriate context.
14 THE COURT: Miss Pilate, do you have any
15 position?
16 MS. PILATE: Yes, Your Honor. We object on
17 the basis of hearsay. I'd like to specifically
18 note that in the government's motion to revoke that
19 they're relying on criminal defamation. And
20 obviously we think that opens up a very significant
21 area of inquiry is they are saying basically that
22 Mr. Neighbors and Ms. Neighbors are guilty of the
23 crime of criminal defamation which entitles the
24 government to a more favorable standard under the
25 bond statute.

Page 95 of 257
91
1 We believe that all the matters that were
2 inquired into with regard to Officer Rantz are
3 equally relevant with regard to Officer Bileck and
4 since the hearing is being recessed anyway, we
5 would look forward to the opportunity to
6 Officer Bileck being presented for live testimony,
7 giving us the opportunity to cross-examine him.
8 MS. PARKER: Well, Your Honor, if I may,
9 the criminal defamation allegation relates only to
10 Officer McAtee who is here and subject to
11 cross-examination. This is not a hearing where
12 guilt or innocence is at issue and hearsay is
13 admissible. This is an affidavit that was made
14 under oath by a person with personal knowledge of
15 what he speaks to and we believe that it is an
16 appropriate piece of evidence that the Court may
17 consider on these issues.
18 THE COURT: Very well. The Court will
19 overrule the objections to the Government
20 Exhibit 16. And for the defendants' benefit, so
21 you understand what's going on here, under the Bail
22 Reform Act which controls hearings of this sort,
23 the Federal Rules of Evidence which render hearsay
24 generally inadmissible, are inapplicable in this
25 context. Stated more directly, the Court may

92
1 consider hearsay evidence.
2 In receiving Government Exhibit 16, though,
3 the going to consider it for what it may be worth,
4 mindful that neither defendant has had an
5 opportunity to test these allegations by way of
6 cross-examination.
7 MS. PARKER: Government would call
8 Detective McAtee and --
9 MS. PILATE: Your Honor, I'm sorry. May I
10 make a further objection for the basis of the
11 record. I just wanted to note with respect to
12 Ms. Parker's pleading that it's more than the
13 allegations against -- or with regard to
14 Detective McAtee that are at issue. With regard to
15 criminal defamation, there's a reference on page 9
16 to, quote, unfounded defamatory allegations against
17 other members of the Lawrence Police Department.
18 There is an example of then cited concerning
19 Officer Rantz.
20 There are also allegations about witness
21 tampering, again a criminal statute. And since our
22 clients are essentially being accused of criminal
23 offenses for the purpose of obtaining this more
24 beneficial standard under the bond statute,
25 frankly, I object vociferously to any reliance on

Page 97 of 257
93
1 hearsay. We need the opportunity to cross-examine
2 Officer Bileck and we respectfully request that no
3 reliance be placed on this affidavit. It's hearsay
4 and we need the opportunity to cross-examine
5 Officer Bileck. And if this hearing is recessed
6 and resumed, frankly, I would hope to subpoena
7 Officer Bileck.
8 THE COURT: So we're clear, a, I haven't
9 made a decision whether we'll recess this hearing.
10 B, I haven't made a determination of whether
11 Officer Bileck could be subpoenaed for a later
12 hearing if we do recess. All I'm ruling, so the
13 record is clear, is that hearsay is not a valid
14 objection at a bail hearing and therefore,
15 Exhibit 16 is received in evidence, notwithstanding
16 the stated objections.
17 Ms. Parker, you may proceed.
18 MS. PARKER: Thank you. We would call
19 Detective Michael McAtee. Stand here and be sworn.
21 sworn.)
22 MIKE McATEE,

94
3 BY MS. PARKER:
4 Q. Would you state your name and spell your last name
5 for the Court record, please.
6 A. Mike McAtee, M I K E, M c capital A T E E.
8 A. I'm a detective with the Lawrence, Kansas Police
9 Department.
10 Q. How long have you been a detective with Lawrence?
11 A. I've been a detective with the police department
12 probably a little over eight years. I've been employed by
13 the police department over 16 years.
14 Q. All right. When did you first begin as an employee
15 of the police department?
16 A. January of 1991.
17 Q. And were you a police officer at that time?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And have you since been promoted to detective?
20 A. Correct.
21 Q. Now, have you been involved in the investigation of
22 the Yellow House?
23 A. Yes, I have.
24 Q. All right. And have you had any personal
25 involvement with either of these defendants?

Page 99 of 257
95
1 A. Personal involvement outside of the investigation?
2 Q. No. I mean during the investigation did you have
3 any face-to-face conversations or phone conversations with
4 either of these defendants?
5 A. Yes, I did.
6 Q. Which defendant?
7 A. Defendant Mr. Guy Neighbors.
8 Q. All right. And have you been informed that you will
9 be a witness at the trial of this case as a result of your
10 conversations with Mr. Neighbors?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. All right. Now I'd like to direct your -- well,
13 first of all, are you aware that there has been some
14 blogging activity by the Neighbors on several of their
15 blog spots?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And also that there has been some e-mailing of
18 accusations as well?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Some of those accusations concerned you, did they
21 not?
22 A. Yes, they did.
23 Q. All right. I want you --
24 MS. PARKER: Your Honor, may I approach the
25 witness because --

96
1 THE COURT: You may.
2 MS. PARKER: -- I think I have the exhibits
3 here that he can look on with me.
4 Q. (By Ms. Parker) Turning to Exhibit 5A, have you
5 seem that?
6 A. Yes, I have.
7 Q. Exhibit 5A, do you see that?
8 A. Yes, I do.
9 Q. Is there an allegation made against you in that of
10 wrongdoing?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. All right. And what was said about you there?
13 A. On the second page of the e-mail, starting midway
14 through the sentence it says, "Serious issues, one
15 officer, Mr. McAtee, was suspended for stealing drugs from
16 the evidence room and had to go to rehab. He later was
17 reinstated and no charges were filed against him because,
18 well, you guessed it, the evidence against him was
19 lost-misplaced. Wow. How convenient."
20 Q. And did you receive a copy of this e-mail?
21 A. Yes, I did.
22 Q. And this was an e-mail from GuyN or
23 GuySmiley@hotmail.com?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And who was it sent to?

Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 150 Filed 11/03/2008Page 101 of 257
97
1 A. It was sent to several people. I received a copy of
2 it from Chief Olin, would have been February 22 of '07.
3 The names listed, the other people that they were sent to
4 that I recognized is -- the first one is
5 Boog@lawrence.ix.ks.com. That is the name of Commissioner
6 Highberger with the City of Lawrence, that's his nickname
7 is Boog. And then there's several other names listed that
8 abbreviations appear to be D. Corliss, that is the city
9 manager for the City of Lawrence. Several other -- looks
10 like television statements, MikeAmyx515@hotmail.com is a
11 city commissioner. Mike@MikeRundle.org is the city
12 commissioner for the City of Lawrence.
13 SueHack@sunflower.com is Sue Hack who is a city
14 commissioner of Lawrence.
15 Q. How did you receive notice that this was out there?
16 A. Chief Olin came to me and handed me a copy of it on
17 or about the 22nd.
18 Q. And were you ever suspended from any job, let alone
19 a job at the Lawrence Police Department, for stealing
20 drugs from an evidence room?
21 A. No.
22 Q. And have you ever had to go to rehab?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Now, after you received this, turning to Exhibit 5B,
25 did you take some action?

98
1 A. Yes, I did.
2 Q. What did you do?
3 A. I contacted my personal attorney Kevin Reagan with
4 the law firm. He was given a copy of the e-mail and at my
5 direction he, he being Kevin Reagan, my attorney,
6 corresponded with defendant Mr. Guy Neighbors in reference
7 to the statement and told him it was wrong.
8 Q. All right. And why did you contact Mr. Reagan?
9 A. Because the statements I believed to be slanderous
10 and libelous and I wanted to see what I could do in
11 reference to that.
12 Q. Did they cause you concern?
13 A. Yes, they did.
14 Q. Why?
15 A. As a law enforcement officer, making allegations of
16 that nature could affect my credibility in court, my -- my
17 job and my state status or where I live in the City of
18 Lawrence, contacting with other individuals.
19 Q. Your standing in the community?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Did the blogs -- or did the information stop?
22 A. No.
23 Q. All right. I'm going now to direct your attention
24 to 5C. Do you see that?
25 A. Yes.

Page 103 of 257
99
1 Q. And that is an e-mail dated Monday, April the 2nd,
2 2007, again from Guy N or Guy Smiley to who?
3 A. It was sent to Boog at lawrence.ix.ks.com and more,
4 which my assumption would be that there were blind copies
5 or additional copies sent to other individuals.
6 Q. And would you read the first line of that e-mail.
7 A. "We received this letter in the mail."
8 Q. Acknowledging that Mr. Neighbors received
9 Mr. Reagan's letter telling him that those allegations
10 were false?
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. Now, did that stop the blogging?
13 A. No, it did not.
14 Q. All right. I want to direct your attention now to
15 Exhibit 1A.
16 MS. PARKER: And Your Honor, all of this
17 testimony is being offered on the issue of witness
18 tampering and also for the purpose of the necessity
19 of protective orders. And I should have specified
20 Officer Rantz' testimony as also being relevant to
21 the issue of whether or not protective orders are
22 appropriate.
23 Q. (By Ms. Parker) Does Exhibit 1A -- are you familiar
24 with that?
25 A. Yes, I am.

Page 104 of 257
100
1 Q. And that is a blog from the Yellow House store blog
2 spot, is that --
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. -- right? And what's the date?
5 A. The date on the posting itself was Friday, April
6 11th, 2008.
7 Q. All right. Going to the bottom of the first page,
8 it says, "The word on the street is that Officer McAtee
9 was suspended from the Lawrence Police Department for
10 drugs missing from the police evidence room." Do you see
11 that?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Was there any truer on April the 11th of 2008 than
14 it was on April the 2nd of 2007 --
15 A. No, that is s --
16 Q. -- 2006?
17 A. -- that is a false statement.
18 Q. And Mr. Neighbors had been informed of that?
20 Q. All right. It says, "Sources in KC stated that
21 Mr. McAtee was hired for the police department in Kansas
22 City, but was let go because his UA came in dirty."
23 What's a UA?
24 A. Urine analysis.
25 Q. All right. Were you ever hired by a police

101
1 department in KC?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Kansas City, Missouri?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Kansas City, Kansas?
6 A. No.
7 Q. That's false. Did you ever have a UA come up dirty?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Okay. They go on to say, "We've had several
10 customers tell us that they had cases thrown out of court
11 because Officer McAtee failed to return in all of the
12 evidence, drugs, and it was time for trial, some of the
13 evidence was missing." Do you see that?
14 A. Yes, I do.
15 Q. Is there any truth in that?
16 A. No, that is false.
17 Q. Do you know who those customers might have been who
18 might have said that?
19 A. No, because I've never had a case thrown out where
20 evidence came up missing.
21 Q. All right. But rumors happen, correct?
22 A. Sure.
23 Q. Then going further down to the beginning of the next
24 paragraph it says, "Now we have heard that Officer McAtee
25 has been served a federal subpoena and cannot testify in

Page 106 of 257
102
1 any of his pending cases so the judge had to reschedule
2 his cases out two weeks. Wow, what a mess."
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Is there any truth that you have not been served
5 with federal subpoenas and cannot -- could not testify at
6 that time in any of your pending cases?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. There's truth in that?
9 A. There's truth that I was under subpoena here for
10 federal court in reference to a trial that was ongoing. I
11 had two state court cases that were at that time. Because
12 I was unavailable for state court because I was in trial
13 here in reference to a case in Judge Murguia's courtroom,
14 the state was granted a continuance of two weeks so I
15 could appear in state court in light of I was already
16 committed to federal court.
17 Q. All right. But there was no mess involved in that
18 as it relates to any wrongdoing by you, is that correct?
20 Q. This goes on to say, "But wait, it gets worst. We
21 have heard that Officer McAtee has failed 30 drug tests."
22 Could this be true?
23 A. That is totally false.
24 Q. Have you ever failed a single drug test?

103
1 Q. How many have you had?
2 A. Three.
3 Q. And you've passed each one of them?
5 Q. All right. It goes down further, photograph after
6 next or two paragraphs down, it says, "I would like to
7 know if these allegations are, in fact, true. And I think
8 the public would also like to know if these allegations
9 are, in fact, true." Do you see that.
10 A. Yes, I do.
11 Q. Does that indicate to you that Mr. Neighbors doesn't
12 even know if there's any truth in these allegations?
13 A. That's the way I read it.
14 Q. Then there are some numbers posted in here,
15 telephone numbers for you. Are those your phone numbers?
16 A. The cell -- cell phone number, 1-785-423-0392 is my
17 department-issued cell phone number. The phone number
18 listing says page him at 1-785-691-0552, that is
19 incorrect.
20 Q. All right. And what was the date of this posting?
21 A. April the 11th.
22 Q. All right. And then several days later did you
23 actually receive a telephone call from somebody asking you
24 about your UAs?
25 A. Yes, I received a phone call at approximately 0937

104
1 hours on April the 14th.
2 Q. Is that in the morning?
3 A. In the morning, which would be 9:37 a.m. And I
4 received a phone call from Guy Neighbors, the defendant,
5 asking me about these allegations.
6 Q. Show you what's been marked as Government's
7 Exhibit 14, ask you if you can identify that?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. What is it?
10 A. Government's Exhibit Number 14 is a facsimile copy
11 of phone records involving my department-issued cell,
12 785-423-0392.
13 MS. PARKER: All right. And, Your Honor,
14 at this time the government would offer
15 Government's Exhibit 14.
17 MR. DUMA: No, Your Honor.
19 MS. PILATE: No, Your Honor.
20 THE COURT: Exhibit 14 is admitted.
21 Q. (By Ms. Parker) All right. And is -- was that the
22 telephone that you received the phone call from
23 Mr. Neighbors on?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And does that indicate the number that the phone

105
1 call originated from?
2 A. Yes, it does.
3 Q. What is that?
4 A. Five lines down under the Calling Number is
5 785-840-5038. The second column is the called numbers or
6 the number that was called, 785-423-0392. The third
7 column represents the digits that were called by the
8 caller, 785-423-0392. The time. It's an inbound call,
9 start date on 4-14-08 at 0937 hours and 23 seconds, the
10 call lasted approximately 54 seconds and ended at 9:38 and
11 17 seconds.
12 Q. When you initially answered the phone, did you
13 recognize the voice of the person who was on the other
14 end?
15 A. Yes, I did.
16 Q. And whose voice was it?
17 A. The defendant, Mr. Guy Neighbors.
18 Q. And how were you able to recognize that voice?
19 A. I've spoken to Mr. Neighbors prior to this on the
20 phone, in person, and heard his voice on other occasions.
21 I immediately recognized his voice.
22 Q. All right. And what was the nature of that
23 conversation?
24 A. Uh, I answered the phone, the person, Mr. Neighbors,
25 asked me, he said I just was online and seen an allegation

Page 110 of 257
106
1 or that you had had 30 failed UAs, words to that effect.
2 I said, Mr. Neighbors, that is incorrect. That's
3 slanderous and defamatory, you know it not to be true.
4 Then he made the question -- or asked the question, well,
5 are you saying it's not true? And I said, Mr. Neighbors,
6 like I told you before, those statements are slanderous
7 and libelous and I'm ending the conversation. Good-bye,
8 Mr. Neighbors. And he said good-bye.
9 Q. All right. Did you consider that phone call to be
10 harassment?
11 A. Yes, I did.
12 Q. Why?
13 A. Not only was the posting slanderous and libelous and
14 I believe a way of tried to defame me. I believe also it
15 was a ploy to harass me.
16 Q. As a result of these blogs, have I requested that
17 you undertake extra investigative duties to run down the
18 truth of them?
19 A. The truth of the blogs?
20 Q. Yes. Have I asked you to do some additional
21 investigation?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. All right. And does that additional investigation
24 take you away from your normal police duties?
25 A. Yes, they do.

Page 111 of 257
107
1 Q. All right. And has the blogging, the -- the
2 fabrications, to put it politely, the fabrications that
3 have been posted by you, has that caused you any stress?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Why?
6 A. Uh, not only do I have to see those type of
7 bloggings or be aware that they're out there, I've
8 contacted the sheriff's department, I made not only the
9 civil contact with my attorney in reference to the law on
10 that, I've also had to make a criminal complaint against
11 the defendant, Mr. Neighbors, and also I've been contacted
12 or asked questions by city commissioners in reference to
13 the e-mails that they received in reference to me, other
14 officers involved in the Yellow House investigation. So
15 it has filtered over into my professional life.
16 Q. All right. And the fact that the city commissioners
17 are seeking you out to ask you questions about the false
18 statements that are made in the blog, is that significant
19 to you as it relates to your employment?
20 A. Yes, it is. It's not that they're seeking me out,
21 but if I have contact with them on occasions, they've
22 said, what is the deal going on with this and whether --
23 you know, what's going on with this investigation?
24 Q. Do you worry that that might tarnish your reputation
25 with them?

Page 112 of 257
108
1 A. Not only with them, but the citizens of Lawrence,
2 Kansas.
4 further.
5 THE COURT: Cross-examine.
6 CROSS-EXAMINATION
7 BY MR. DUMA:
8 Q. You indicated you made a criminal complaint?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. To whom?
11 A. I contacted the sheriff's department on Monday,
12 which would have been April the 14th, and I contacted them
13 and made the police report.
14 Q. And that was regarding specifically what blog?
15 A. The blog that was posted on April the 11th.
16 Q. That said -- what specifically were you complaining
17 about that you thought was a crime?
18 A. The crime of criminal defamation, that the
19 statements that I was fired, failed drug tests, things of
20 that nature.
21 Q. Now you've never worked for any law enforcement in
22 Kansas City, is that true?
23 A. I've only worked for the Lawrence, Kansas Police
24 Department in reference to law enforcement.
25 Q. And have you ever been suspended for any reason with

109
1 the Lawrence Police Department?
3 Q. As a result of a criminal complaint, do you know if
4 that investigation was forwarded to the Douglas County
5 District Attorney's Office for review?
6 A. I know that it was forwarded to the Kansas Bureau of
7 Investigation and they are currently conducting the
8 investigation.
9 Q. That was made in April of '07?
10 A. No, April 14th of 2008.
11 Q. '08, okay, I'm sorry. So you have looked at other
12 ways to combat these blogs, i.e., you have an attorney and
13 you've threatened through that attorney to sue these
14 people if they continue to defame you, correct?
15 A. That's not correct.
16 Q. Okay. Did your attorney ask them to cease and
17 desist from defaming you?
18 A. Yes, he did.
19 Q. Okay. And you didn't talk to the attorney about
20 filing a lawsuit against them for defamation if they
21 refused to do that?
22 A. I talked to my attorney about all the options
23 available and that was an option that may be available to
24 us, but the important thing was that -- that my attorney
25 felt that we should inform them that the allegations were

110
1 wrong.
2 Q. And then you've also made a criminal complaint to
3 again try to have them cease and desist from this
4 activity, correct?
5 A. No, because the crime was committed and I reported
6 the crime.
7 Q. All right. Now, when Mr. Neighbors called you on
8 the telephone, he basically was just asking you whether or
9 not the allegations in the blog were true, is that
10 correct?
11 A. No, I took it that he was asking me those
12 allegations if they were true, even though he had been
13 informed that those things were false and that he was
14 harassing me.
15 Q. But his actual words that -- are those true, he was
16 basically asking you were the allegations true?
18 Q. And you straightened him out and said, no, you know
19 they're false and I don't want to talk to you anymore
20 basically, correct?
22 Q. Now as a police detective and as a police officer
23 for a long period of time, I would assume that this is not
24 the first time that somebody who's charged with a crime
25 has said something about you that was, in your opinion,

111
1 not true, is that correct?
2 A. To my face or -- can you be a little bit more
3 specifically, what do you mean? Or just generally?
4 Q. That you became aware of, let me put it that way.
6 Q. And I would assume that probably just by the law of
7 averages, you've had internal affairs complaints filed
8 against you prior to ever each hearing about the
9 Neighbors, correct?
11 Q. Can you tell me, just approximately, on how many
12 occasions you would have had internal affairs complaints
13 filed against you prior to ever hearing about the
14 Neighbors?
15 A. Well, I've probably known about the Neighbors since
16 '92, '93 --
17 Q. Well, let me put it this way, I apologize for the
18 vagueness of that question. To your knowledge, have the
19 Neighbors filed any internal affairs complaints against
20 you?
21 A. I know that they have filed internal affairs
22 complaints. I don't know if there's any specific against
23 me.
24 Q. Outside of something the Neighbors may or may not
25 have filed against you with internal affairs, on how many

Page 116 of 257
112
1 occasions would you have had internal affairs complaints
2 filed against you?
3 MS. PARKER: Your Honor, I'm objecting to
4 this line of questioning. We didn't inquire of
5 any -- of this witness about any internal
6 affairs -- the fact of any internal affairs
7 complaints. And he's testified he's not aware of
8 any by these defendants. So the other complaints
9 would be irrelevant to the issues here.
11 A. Would you repeat the question, I'm sorry.
12 Q. (By Mr. Duma) How many -- approximately how many
13 times have you had internal affairs complaints filed
14 against you? And I'm not including anything that the
15 Neighbors may have filed.
16 MS. PARKER: And Your Honor, may I object
17 again to the broad nature. If it has to do with
18 any -- similar complaints as to complaints made by
19 the Neighbors, it might be relevant. But a fishing
20 expedition is not what is called for in this
21 situation.
22 MR. DUMA: Your Honor, I'm really not
23 trying to fish, but Miss Parker asked him this
24 question. Does this affect your standing in the
25 community? Now, that seems to open the door

Page 117 of 257
113
1 awfully broadly. I'm not going to spend a lot of
2 time on this, I'm sure it's a pretty quick
3 give-and-take.
4 MS. PARKER: Your Honor, if there could be
5 some evidence that these internal affairs
6 complaints get out into the community, that might
7 be relevant, but there's no evidence of that. In
8 fact, they're handled as confidential matters.
9 THE COURT: Objection overruled.
10 Q. (By Mr. Duma) Do you remember the question?
11 A. Four or five.
12 Q. Okay. And I would assume that each time those came
13 up you've dealt with them and you went in and discussed
14 those with the internal affairs investigating officers and
15 kind of got past those situations, correct?
16 A. I don't understand what you meant by got past those
17 situations.
18 Q. Well, they didn't effect your ability to function as
19 a police officer from that point forward?
21 Q. Okay. And so part of doing your job as a law
22 enforcement officer is that occasionally citizens are
23 going to be upset with how they perceive that you're doing
24 your job, would that be a fair statement?
25 A. Yes.

Page 118 of 257
114
1 Q. You have been investigating the Neighbors for a long
2 period of time, correct?
3 A. I have assisted in the investigation on the
4 peripheral or I've had the occasion that I met with
5 defendant Guy Neighbors in an undercover capacity, but it
6 wasn't my investigation. The case agents or the case
7 officers were Rantz and Bileck. So I haven't been
8 investigating them. I participated in it, but that is not
9 my case.
10 Q. For approximately how long?
11 A. How long what?
12 Q. Have you been involved with investigations with
13 the -- whether it be your investigations or not, with the
14 Neighbors?
15 A. I believe on February 2nd I made a -- probably a
16 30-minute --
17 Q. Of what year?
18 A. Of 2006. I made a --
19 Q. That's all I want to know. So it's been at least
20 for a couple of years you've been aware of investigations
21 involving the Neighbors, correct?
22 A. Yes, I've been aware of it, that's correct.
23 Q. And these blogs that are out there, have they
24 strengthened your resolve to participate in the
25 prosecution of these people or have they lessened your

Page 119 of 257
115
1 resolve to participate in the prosecution of these people?
2 A. I will do my duties as they're assigned by the
3 police department.
4 Q. But can you answer my question?
5 A. I believe that is an answer, that I will do what my
6 duties are. If I'm told to further investigate it, I
7 will, if I'm told not to, I won't. I don't know if it
8 strengthens my resolve or anything, I'm going to do my
9 job.
10 Q. So you're going to do your job in terms of
11 concluding the investigation and necessary testimony on
12 behalf of the government, regardless of what these people
13 blog about you, would that be a true statement?
14 A. Yes.
15 MR. DUMA: All right. Thank you.
16 THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Duma.
17 Ms. Pilate.
19 BY MS. PILATE:
20 Q. Detective McAtee, I think you testified that you
21 have done three UAs, is that correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And what was the occasion for doing those UAs?
24 A. The first one would have been in '91 when I got
25 hired by the police department, so I had to take a

Page 120 of 257
116
1 urinalysis test. Mid-nineties, the police department
2 started a -- a deal where everybody got a complete
3 physical during the course of the year, so another
4 urinalysis test was given to everybody on the department
5 at that time that went through that program. So I gave
6 one then. And then when I left the police department in
7 September of 2000 to go be the marketing director at
8 Ringside, when I was hired back in February of 2002, I was
9 given a preemployment physical and at that time I was
10 given another UA.
11 Q. Have you ever done what's called a random UA?
13 Q. Okay. I think you mentioned you have four or five
14 internal affairs complaints, correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Okay. Were any of those complaints sustained?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And what were those?
19 MS. PARKER: Objection unless they have to
20 do with truth and veracity or are somehow related
21 to the allegations in this case or were close
22 enough in time to be relevant. I object to that
23 and I think there should be some further inquiry
24 into the dates of any complaints that were
25 sustained before they are determined to be

117
1 relevant.
3 Q. (By Ms. Pilate) All right.
4 A. It would have been in 1997, '96 possibly, I was
5 assigned to the special investigations unit. I observed a
6 vehicle traveling across the Dillons parking lot
7 approximately 80 miles an hour at night. I conducted a
8 car stop. When I approached the driver, the driver
9 made -- or asked me the question, why the F bomb did you
10 pull me over? I responded by, because you're driving like
11 an F bomb maniac. A complaint was filed. I went to see
12 Sergeant Warren, he asked me if I said the word. I said,
13 yes, I did. And I was -- the IA complaint was sustained.
14 Q. And what type of discipline did you receive?
15 A. Told me not to do it.
16 Q. Did you receive any other discipline?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Have you been -- has any other complaint been
19 sustained?
20 A. IA complaint, no, ma'am.
21 Q. Have you ever been made aware of any allegation that
22 you either used drugs or are involved in drug activity?
23 MS. PARKER: Objection to the open nature
24 of that. Allegation by whom?
25 Q. (By Ms. Pilate) Are you aware of any allegation

Page 122 of 257
118
1 that has been made to any member of the police department
2 that you have been involved either in illegal drug use or
3 drug activity?
4 A. In reference to IA or just in general?
5 Q. Just in general. Any -- any complaint that you're
6 involved in illegal drug use or drug activity?
7 A. When you use the word complaint, I'm wondering if
8 that's official or someone has said --
9 Q. Someone --
10 A. -- you do drugs?
11 Q. -- has said it to a member of the department.
12 Whether or not they have followed through with a formal
13 official complaint.
14 A. Yes, I've heard that.
15 Q. And how many occasions have you heard that?
16 A. I don't know the number. I'd say several.
17 Q. Okay. Have you ever been questioned by any member
18 of the department about that?
20 Q. And how did you become aware of these complaints?
21 A. Officers have said that there was a complaint or
22 someone said McAtee used drugs.
23 Q. Okay. And did you do anything in response to those
24 statements?
25 A. No.

Page 123 of 257
119
1 Q. Did you make your supervisor aware of these
2 statements?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Did you bring these statements to the attention of
5 internal affairs?
6 A. No, I did not.
7 Q. Did you ever discuss these statements with any
8 prosecutor on a case where you were working as an officer?
9 A. Uh, I believe that the allegation or someone had --
10 had said that before. I had spoke to prosecutors about it
11 that it was false and things of that nature.
12 Q. On how many occasions have you been questioned by a
13 prosecutor about any allegation that you're involved with
14 illegal drugs or drug activity?
15 A. It's only come up once.
17 A. That would have been in federal court here.
18 Q. And when was that?
19 A. 2004, maybe.
20 Q. Okay. And who was the prosecutor?
21 A. Terra Morehead.
22 Q. And what was the allegation?
23 A. That the defendants had heard that I had used drugs.
24 Q. And what was your response to that?
25 A. That it's untrue.

120
1 Q. And what case was that in?
2 A. That would have been United States of America versus
3 Luis and Roosevelt Dahda.
4 Q. I'm sorry, what?
5 A. Luis and Roosevelt Dahda, they're brothers.
6 Q. Okay. Dahda, D A --
7 A. D A H D A.
8 Q. And was that an allegation that came out of the
9 courtroom at any time?
10 A. I'm not sure I understand the question.
11 Q. Was that an allegation that was stated in the
12 courtroom?
13 A. I don't know if it came out in the courtroom or it
14 was implied, but there was that discussion.
15 Q. Okay. Discussion between attorneys?
16 A. I believe there was a discussion between attorneys
17 and -- or it was brought up beforehand through the US
18 Attorney and the US Attorney asked me about it and I said,
19 yes, people had said that before.
20 Q. Okay. Were you cross-examined about that?
21 A. I don't believe so. I don't know. I can't
22 remember, I'm sorry.
23 Q. Have you ever been cross-examined about the subject
24 of your alleged involvement with drug use or drug
25 activity?

121
1 A. Not that I can recall or remember. I'm sorry.
2 Q. Well, wouldn't that be something you'd remember if
3 it happened?
4 A. I would hope I would remember, but I can't recall
5 specifically if I was asked about it in cross-examination.
6 Q. So you simply don't recall if anyone has ever asked
7 you as a police officer, who's concerned about your
8 reputation, whether or not you were involved with illegal
9 drug activity, is that what you're saying?
10 A. What I'm saying is I can't remember specifically if
11 I was cross-examined in reference to illegal drug
12 activity.
13 Q. Are you saying you think you might have been, but
14 you don't recall where or when?
15 A. I'm saying I don't remember if it was specifically
16 in reference to drug activity or cross-examination. There
17 is that possibility, though.
18 Q. Okay. There is that possibility. Would that have
19 been in state court or federal court?
20 A. Federal court, like I stated before.
21 Q. Okay. Other than the case that you just discussed
22 involving Ms. Morehead as the prosecutor, is there any
23 other case where the subject of your alleged involvement
24 with drug use or drug activity has come up?
25 A. Not that I can remember, no.

Page 126 of 257
122
1 Q. Okay. Have you ever had a discussion with anyone in
2 internal affairs about your alleged involvement with drug
3 use or drug activity?
4 A. No.
5 Q. And has the chief ever spoken to you about it?
6 A. Uh, he spoke to me, not about that, but more in
7 reference to these blogs about failing drug tests.
8 Q. Okay. And what was the nature of that conversation?
9 A. That he knew I had not failed any drug tests and
10 made the statement that if I failed the drug test which
11 would be -- that I would be fired, which I knew to be
12 true.
13 Q. Has anyone in the Lawrence Police Department ever
14 asked you whether you use drugs?
15 A. No, they have not.
16 Q. Has anyone in the Lawrence Police Department ever
17 asked you whether you have any involvement with illegal
18 drug activity?
19 A. No, they have not.
20 Q. Have you ever been an officer in any case where any
21 evidence has been suppressed as a result of something you
22 did or didn't do?
23 A. Yes.
25 A. Uh, 1994 or '5 there were -- I did a car stop in

Page 127 of 257
123
1 reference to a individual, drugs were located inside
2 the -- the vehicle. That evidence was suppressed because
3 our general orders said we may search vehicles instead of
4 chow(ph), so that court ruling, that evidence was
5 suppressed. And then in reference to a car stop would
6 have been in 19 -- or excuse me, 2002 there was a car stop
7 and the judge ruled that I did not have reasonable
8 suspicion to pull the car over.
9 Q. And what was your basis, your stated basis for
10 pulling the car over?
11 A. My stated basis, I believed that reasonable
12 suspicion occurred that drug activity was occurring and I
13 stated those in court and the judge believed that there
14 wasn't enough reasonable suspicion to pull the vehicle
15 over.
16 Q. Okay. Was that state or federal court?
17 A. State.
18 Q. And what -- do you remember the name of the
19 defendant?
20 A. It was a juvenile female.
21 Q. Do you recall the names of the attorneys?
22 A. It would have been one of the Friedmans, Mark or
23 Rick Friedman.
24 Q. And the other case that you mentioned, the car stop
25 in '94 and '95, was that a state case?

124
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Okay. And who were the attorneys in that case?
3 A. That one I remember was Dan Dunbar and the defendant
4 was Zack Sanders. Dan Dunbar was the assistant DA at that
5 time.
6 Q. What is the status of the complaint that you made to
7 the sheriff's department where you made the claim, I
8 guess, that you felt defamed by my client, Mr. Neighbors?
9 A. It was forwarded to the KBI and when I contacted
10 them recently I asked them the nature -- or the status of
11 the case and they said it's still under investigation.
12 Q. Are you aware of any investigation that has
13 occurred?
14 A. No, they won't tell me, nor would I ask.
15 Q. Have you been interviewed?
16 A. Initial interview that I gave to Detective
17 Polleck(ph), yes.
18 Q. And do you have a copy of that?
19 A. Of what?
20 Q. Of the interview that you gave.
21 A. I.
22 Q. A copy of the report.
23 A. Yes, I do.
24 Q. And where is that?
25 A. The report?

125
1 Q. Uh-huh.
2 A. I have a copy of it.
3 Q. Is it with you?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Okay. Can I see it?
6 A. Sure.
7 Q. Do you have it up there or --
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Okay.
10 MS. PILATE: May I approach, Your Honor?
11 THE COURT: Yes, you may.
12 MS. PARKER: May the government read
13 alongside?
14 THE COURT: Sure.
15 MS. PARKER: I have not seen this myself.
16 A. This was information that I provided to Detective
17 Polleck when I made the complaint.
18 Q. (By Ms. Pilate) It appears to be some type of
19 report entitled Criminal Defamation Complaint. Is this a
20 narrative that you wrote or is this something that was
21 written by someone else?
22 A. No, that is what I wrote, would have been either the
23 11th or the 12th, after reading the blog after I
24 contacted -- or actually it would have been the 12th or
25 the 13th after reading the blog. So when I went with

Page 130 of 257
126
1 Detective Polleck the information was provided to him.
2 Q. Is there a cover letter or some type of transmittal,
3 a document that this is attached to?
4 A. It would be in the official police report that's
5 under -- currently under investigation that the sheriff's
6 department would have.
7 Q. The document I'm looking at here does not have a
8 signature on the bottom. I don't see anything offhand
9 that indicates who wrote this.
10 A. Yes, I wrote it.
11 Q. Okay. Where does it indicate that?
12 A. The only indication is is that I know I wrote it.
13 Q. Okay. But it doesn't say that here anywhere, does
14 it? It starts out saying, I was contacted by contact.
15 A. Correct. And then I contacted my personal lawyer,
16 Kevin Reagan. So I am the I in there.
17 Q. Yeah, but you don't say who you are?
18 MS. PARKER: Objection, Your Honor, this is
19 argumentative. It speaks for itself.
20 MS. PILATE: Well, I'm just asking.
21 THE COURT: It's just not very interesting
22 either. Let's move on.
24 Q. (By Ms. Pilate) Is this a document you turned over
25 to Ms. Parker or Ms. Morehead?

Page 131 of 257
127
1 A. I would have turned over the whole -- I believe that
2 they received a whole investigative report which would
3 have everything in it. That was my part of it that I took
4 out and made a copy for myself.
5 Q. Okay. Are you saying that this particular document
6 has or has not been provided to the prosecutor's office?
7 A. I don't know.
8 MS. PARKER: Objection. Which prosecutor's
9 office?
10 Q. (By Ms. Pilate) Ms. Parker's or Ms. Morehead.
11 A. I don't know if she has a complete copy of Detective
12 Polleck's investigation.
13 Q. Does she have a copy of this?
14 A. I'm not sure. I don't know if I gave them a copy of
15 the whole investigation or not.
16 MS. PILATE: Well, Your Honor, I would like
17 to make this an exhibit, Defendants' or Guy
18 Neighbors Exhibit Number 1. Maybe we could have a
19 copy of this after the Court recesses.
20 THE COURT: Any objection?
21 MS. PARKER: No objection.
22 THE COURT: Once our courtroom deputy
23 returns we'll slap an exhibit sticker on it. It
24 will be admitted as Defendants' Exhibit 1.
25 Q. (By Ms. Pilate) So you --

Page 132 of 257
128
1 MS. PARKER: Your Honor, may I ask that
2 there be a protective order as it relates to this
3 document so that it doesn't appear on a blog, that
4 it be used only for the purpose of this court
5 proceeding.
6 THE COURT: Let me see it.
7 With respect to the request for protective
8 order, I'm going to decline to grant that relief.
9 That sort of relief should follow the Court's
10 general ruling as to whether the government is
11 entitled to any protective order for any blogging
12 that might be done. Although I suspect this may
13 fall on deaf ears, I would nonetheless respectfully
14 suggest to the defendants that it would be in their
15 interest to stop all blogging immediately until
16 this issue is decided. But until the Court rules
17 defendants remain free to post whenever they think
18 is in their long-term best interests.
19 Q. (By Ms. Pilate) I think you told me that Detective
20 Polleck, is that correct, was investing this?
21 A. No, that's who I made the report to. Detective
22 Polleck forwarded it to the Kansas Bureau of Investigation
23 and they're the ones investigating it.
24 Q. And who is assigned to the KBI investigation?
25 A. There's two agents assigned, I believe. Agent

Page 133 of 257
129
1 Amanda Stiles and the other agent name's escapes me right
2 now. I'm sorry, I can't remember his name.
3 Q. That's a pretty important step, is it not, making a
4 complaint about the conduct of someone you're
5 investigating and claiming that you yourself are a victim
6 of this suspect or defendant, is it not?
7 A. I don't -- can you repeat the question?
8 Q. Well, it's taking a pretty significant step, is it
9 not, as an officer to make a criminal defamation complaint
10 about a suspect or defendant that you're investigating and
11 claim that you yourself are the victim?
12 A. Yes, I am a victim of that crime.
13 Q. Okay. Did you make your own department aware of
14 this complaint that you were making?
15 A. Yes, I did.
16 Q. And did you have to receive permission from anyone
17 to make this complaint?
18 A. No, I did not have to receive permission. I
19 informed my supervisors that I was going to do it.
20 Q. Okay. And did they say anything in response to the
21 information you gave them about what your intent was?
22 A. They understood why I -- I would do that.
23 Q. So you understood you were free to do that?
24 A. I was not told I couldn't. It was my understanding
25 I could.

Page 134 of 257
130
1 Q. Have you provided a copy of this complaint to your
2 department?
3 A. No, I provided it to the sheriff's department since
4 they were the ones investigating it.
5 Q. And once you filed this complaint, however, did you
6 provide a copy of this document that I have here in my
7 hands, Defendants' Exhibit 1, did you provide that to
8 anyone in your department?
9 A. No, it would have been provided to the sheriff's
10 department.
11 Q. Okay. Is there any rule or policy in your
12 department that guides your actions as far as when you
13 make a complaint against a citizen in which you claim
14 you're a victim? Is there anything that says what you
15 have to do in terms of do you have to inform your
16 supervisor, do you have to give someone a copy of this?
17 A. No. If we're victims of crime, we can just report
18 that we're victims of crime.
19 Q. Okay. Is there a reason you went to the sheriff's
20 department rather than reporting it within the police
21 department?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Okay. And what is that reason?
24 A. My supervisors thought that it would be better that
25 the sheriff's department, since I was the victim of this

Page 135 of 257
131
1 crime, that they should do the investigation instead of
2 our own officers.
3 Q. Okay. And do you know why the sheriff's department
4 is not doing it?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And why is that?
7 A. Because I'm involved in some of the sheriff's
8 department's cases, they felt that it would be better to
9 have the KBI do the investigation.
10 Q. And so the sheriff's department had the same type of
11 problem, its involvement with you, correct?
12 A. I don't -- believe --
13 Q. And that problem is?
14 A. -- the problem is not -- they felt that the KBI
15 would be a better investigative arm in reference to me
16 being a victim of the crime.
17 Q. Okay. So essentially Detective Polleck took your
18 statement and then forwarded this complaint on to the KBI?
19 A. That's not correct.
20 Q. Okay. Can you then correct me?
21 A. He did some investigation, then he was informed by
22 his department to forward it to the KBI. So he did some
23 follow-up investigation, then went ahead and contacted the
24 KBI.
25 Q. And do you know what the nature of that follow-up

132
1 investigation was?
2 A. Not specifically, no.
3 Q. How do you know he did something?
4 A. I was told that he did follow-up investigation and
5 then he forwarded it on to the KBI.
6 Q. What was the follow up? Did he do interviews?
7 A. I'm not aware of that.
8 Q. Do you know what the nature of that follow-up
9 investigation is?
10 A. No, I'm not sure what he did.
11 Q. Do you have his investigative file?
12 A. No, I do not.
13 Q. Do you have any other documents from the
14 investigation?
15 A. No, I do not.
16 Q. And the investigation is now with the KBI, correct?
18 Q. And have they contacted you for an interview?
19 A. I spoke to them in reference to what they received
20 from Detective Polleck, which had copies of that in there
21 and that was the nature of my conversation with them.
22 Q. And was it a brief telephone conversation?
23 A. No, it was in person.
24 Q. In person. And one agent or two came out to visit
25 you?

133
1 A. Uh, two.
2 Q. Okay. And if one was Stiles, I think you said?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Okay. And there was another one whose name you
5 don't recall?
7 Q. And do you know of any further investigation that's
8 occurred?
9 A. When I contacted them they said they were doing
10 further investigation. I didn't ask and they didn't tell
11 me.
12 Q. Okay. And had you informed Ms. Parker or
13 Ms. Morehead of this criminal complaint?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And when did you do that?
16 A. I told them that I was -- would have been on the
17 14th. After I met with the sheriff's department on that
18 date, I informed them that I was making a -- I had made a
19 criminal complaint earlier that day.
20 Q. And did you indicate at that time that you had a
21 document you could provide to them?
22 A. No.
23 Q. And you don't recall ever providing this particular
24 document to them?
25 A. I don't know if I gave that to them or not.

Page 138 of 257
134
1 Q. Is it your responsibility to turn over to them
2 everything that you generate in an investigation?
3 A. It's not my investigation. I'm a victim of a crime.
4 Q. Well, but you are involved in the investigation of
5 the Neighbors, correct?
6 A. Correct.
7 Q. Okay. And this complaint here involves
8 Mr. Neighbors, correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. So what you're saying here is that there's a whole
11 nother case that you have going on that involves you as
12 the victim, correct?
13 A. No, I'm saying that I made a complaint in reference
14 to being a victim of a crime.
15 Q. Okay. And so you regard this as a separate matter
16 in which you are aggrieved and a victim of something done
17 by Mr. Neighbors?
18 A. I believe that I'm a victim of a crime, both through
19 that investigation and I also believe that I'm probably a
20 victim of a crime or at least harassment as a witness in
21 this case.
22 Q. Now, you'd have to be pretty upset to make a
23 complaint like this, right?
24 A. Yes, I was upset.
25 Q. Okay. And your feeling about what was going on and

Page 139 of 257
135
1 the fact that you were upset is something that you would
2 want the prosecutor to know, wouldn't you?
3 A. I told them that I was upset about it and I made a
4 criminal complaint against Mr. Guy Neighbors.
5 Q. Okay. Have you continued to be involved with the
6 investigation of the Neighbors after you filed this
7 complaint?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Okay. And isn't that something you would want the
10 prosecutors to know that you were so upset that you filed
11 this criminal defamation complaint, yet continued to work
12 on the case?
13 A. Your words of so upset, I told them that I'd made a
14 criminal complaint, yes, it had made me mad and they knew
15 I made a complaint in reference to Mr. Guy Neighbors.
16 Q. Did anyone ever ask you to provide a copy of the
17 statement or the complaint?
18 A. No, I don't believe so.
19 Q. And I think you said you had spoken previously to
20 Guy Neighbors before the phone call that he made to you,
21 is that correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And on what occasion did you speak to Guy Neighbors?
24 A. Spoke to him in reference to this investigation on
25 February 2nd via phone and then in person on February -- I

Page 140 of 257
136
1 believe it was February 3rd in Topeka when I spoke to him
2 at length in an undercover capacity. I had had
3 conversations or at least heard his voice before prior to
4 that and -- but those are two specific incidents and then
5 being involved in the execution of search warrants on his
6 house, I had conversations with him then.
7 THE COURT: Ms. Pilate, I think since it's
8 unlikely we're going to conclude at time soon, I
9 think we'll break at this time.
10 Counsel -- well, first of all, how much
11 more cross-examination do you think of Detective
12 McAtee do you anticipate, Miss Pilate?
13 MS. PILATE: Be another 15, 20 minutes.
14 THE COURT: And does the government have
15 any further witnesses after this witness?
16 MS. PARKER: If the case is reset, yes, we
17 would have two more witnesses. If we conclude
18 after Detective McAtee, we would wouldn't call any
19 additional witnesses if we conclude tonight.
20 THE COURT: Well, much as I would like to
21 conclude these proceedings tonight, there are other
22 considerations that I won't bore you with. We are
23 going to recess.
24 Counsel, do you have your calendars? I
25 would like to get this proceeding wrapped up while

Page 141 of 257
137
1 it's still fresh in everyone's mind. If we were to
2 reconvene at noon on Monday is there anybody that
3 would not be available?
4 MS. PILATE: I'm sorry, what date again,
5 Your Honor?
6 THE COURT: Monday, the 21st.
7 MS. PARKER: I have an 11 o'clock probation
8 revocation in Judge Vratil's division that may be
9 over, but we do have three witnesses.
10 THE COURT: In the revocation proceeding?
11 MS. PARKER: In the revocation. Oh, I know
12 we will be finished because -- or it will be
13 continued into the afternoon because Judge Vratil
14 has someplace she needs to be at noon so that
15 should not be a problem.
16 THE COURT: Ms. Morehead what about you?
17 MS. MOREHEAD: I will make myself
18 available, Your Honor.
19 THE COURT: Mr. Duma?
20 MR. DUMA: Your Honor, I have a 2 o'clock
21 arraignment in the Western District of Missouri, I
22 have a 1 o'clock Kansas City, Kansas Municipal
23 Court case. And I anticipate that this is going to
24 take more than just from noon to one.
25 THE COURT: It's probably a fair

Page 142 of 257
138
1 assumption. But you would know better than I.
2 MR. DUMA: Well, I mean, just -- my
3 observation up to this point, looks like this is
4 going to go longer.
5 THE COURT: What if we were to start at
6 3:00 and block out the balance of the day?
7 MR. DUMA: 3 o'clock would be okay with my
8 calendar.
10 MS. PILATE: There's nothing there now. So
11 unless my execution situation does something even
12 before I'm expected. But it's not so far, so I
13 should be fine.
14 THE COURT: Okay. Counsel, please block
15 out from 3:00 until 5:30. And I would like to get
16 all evidence and argument, if there is any, in by
17 5:30 because I must leave for a meeting and catch
18 dinner and be out south by 6:30 -- excuse me,
19 6 o'clock. So we'll go just to 5 o'clock. So we
20 got have two hours, so plan accordingly.
21 Alternatively, if this would be better for
22 everybody if you want more time, we can start at
23 8 o'clock on Thursday the 24th and go through noon
24 hour.
25 MS. PARKER: I think the government would

Page 143 of 257
139
1 request that we have it earlier rather than later.
2 So we would prefer the 3 o'clock --
3 THE COURT: Very well.
4 MS. PARKER: -- setting.
5 THE COURT: We will take our evening recess
6 at this time and then we will reconvene at
7 3 o'clock sharp in this courtroom on Monday of next
8 week. Detective, you may step down.
9 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor.
10 (Whereupon, recess was had and the
11 following proceedings were had Monday, July 21,
12 2008:)
13 THE COURT: Good afternoon, everybody.
14 We're back on the record -- we're now back on the
15 record in the criminal case styled United States of
16 America, plaintiff, versus Guy Madison Neighbors
17 and Carrie Marie Neighbors, defendants, Case Number
18 07-20124-01 and 2 respectively, both bearing the
19 suffix CM.
20 We've convened today to resume the hearing
21 that we began last week with respect to the
22 government's motion to revoke the defendants' bond.
23 Ms. Parker, I noticed that Ms. Morehead is not
24 here. Are you prepared to proceed without her?
25 MS. PARKER: We are. She will be here,

Page 144 of 257
140
1 she's at another hearing that has gone a little bit
2 over what she thought. But she will be joining us
3 as soon as she's here.
4 THE COURT: Very well. The Court otherwise
5 notes that the parties and counsel appear as
6 indicated on the record last week. Ms. Parker, you
7 may resume the presentation of the government's
8 case.
9 MS. PARKER: I believe Detective McAtee was
10 on cross-examination.
12 sworn.)
13 MIKE McATEE,
18 THE COURT: Well, Ms. Pilate, on behalf of
19 Mr. Neighbors, you may resume your
20 cross-examination of the detective.
22 BY MS. PILATE:
23 Q. Detective McAtee, when we were last here I think we
24 were taking a look at Defendants' Exhibit 1 which you --
25 MS. PILATE: May I approach the witness?

141
1 THE COURT: You may.
2 Q. (By Ms. Pilate) -- you stated was a criminal
3 defamation complaint that you had filed with regard to the
4 Neighbors. Does that look familiar to you?
5 A. What this is is the notes that I had in reference to
6 criminal defamation that -- when I made the report to
7 Detective Polleck. These are my notes or what I gave to
8 him. It's not a -- I would say a complaint complaint,
9 it's not a legal document, these are my notes in reference
10 to what was going on and what I believed to be the crime
11 that had been committed.
12 Q. These are not handwritten notes, are they?
13 A. No, I typed that myself.
14 Q. Okay. I do see some, however, handwritten scribbles
15 in the margin here. Can you explain to me what those are?
16 A. Yes. What they are is the 785-840-5038, that's the
17 phone number that Mr. Neighbors used to call me on 4-14-08
18 and the time of that call. Zuniga(ph), that is the -- one
19 of the blogs that said that I had did a search warrant on
20 a residence for over two hours and never presented it.
21 That's the information pertaining to that case, which is
22 at 1245 hours. Meet, that when I met Edward Zuiga in an
23 undercover capacity and he was was arrested for felon in
24 possession of a firearm. The search warrant was executed
25 at 1300 hours or 1:00 p.m. by other officers, detectives.

Page 146 of 257
142
1 And we cleared from the residence at 1436 hours, we were
2 complete with the search warrant, completed the search of
3 that residence at 1436 or 2:36 p.m. or an hour and 36
4 minutes after the search warrant was executed.
5 Q. Can you tell us what those notes are doing on that
6 piece of paper there?
7 A. I wrote them on there.
8 Q. But for what purpose?
9 A. Well, the original one, when I was testifying here I
10 had it for notes for testimony.
11 Q. Okay. You used this to testify in another case?
12 A. No, no, no, no. The copy that you have, the
13 original that came out of my notebook, was sitting here so
14 I could testify to it and I had hand written on there.
15 Q. Okay. And when did you make these handwritten
16 notes?
17 A. Those notes would have been before court, I think
18 the first time before we were continued. Those notes were
19 not on the piece of paper that was given to
20 Detective Polleck, that's the confusing part.
21 Q. And they have no relevance to Mr. Polleck's
22 investigation?
23 A. No.
24 Q. So other than the handwritten notes that appear in
25 the margin here, you turned over this piece of paper

143
1 verbatim to Mr. Polleck?
2 A. To Detective Polleck, that is correct.
3 Q. Okay. And do you know if he made a report based on
4 these notes?
5 A. I believe so he did.
6 Q. Have you ever seen the report?
7 A. I printed off the report to get that copied, but I
8 don't have a copy of that report.
9 Q. I'm sorry, you --
10 A. To print off my copy for court, I've had to print
11 off the case, I pulled that out, and I don't have a copy
12 of his report.
13 Q. Okay. Did you -- do you have a report -- do you
14 have his report in your office or in your computer?
15 A. No, I do not. I have access to it, but I don't have
16 it.
17 Q. And when you say you have access to it, is that
18 through a computer system?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Have you ever examined that report?
21 A. Examined the front sheet of it and --
22 Q. Read the report?
23 A. Not the whole report, no.
24 Q. Okay. The part of it that you have read, what does
25 the report say?

Page 148 of 257
144
1 MS. PARKER: Your Honor, I'm going to
2 object. I don't know what this line of questioning
3 has to do with any of the issues here. If it's --
4 if the existence of the complaint is for
5 credibility or for bias, I think we've covered
6 that. Beyond that, what's in the report, I don't
7 believe is relevant or at least it's very
8 cumulative to things that have already been covered
9 with this witness.
10 MS. PILATE: Your Honor, if I may, the
11 report concerns the criminal defamation complaint.
12 One of the allegations by the prosecution here is
13 that our clients are guilty of criminal defamation.
14 And so I'm inquiring as to what information
15 Detective McAtee may have provided to the sheriff's
16 department relevant to that complaint. I mean,
17 it's kind of squarely in the middle of this.
18 MS. PARKER: And I believe he's asked --
19 been asked that several times and he's answered.
20 This document is what he's provided. What the
21 report was then taken and done with is irrelevant
22 absent additional theories to the proceedings here.
23 MS. PILATE: Your Honor, I believe he's
24 also testified that he spoke with Mr. Polleck and
25 there may be additional information from him in

Page 149 of 257
145
1 that report. As well as any results that
2 Mr. Polleck obtained upon examining those
3 allegations, which surely go to the credibility of
4 what the government is alleging here.
5 THE COURT: The objection is overruled.
6 Let's move it along, counsel.
7 MS. PILATE: Okay.
8 A. Can you repeat the question? I'm sorry.
9 Q. (By Ms. Pilate) When you reviewed the report, what
10 did you see in it?
11 A. Front sheets that listed me as a victim, the type of
12 crime, and then obviously the piece of paper that you have
13 before you and then documentation in reference to the
14 blogs that were attached to the report.
15 Q. Was there any narrative about any statements you
16 provided to Mr. Polleck?
17 A. He created a report, yes.
18 Q. Okay. And what was in that report?
19 A. I didn't read that part of it.
20 Q. Okay. Did you read anything in his reports or
21 documents about your statements to him?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Did you see any indication in those reports of any
24 follow-up investigation?
25 A. I don't remember seeing anything that would be

Page 150 of 257
146
1 follow-up investigation. I know that it was followed up
2 with the KBI.
3 Q. How do you know it was followed up?
4 A. I was at the meeting with Detective Polleck when the
5 KBI agents came there and I spoke to them about the
6 complaint. They talked to Detective Polleck, he gave them
7 his report and that's how I know that they followed up on
8 it. And I've had communication with them that said that
9 they are investigating.
10 Q. Okay. And when was your most recent communication?
11 A. It would have been a week ago Friday.
12 Q. Okay. And what was the nature of that
13 communication?
14 A. I asked them if they were still investigating the
15 case and when it was be presented to either the district
16 attorney or the Attorney General.
17 Q. So that was a contact that you made with them?
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. And you wanted to know the status?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And they told you what?
22 A. That they were -- would be contacting the District
23 Attorney's Office.
24 Q. Did they indicate to you whether they were looking
25 into the truthfulness of any allegations that may have

Page 151 of 257
147
1 been made by Mr. Neighbors or Ms. Neighbors?
2 A. No. They said that they would be contacting the
3 district attorney.
4 Q. Okay. Detective McAtee, have you ever been a
5 defendant in a lawsuit?
6 A. A defendant in a lawsuit?
7 Q. Concerning your actions as a police officer.
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Okay. And what lawsuit or lawsuits was that or were
10 that?
11 A. Shawn McCormack sued me, along with several other
12 officers in the City of Lawrence.
13 Q. Okay. And what was the outcome of that lawsuit?
14 A. It was, I believe, settled out of court. The
15 City -- they paid him approximately $5,000.
16 Q. Now, I think you've testified that there was a
17 period of time when you were gone from the department for
18 approximately one year, is that correct?
19 A. No, that's not correct.
20 Q. In my -- I'm sorry if I'm mistaken. Was it a period
21 different than one year?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And how long were you gone?
24 A. From September of 2000 -- I believe it was September
25 26th of 2000 to February 22nd of 2002.

Page 152 of 257
148
1 Q. Okay. So approximately a year and a half?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Okay. And where were you employed during that
4 hiatus from the police department?
5 A. I was marketing director for a company called
6 Ringside, Inc. it's a boxing equipment company that sells
7 boxing equipment for the sport of boxing, mixed martial
8 arts. I also assisted in training amateur and
9 professional fighters.
10 Q. And did you have any connection with anyone at that
11 company before your employment there?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Okay. And what was that connection?
14 A. The owner of that company, John Brown, was my boxing
15 coach and my mentor and helped raise me since I was about
16 13. I worked there originally from the time I was 13
17 through college, I worked there full-time starting in 1984
18 up until I left to go to the police department in '91.
19 And then went back.
20 Q. At the point that you left the department, were you
21 under investigation for anything?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Was there any pending complaint of any kind?
24 A. No.
25 Q. Was it suggested to you that if you didn't leave you

149
1 would be investigated?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Do you know if an outside agency has ever conducted
4 any investigation into your activities as a police
5 officer?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Do you know if a prosecutor has ever reduced a
8 charge or dismissed a charge because of concerns about
9 what answers you might have to provide on
10 cross-examination?
11 A. No, I don't believe that has ever occurred.
12 Q. Have you ever been pulled over or arrested for
13 driving under the influence?
14 A. Yes, I've been stopped.
15 Q. And when was that?
16 A. 1991.
17 Q. Okay. And were you a police officer at that time?
18 A. Yes, I was.
19 MS. PARKER: Your Honor, I want object to
20 this, it doesn't go to credibility, it doesn't go
21 any of the allegations or the fabrications that the
22 defendants have blogged about, it's 1991, we have
23 gone way beyond the scope of anything that could
24 possibly be used for impeachment for or credibility
25 at trial and I object to the relevance of this.

Page 154 of 257
150
1 THE COURT: Objection's overruled. Again,
2 counsel, the predicate of the motion -- or at least
3 one of the predicates is criminal defamation. And
4 you put this man's reputation at issue, for better
5 or for worse.
6 Q. (By Ms. Pilate) Could you please tell us the
7 circumstances of your being pulled over, arrested for
8 driving under the influence?
9 A. I was stopped by a trooper, taken to the law
10 enforcement center and -- but then I was released.
11 Q. When they found out you were a police officer?
12 A. No, they knew I was a police officer when I was
13 taken to the station.
14 Q. Did you have to submit to a breathalyzer test?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And what were the results of that?
17 A. I -- my blood alcohol content was .1.
18 Q. Okay. And were you ever charged in connection with
19 being stopped?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Were you ever subject to any internal discipline for
22 being stopped?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And what was that discipline?
25 A. I received a letter of reprimand and at the time,

Page 155 of 257
151
1 because I was a new police officer, they extended my
2 probationary period.
3 Q. And how long was your probation period extended to?
4 A. Six months, I believe.
5 Q. Rather than what was the usual period?
6 A. It's -- for police officers, it's a year. And so I
7 would have been 18 months.
8 Q. So you went 18 months?
9 A. Correct.
10 Q. Okay. Was there anything in particular that
11 prompted you to leave your marketing job and return to the
12 police department?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Okay. And what was that?
15 A. When you're working for someone considered to be
16 family it's a little bit difficult. Also, I missed law
17 enforcement. I believe that to be my calling, so I
18 decided to go back.
19 Q. Did you ever take any -- were you ever asked to
20 submit to any urinalysis tests while you were in this
21 other position Ringside?
22 A. No.
23 Q. When you returned to the Lawrence Police Department
24 it was not as a detective, was it?

Page 156 of 257
152
1 Q. You returned initially as a patrol officer, correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. At the time of your return did anyone raise any
4 issues or concerns with you with regard to substance
5 abuse?
6 A. Anyone?
7 Q. Anyone in the department.
8 A. No.
9 Q. Has anyone ever discussed with you alcohol abuse?
10 Anyone in the department discussed with you whether or not
11 you have a problem with alcohol abuse?
12 A. No.
13 Q. Following your being stopped and submitting to a
14 breathalyzer test with the result of .1, did anyone in the
15 department discuss with you whether or not you needed any
16 treatment or attention for alcohol abuse?
17 A. No.
18 Q. So what happened was you got a letter of reprimand
19 and your probation was extended for six months?
21 Q. Was there any further discussion of any issues
22 relating to alcohol abuse?
23 A. No.
24 Q. With regard to abuse of other substances such as
25 illegal drugs, who has discussed that matter with you in

153
1 the department?
2 A. No one has discussed to me -- with the department.
3 Earlier you asked if people had said things about me
4 having used or sold drugs before.
5 Q. Uh-huh.
6 A. So that would have occurred after 2006.
7 Q. I think what I asked you before was whether or not
8 there had been any discussion with anyone in the
9 department about that allegation.
10 A. The discussion would be someone or an individual
11 said something to an officer, an officer saying, yeah,
12 someone made a comment that you were fired for drug use.
13 Q. So other officers would say things to you?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Okay. But no member of the command staff ever
16 raised this issue with you?
17 A. No, they knew it to be untrue.
18 Q. Okay. So they were aware of the allegations, but
19 did not investigate them with you, is that correct?
20 A. I believe that would be a correct statement.
21 Q. What about any member of the city comission, have
22 they ever raised an issue with regard to these allegations
23 of your drug use or drug activity?
24 A. Specifically, I've had members of the city
25 commission ask about the Yellow House and some of their

154
1 blogs.
2 Q. Okay. Do you know of any city commissioner has ever
3 gone to the police chief?
4 A. (No response.)
5 Q. With regard to these allegations of drug use.
6 A. I do not know.
7 Q. Okay. Are you aware of any case in which a
8 prosecutor, specifically a federal prosecutor, has asked
9 the police chief for your personnel file?
10 A. Yes, I know that to have occurred.
11 Q. Okay. And what case was that?
12 A. This one.
13 Q. Okay. Any other case?
14 A. None that I'm aware.
15 Q. Did it occur in a case where the defendant had the
16 last name of ^ Harmon?
17 A. I believe there was a US Attorney Rask contacted the
18 chief of police in reference to that investigation, but I
19 don't know if he looked at my personal file or not.
20 Q. Okay. Why was Mr. Rask contacting Chief Olin?
21 A. I believe that there was a question of a -- that was
22 brought up in that case and so in federal court. It was a
23 Giglio issue.
24 Q. And what was that issue?
25 A. There wasn't one.

Page 159 of 257
155
1 Q. Okay. You said a question was brought up. What was
2 the question?
3 A. The question was posed to the chief in reference to
4 is Sergeant ^ Kateb and I if we had Giglio issues. The
5 chief assured the prosecutor there was not. And I don't
6 know if the file was given to the prosecutor or not or if
7 he even looked at it.
8 Q. Okay. So as far as you know what the attorney
9 raised was whether there were, quote, Giglio issues?
10 A. Correct.
11 Q. Okay. And you don't know if your personnel file was
12 ever turned over?
13 A. I don't know if it was or not.
14 Q. And you say that access has been requested to your
15 personnel file in another case and you identified this
16 case. Do you mean the case we're here on today?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Do you know if anyone has examined your personnel
19 file?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And who is that?
22 A. AUSA Marietta Parker.
23 Q. Did she discuss with you anything in your personnel
24 file?
25 A. Yes.

156
1 Q. Okay. And what was that?
2 A. Letter of reprimand that I discussed earlier and the
3 mere fact that I have a lot of good boy letters in there.
4 Q. Has any citizen ever written in to complain about
5 alleged drug use or drug activity on your part?
6 A. To whom?
7 Q. Any citizen, has any citizen ever contacted the
8 police department and made an allegation that you're
9 involved in drug use or drug activity?
10 A. Not that I'm aware.
11 Q. Were you the officer in a case in which the
12 defendant's last name was Garner?
14 Q. Prosecuted in federal court.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Okay. And were you requested in that case to turn
17 over your personnel file or any information from it?
18 A. Not that I'm aware of, no.
19 Q. With regard to the lawsuit you identified earlier
20 that was filed by a Shawn McCormack, what were the
21 particular allegations against you?
22 A. He alleged that I sodomized him in the course of the
23 investigation with a crime scene vacuum, he alleged that
24 the city, along with myself and other officers and
25 detectives, beat him, violated his rights, things of that

157
1 nature.
2 Q. Did you ever give a deposition in that case?
3 A. Yes, I did.
5 A. Approximately 2003, 2004.
6 Q. Do you know if the FBI has ever investigated your
7 actions as an officer?
8 A. No, I do not know.
9 Q. Do you know if the FBI conducted any investigation
10 in that case?
11 A. I do not know.
12 Q. Has any witness ever claimed that you intimidated
13 them?
15 Q. Has any witness ever complained to the department
16 that in the course of your doing your business you
17 intimidated them?
18 A. I don't know. If you're asking if there's been an
19 IA complaint about that, no, I don't believe there's ever
20 been an IA complaint about that. I don't know if anyone
21 has said I've intimidated them or not. There hasn't been
22 an official inquiry to me in that manner.
23 Q. Has anyone ever discussed with you a concern about
24 that?
25 A. No.

Page 162 of 257
158
1 Q. Has anyone ever discussed with you an allegation
2 that things were missing from the evidence room in any
3 case in which you were connected?
4 A. There's never been an allegation, other than in this
5 case, that anything I've been involved with with evidence
6 missing.
7 Q. Has anyone ever discussed with you an allegation of
8 stealing marijuana or some kind of drugs from the evidence
9 room?
10 A. No, I've never stolen anything from the evidence
11 room.
12 Q. Have you talked to anyone, a citizen, someone
13 outside of law enforcement, who reads the blogs by Guy
14 Neighbors and Carrie Neighbors?
15 A. I don't know if I have specifically talked to anyone
16 about that, no.
17 Q. So to your knowledge and recollection, no one has
18 come forward to you and said, gee, I just read on the blog
19 such-and-such, that has not happened?
21 Q. Have you ever discussed with anyone why allegations
22 relating to drugs or drug activity keep surfacing with
23 regard to you?
24 A. I have my opinion.
25 Q. Okay. And what would that be?

Page 163 of 257
159
1 A. When I left the police department in 2000, I left to
2 go work for Ringside. At that time I was assigned four
3 years previously to the special investigations unit. I
4 had two partners and we were very active within the City
5 of Lawrence in reference to investigating gang members and
6 activity. I think that individuals in that community just
7 decided to besmirch my name.
8 Q. And turning your attention again to this DUI, even
9 though you were stopped on a suspected DUI and asked to
10 take a breathalyzer test with the results -- which ended
11 up having a result of .1, you've never been asked to do a
12 random UA by the department?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Not a single time?
15 A. No.
16 Q. And never asked to do a random drug test?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Not a single time?
19 A. No.
20 MS. PILATE: That's all, thank you.
21 THE COURT: Redirect. Go ahead.
23 BY MS. PARKER:
24 Q. You were asked about whether or not anyone in the
25 public not associated with the -- with law enforcement or

Page 164 of 257
160
1 this case has mentioned these blogs to you, do you
2 remember that question?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And your answer was?
5 A. Not that I recall specifically about the blogs.
6 Q. Do you know, from your own personal experience, that
7 no one in the community is reading these blogs?
8 A. No, I can tell through other blogs that people are
9 reading them.
10 Q. What do you mean by that?
11 A. City of Lawrence or I guess the website,
12 larryville.com frequently has postings on there that
13 individuals will comment about the blogs that are on
14 there. Certain individuals who have read those blogs have
15 made further blogs in reference to the allegations
16 contained on those blogs.
17 Q. You were asked or you mentioned the Zuniga search
18 warrant?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. All right. I think that was in response to a
21 question. Have there been allegations made by either Guy
22 or Carrie Neighbors on their blog sites about some illegal
23 activity they say you engaged in as it related to the
24 Zuniga search warrant?
25 A. Yes.

161
1 Q. What was it?
2 A. On their site that was a posting of a security video
3 of Helen Zuniga that made comments that I had searched her
4 residence for two hours without a search warrant, things
5 of that nature.
6 Q. All right. And what is the truth about your
7 involvement in that search warrant? Did you search her
8 residence without a warrant?
9 A. No, that is not correct.
10 Q. Would you tell the Court what the progression of
11 that investigative activity was?
12 A. In April of '07 I was acting in an undercover
13 capacity. I purchased a firearm from Edward Zuniga, who
14 was a armed career criminal. Went back on -- would have
15 been on 4-11 of '07 with a search warrant that was signed
16 by a Douglas County judge. Because of the nature of the
17 crime and his violence, our plan was that I would draw him
18 out of the house under the pretext that I would buy his
19 vehicle in the undercover capacity. Got out -- got him to
20 meet me outside to buy his vehicle, I had him drive me
21 away from the area, we put gas in the vehicle, we were
22 arrested, both of us, by the sheriff's department. And at
23 that time it -- which -- that all started about 1245 hours
24 or 12:45 p.m.
25 Q. Lunchtime?

Page 166 of 257
162
1 A. Lunchtime. And then while he was in custody and I
2 was, quote, in custody, that issued search warrant was
3 conducted on his trailer by other investigators. And at
4 that time the search warrant was presented.
5 Q. So you were not even involved in the search of the
6 trailer?
7 A. I went later.
8 Q. But at the time you went and at the time the
9 officers went into that residence, they had a validly
10 signed search warrant, is that right?
12 Q. So the allegations that you improperly and illegally
13 participated in an illegal search of the Zuniga residence
14 is a fabrication?
16 Q. You were asked about returning to the Lawrence
17 Police Department in 2002 and going back as a patrol
18 officer. Do you remember that?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Why didn't you go back as a detective?
21 A. Uh, the police department is only allowed -- at that
22 time there were only ten detective slots that were at our
23 full strength. When I was hired back after I had resigned
24 from the police department they had a promotion process
25 and a new detective was placed in my position. So there

Page 167 of 257
163
1 wasn't any detective slots to come back to. I was hired
2 at the top end of the pay scale for patrol officers.
3 MS. PARKER: Your Honor, may I approach the
4 witness?
5 THE COURT: Sure.
6 Q. (By Ms. Parker) I'm going to start with Exhibit 5A.
7 You were asked a number of questions about whether or not
8 anybody has ever approached you and suggested that you
9 have drug problems or other sorts of problems. Do you
10 remember that?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. All right. And directing your attention to
13 Exhibit 5A, is that an e-mail that was sent out by Guy
14 Neighbors on February 22nd of 2007?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. All right. And in that there were some allegations
17 made against you, correct?
19 Q. And what were those allegations?
21 Q. I'm sorry, go to paragraph number 9 on the second
22 page. Do you see that?
23 A. Number 9, "People have informed us that the
24 department had major issues. Officer McAtee was suspended
25 for stealing drugs from the evidence room. Then he went

164
1 to rehab."
2 Number 10, "Officer McAtee was never
3 charged because the evidence against him missing or used
4 up."
5 Q. And who was this e-mail sent to? Was it sent to
6 certain members of the Lawrence community?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Did any of those people ever talk to you about this?
9 A. (No response.)
10 Q. That you can recall?
11 A. Sue Hack, one of the city commissioners who's listed
12 on this e-mail, had general discussions with me in
13 reference to e-mails that she received in reference to the
14 Yellow House.
15 Q. So we know that some of them were read because Guy
16 Neighbors made sure certain people got copies of them,
17 correct?
19 Q. And then Exhibit 5B is a letter from your attorney
20 basically telling Mr. Neighbors what?
21 A. That the e-mail that he sent out on 2-22-07, the
22 information contained in there was not true and that he
23 should stop doing it.
24 Q. And did Mr. Neighbors stop doing it?
25 A. No, he did not.

Page 169 of 257
165
1 Q. Even though he was informed by your attorney that
2 those allegations were false, he continued to persist in
3 his accusations against you?
5 Q. You were asked about why these rumors seemed to
6 persist in your community. Do you believe that these
7 postings perpetuate that kind of false information about
8 you?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Is that damaging to your reputation?
11 A. Yes, it is.
12 Q. Is there any truth in it?
13 A. There is no truth to it.
14 Q. Now, over the weekend there were additional blogs
15 posted about you attacking your credibility, were there
16 not?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. I'm going to hand you what's been marked
19 Government's Exhibit Number 20 and ask you if you
20 recognize that, the contents of that e-mail?
21 A. The -- Government's Exhibit Number 20, yes, it's a
22 blog that says that I was less than honest in the hearing
23 on Friday, July 18th.
24 Q. And the third, fourth and fifth page of that is a
25 copy of the blog fairly accurately as it was depicted on

Page 170 of 257
166
1 the Yellow House blog spot over the weekend, correct?
2 A. Correct.
3 Q. But the e-mail that is the first two pages is just
4 an e-mail of the same information?
5 A. Yes.
6 MS. PARKER: Your Honor, at this time
7 United States would offer Government's Exhibit
8 Number 20.
10 MS. PILATE: No.
11 MR. DUMA: No objection from Ms. Neighbors,
12 Your Honor.
13 THE COURT: Exhibit 20 is received.
14 Q. (By Ms. Parker) Now, Officer McAtee, what is the
15 date of that e-mail in Exhibit 20?
16 A. July 21st, Monday.
17 Q. Today?
18 A. Today.
19 Q. And who is that e-mail directed to?
20 A. Uh, it was sent to you from David Nitz.
21 Q. Did then you review the actual Yellow House blog
22 site as it was up and running over the weekend?
23 A. I reviewed the Larryville blog site that was up over
24 the weekend.
25 Q. But you recognize pages 3, 4 and 5 as pages that are

Page 171 of 257
167
1 consistent with the Yellow House blog spot?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And the information contained in all of these pages
4 is essentially the same?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. All right. Now going to page 2 of the exhibit,
7 Exhibit 20, down about -- a little over half-way through,
8 there is a paragraph that starts, "There were other people
9 in the court waiting to testify." Do you see that?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. All right. Uh, would you read what it says there?
12 "I think" --
13 A. I think FBI agent Bob Shaffer(ph) was present.
14 Several other people was also present, maybe they were
15 from CCA, the Leavenworth detention center, where they
16 have -- where they have violating black inmates civil
17 rights. They were most likely angry because they received
18 letters of my blog spot -- or blog post about the inhumane
19 treatment resemble or hand" --
20 Q. They responsible?
21 A. "Treatment they -- inhuman treatment they
22 responsible for handing out to the black inmates. I'm in
23 the process of helping not just the black inmates, but
24 anyone who was intimidated by Morehead and not allowed to
25 have a fair trial, find an attorney from out of the state

168
1 to look into their cases."
2 Q. Okay. Let's stop there. Does that information
3 that's contained in that blog spot about helping inmates
4 at Leavenworth, does that mean anything to you? Have you
5 seen other postings by either of these defendants about
6 that?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Tell the Court about that.
9 A. One of the postings that was on the Yellow House
10 blog spot referred to the -- referred to Johnny Williams,
11 Terry McIntyre and Zack Williams. One of the postings
12 said that I committed perjury during that trial which
13 caused the mistrial, which is a fabrication.
14 Q. Let me hand you what's been marked Government's
15 Exhibit Number 20A. Do you recognize the information
16 contained in that exhibit?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And what is it?
19 A. Exhibit -- Government's Exhibit Number 20A or -- is
20 copies of letters that were sent to CCA and the pages
21 contained within are copies of what were put in the
22 envelopes and at least a couple of them that I saw and
23 then the rest of these are envelopes -- or copies of the
24 envelopes to CCA personnel.
25 Q. And the information, the blog spots that are

Page 173 of 257
169
1 contained in first envelope there, that's consistent with
2 the information that Mr. Neighbors posted over the weekend
3 about sending his blog postings to people?
4 A. Yes.
5 MS. PARKER: Your Honor, at this time the
6 government would offer Government's Exhibit
7 Number 20A.
9 MS. PILATE: Your Honor, it's unclear to me
10 what knowledge Detective McAtee may have of these
11 letters. I mean, there's no testimony that he
12 talked to the people who received them, that he
13 personally seized them, that he knows anything
14 about them at all. They're just simply a group of
15 letters. So I just don't think you can talk about
16 the issue today.
17 Q. (By Ms. Parker) Do you recognize the handwriting on
18 one of those?
19 MS. PILATE: I object on the basis he's not
20 a handwriting expert.
22 THE COURT: He doesn't have to be a
23 handwriting expert to lay that kind of foundation.
24 Detective, you may answer the question.

Page 174 of 257
170
1 Q. (By Ms. Parker) Do you recognize the handwriting?
2 A. Yes, I do.
3 Q. Whose handwriting is it?
4 A. I believe the handwriting to be that of the
5 defendant, Guy Neighbors.
6 Q. All right. And have you seen samples of Mr.
7 Neighbors' handwriting before?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And have you seen other samples very similar to this
10 sample where Mr. Neighbors actually put his -- signed his
11 name?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. All right. I'm going to show you Government's
14 Exhibit 20C. Have you seen that? Specifically -- more
15 specifically the envelope?
16 A. Yes. Government's Exhibit 20C, I have seen it and
17 the envelope is signed by Guy Neighbors, Yellow House
18 Store, 1904 Mass, Lawrence is abbreviated LA, and then
19 period KS 66047 and it's to the KC FBI.
20 Q. And the handwriting and the configuration of that
21 envelope is the same, in your opinion, as the handwriting
22 and configuration of the writing on Exhibit 20A?
23 A. Yes.
24 MS. PILATE: Your Honor, I object again on
25 the basis that this individual's not an expert in

Page 175 of 257
171
1 handwriting nor has the foundation been laid to
2 show how he claims to be familiar with my client's
3 handwriting.
4 THE COURT: Well, in the latter respect,
5 that ship has sailed. Both objections are
6 overruled.
7 MS. PARKER: Your Honor, I take it that
8 means 20C is admitted.
9 Q. (By Ms. Parker) Going back to Government's
10 Exhibit -- oh, before we leave Exhibit 20, the --
11 MR. DUMA: Your Honor, may be I ask, in
12 terms of what you have admitted, has 20A been
13 admitted?
14 THE COURT: Exhibit 20A has been admitted.
15 Exhibit 20C has not been offered nor admitted.
16 MR. DUMA: Okay.
17 MS. PARKER: Well, then I'm sorry, the
18 government does offer Exhibit 20C.
19 THE COURT: Mr. Duma? With respect to 20C,
20 what's your position?
21 MR. DUMA: We have no objection to
22 admission of 20C.
24 MS. PILATE: Same objection based on lack
25 of foundation.

Page 176 of 257
172
1 THE COURT: Miss Pilate, so I'm correctly
2 understanding your position, is your objection to
3 20C only with respect to the envelope that is
4 attached thereto?
5 MS. PILATE: That would be correct, Your
6 Honor.
7 THE COURT: Further, Miss Pilate, again so
8 I'm following your client's ultimate position in
9 this case, does your client deny that this was --
10 MS. PILATE: Your Honor, I'm going to
11 withdraw my objection.
12 THE COURT: I thought you might.
13 Exhibit 20C is admitted. Proceed.
14 Q. (By Ms. Parker) Exhibit Number 20, there it
15 starts -- where it starts almost at the end, "Mr. Schaefer
16 was very nervous during the hearing Friday," do you see
17 that?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And then further down in that exhibit it says,
20 "These officers were very concerned about their
21 credibility and stated credibility as a police officer was
22 the most important thing because without it they could not
23 testify in court." Do you agree with that statement?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And then what does it go on to say?

Page 177 of 257
173
1 A. "My question is if they are exposed as liars would
2 that mean they would have no credibility?"
3 Q. And do you believe that's a rhetorical question or
4 do you think Mr. Neighbors or the poster is implying
5 something there?
6 A. I believe he's implying that I'm a liar and Officer
7 Rantz is a liar.
8 Q. And then the last part of that says, "So should this
9 case be dropped at once?" Do you see that?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Do you believe that is Mr. Neighbors' motivation for
12 posting these statements against you?
13 MR. DUMA: Your Honor, I'm going to object
14 to this line of questions.
15 THE COURT: Hold on a second. Go ahead,
16 Mr. Duma.
17 MR. DUMA: I don't know how or what this
18 witness' opinion is as to what he thinks
19 Mr. Neighbors or Ms. Neighbors (inaudible) is
20 relevant. I think that's a decision for the Court
21 based the evidence presented.
22 MS. PILATE: Your Honor, I would join in
23 that objection and objection on the basis it's
24 speculation, it's not what he knows, but what he's
25 guessing at or --

Page 178 of 257
174
1 MS. PARKER: Your Honor, I believe the
2 statement speaks for itself, so I will withdraw
3 that question.
4 THE COURT: Very well. Proceed.
5 MS. PARKER: Thank you.
6 Q. (By Ms. Parker) Going now to Exhibit 20A. The name
7 on that first envelope addressed to James McKeighan is
8 what?
9 A. Pardon me?
10 Q. What is the name of the person who sent this --
11 these postings to James McKeighan?
12 A. Bob Newman.
13 Q. Bob Newman. And then going to the first page in
14 that envelope, which is page number 2 of this exhibit,
15 down in the middle, it's a paragraph set off by itself,
16 "It's my understanding that Mr. McIntyre, Zachary Williams
17 and Johnny Williams," a case number in Murguia's court,
18 "have been harassed by Morehead and Lawrence police
19 officer Mike McAtee for more than two years." What is
20 that referring to?
21 A. That -- that is referring to the federal
22 investigation that I'm one of the case officers on, which
23 would be United States of America versus Johnny William,
24 Zack Williams, Terry McIntyre and there were four other
25 defendants.

Page 179 of 257
175
1 Q. And did you harass any of those defendants during
2 that investigation?
3 A. No, I did not.
4 Q. "Our sources tell us the case was declared a
5 mistrial because Officer McAtee perjured himself on the
6 stand. Word is he lied on more than one occasion." Is
7 that a true statement?
8 A. That's a total fabrication.
9 Q. Was that case declared a mistrial?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And do you know the reason why it was declared a
12 mistrial?
13 A. Yes, I do.
14 Q. Why?
15 A. One of the defense attorneys, Jessica -- I think
16 it's Jessica -- or Ms. Racusic(ph) had a conflict between
17 her client, Terry McIntyre, and another client she had in
18 another federal case.
19 Q. All right. And so in the middle of trial she filed
20 a motion to withdraw as attorney for her client?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And that motion was granted?
23 A. Uh, it was granted, yes.
24 Q. And the case was declared a mistrial and reset?

Page 180 of 257
176
1 Q. Now, does Ms. Pilate have any clients in that case?
2 A. I don't believe so.
3 Q. Representing any of the cooperators?
4 A. Yeah, she does.
5 MS. PILATE: Objection.
6 Q. (By Ms. Parker) Pardon me?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Yes, she is?
9 THE COURT: What's the basis of the
10 objection?
11 MS. PILATE: I don't see what the relevance
12 is of getting into the merits in that case.
13 THE COURT: You cast a pretty wide net,
14 yourself, Ms. Pilate, it seems to me the government
15 should be able to cast an equally wide net.
16 Proceed, counsel.
17 MS. PARKER: Thank you, Your Honor.
18 Q. (By Ms. Parker) So if Mr. Neighbors had even
19 bothered to consult with his attorney about the truth of
20 this statement, he would have been informed of the fact
21 that you did not -- this was not dismissed because you
22 committed perjury, isn't that right?
24 Q. And these -- this posting was sent to James
25 McKeighan, is that right?

177
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. By -- he's one of the defendants in that case?
3 A. James McKeighan is not, no.
4 Q. What -- do you know who James McKeighan is?
5 A. I have not personally met him, but I do know of him.
6 Q. Is he charged in another case?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Is he a CCA inmate?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. All right. And then you said I've identified the
11 addressees on the rest of the envelopes as various
12 personnel who work at CCA, correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And these two blogs that were sent accuse these
15 folks, especially on the blog that's dated July the 8th of
16 2008, of a civil rights violation --
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. -- at CCA --
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. -- correct? All right. Mr. Neighbors has never
21 been in CCA in the course of this case, has he, that you
22 know of?
23 A. I don't know if he was detained on his initial --
24 when he was initially taken in custody or not, so I don't
25 know. I don't believe he has been.

Page 182 of 257
178
1 Q. None of these blogs allege that his civil rights
2 have been violated by anyone at CCA, do they?
3 A. No.
4 Q. All right. So again, he's repeating things that
5 people have just told him, as far as you know?
6 A. As far as I know.
7 Q. Is there any truth to any of those allegations that
8 you know of?
9 A. I don't believe there's any truth to the allegations
10 in reference to the civil rights violations and I know
11 that there's no truth in the fact that -- in reference to
12 the Terry McIntyre-Johnny Williams case that it was
13 declared a mistrial because I committed perjury.
14 MS. PARKER: Your Honor, did I give you
15 Exhibit 20A? If I didn't, I meant to do that.
16 THE COURT: You did not.
17 MS. PARKER: I'm sorry.
18 Q. (By Ms. Parker) Show you Government's Exhibit 20B.
19 Do you recognize that? Do you recognize the envelope --
20 or the photograph of the envelope on page 2?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Again, a similar envelope?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And this is from whom, who's the return address?
25 A. The return address on the envelope is from Paul

179
1 Newman.
2 Q. Again, in Lawrence, Kansas?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And again, a distinctive way to write Lawrence,
5 Kansas?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Do you recognize the handwriting on that envelope?
8 A. Yes, I do.
9 Q. Whose is that?
10 A. I believe that to be the defendant, Guy Neighbors.
12 government would offer Exhibit 20B.
15 THE COURT: Ms. Pilate.
16 MS. PILATE: Same objection regarding the
17 handwriting.
18 THE COURT: May I see the exhibit, please?
19 Exhibit 20B, as in boy, is received over
20 defendant Guy Neighbors' objection.
21 Q. You know who Johnny K. Williams, III is?
22 A. Yes, I do.
23 Q. Who is that?
24 A. Johnny K. Williams, III is -- goes by the street
25 name of Blue. He is the defendant in the case that we've

Page 184 of 257
180
1 been talking about in front of Judge Murguia.
2 Q. And that is where Mr. Neighbors has made allegations
3 that you committed perjury and that's why there was a
4 mistrial?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Do you know of any involvement by Mr. Neighbors with
7 Johnny Williams that would cause him to send these kinds
8 of letters? Do you know of any relationship between them,
9 are they brothers, are they cousins, are they old friends?
10 A. I don't believe that they're related in any way.
11 Q. But Mr. Neighbors on his blogging over the weekend
12 has made it clear that he is involved in the defendants'
13 situation at Leavenworth and is actively seeking to find
14 attorneys to represent them?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Do you know why he's involved himself in that case?
17 A. No, I do not know.
18 Q. Is Terra Morehead the attorney prosecuting that
19 case?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And I'd like you to go to the blog that starts --
22 that is dated, Wednesday, July the 9th. The blog where it
23 accused you of perjury.
24 THE COURT: Which exhibit are you on?
25 MS. PARKER: I'm sorry, Your Honor, I'm in

181
1 Exhibit 20A.
3 MS. PARKER: And it -- I'm going to go to
4 the top paragraph on the third page of that
5 exhibit. Well, I'm going to start at the bottom of
6 that exhibit -- the first page.
7 Q. (By Ms. Parker) Do you see where it says, "Word is
8 after the mistrial the defendants were thrown back in jail
9 and Morehead and two US Marshals flew to Florida to harass
10 the Williams family, hoping to get more evidence against
11 the defendants. Wow. These guys have been locked up for
12 two years. What more evidence could Morehead possible
13 come up with?" Do you see that?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. All right. Indicates that this defendant is very
16 well aware that Terra Morehead is prosecuting that case?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And do you know who's prosecuting the defendants'
19 drug case -- Guy and Carrie Neighbors' drug case?
20 A. Yes, I do.
21 Q. Who is that?
22 A. AUSA Terra Morehead.
23 Q. Goes on to say, "Could it be she has violated these
24 guys' civil rights so bad she can just not allow them to
25 walk? Could it be she is also worried about her win-loss

182
1 record?" Do you see that?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Have you worked closely with Ms. Morehead on that
4 investigation?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Have you ever heard her express any of those
7 sentiments?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Going on reading that, "Could it be she is a racist
10 and hates the fact these guys have stood up to her for two
11 years when she did not have enough evidence to get a
12 conviction?" Do you see that?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. All right. Do you believe, based upon your
15 professional experience, that there is enough evidence in
16 that case to get a conviction?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. All right. Would that statement be a true statement
19 then?
20 A. No, it's false.
21 Q. Do you know if Ms. Morehead even went to Florida?
22 A. No, I know she did not go to Florida in reference to
23 this investigation.
24 Q. I want to go back one last time to the persistent
25 rumors in Lawrence about your drug abuse, the allegations

Page 187 of 257
183
1 of drug abuse. Is there any truth to any of those rumors?
2 A. No, there is no truth whatsoever.
3 Q. Each and every time you have been confronted or
4 anyone has mentioned it, what have you told them?
5 A. I told them that it -- it's untrue.
6 Q. Is there anything else that you can think of to do
7 to squelch the rumors?
8 A. No, just be able to -- when a person asks you, tell
9 them about it, if it comes to my attention like in this
10 case, I had my attorney contact not only the Neighbors,
11 but the persons that they gave the false information to.
12 Q. Now, you were asked about people approaching you,
13 whether it's fellow officers inside the police department
14 or people on the outside or commissioners, you said that
15 has happened, right?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Before the Neighbors began their blogging about your
18 alleged drug problems, how often were you approached with
19 questions like that?
20 A. Very rarely. And it would be a -- probably a person
21 that has ties to the criminal element in Lawrence and it
22 wasn't anyone like city commissioners and I would say
23 law-abiding citizens.
24 Q. After these allegations by the Neighbors began to
25 appear out there in the public domain, did the incidence

Page 188 of 257
184
1 of people asking you, hey, what's going on, what's the
2 drug stuff, did that increase?
3 A. It increased in that people that were outside that
4 community if I have an opportunity talk to them or if they
5 had received information, yes.
6 Q. And is there anything different in your estimate --
7 well, I'm sorry, in your experience, about the situation
8 caused by these blogs and just the stuff being out there
9 in the ether?
10 A. Yes, there's a huge difference.
11 Q. Why is that?
12 A. By them being out on blogs or put out over the
13 internet, I have no way of denying the allegations, so
14 they're out there to the community, they're out there to
15 the world, and unfortunately, some people believe what
16 they read on the internet to be true. And the continuing
17 putting that out there, I believe it affects my ability to
18 work.
19 Q. And if some of the people who believe what they read
20 don't know you or don't choose to ask you about it, do you
21 have any method of setting the record straight in your
22 mind?
23 A. No, I do not.
24 Q. Do you have any idea how that may some day affect
25 your job?

Page 189 of 257
185
1 A. It could have a very damaging effect on my job, my
2 career and my livelihood.
4 further.
5 THE COURT: Counsel, do you have anything
6 further of this witness? Call your next witness.
7 MS. PILATE: Your Honor, I just have one --
8 this exhibit has been identified by the
9 (inaudible).
10 THE COURT: What's the number on the
11 exhibit, counsel?
12 MS. PILATE: It's Defendant's Exhibit 1.
13 THE COURT: Any objection, counsel?
14 MS. PARKER: No, Your Honor.
15 THE COURT: Exhibit 1 is admitted.
18 MS. PARKER: Your Honor, the next witness
19 the government would call, Special Agent Walter Bob
20 Schaefer of the FBI.
22 sworn.)
23 WALTER ROBERT SCHAEFER,

Page 190 of 257
186
4 BY MS. PARKER:
5 Q. Would you state your name is spell your last name
6 for the record, please.
7 A. Walter Robert Schaefer, S C H A E F E R.
9 A. With the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Kansas
10 City division.
11 Q. And in the course of your employment, did you
12 conduct an investigation of allegations that Officers Jay
13 Bileck and Mickey Rantz of the Lawrence Police Department
14 were impersonating FBI officers?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And how did your involvement begin?
17 A. I was contacted by you about some allegations that
18 Lawrence PD were acting as FBI agents and the allegations
19 you relayed to me were made by Sarah Swain(ph).
20 Q. And did I tell you how to investigate?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Did I tell you what the conclusion of your
23 investigation should be?
24 A. No.
25 Q. What did I ask you to do?

Page 191 of 257
187
1 A. You asked me to investigate the allegations.
2 Q. And report back?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Did you do that?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. What did you do?
7 A. I went to Lawrence and met a Lawrence PD officer.
8 We --
9 Q. Do you remember the name of that Lawrence PD
10 officer?
11 A. Not off the top of my head, no.
12 Q. Was not Officer Rantz of Officer Bileck, was it?
13 A. No
14 Q. Or Officer McAtee -- Detective McAtee?
15 A. No.
16 Q. You met an officer and what did you and the officer
17 do?
18 A. We went over to Sarah Swain's office, she wasn't
19 there, we waited until she showed up. When she showed up,
20 we went inside, identified ourselves, told her I was there
21 regarding the allegations that she had made in an e-mail,
22 I believe, to you that she had a list of several people
23 who had been interviewed by the Lawrence PD who claimed
24 that the Lawrence PD was FBI agents. I asked her for that
25 list. She said she didn't have a list, that her

188
1 investigator, Cecelia Wood, had the list. I asked if I
2 could talk to Cecelia Wood.
3 Q. What did she say?
4 A. She said that she was out of town. So after that I
5 went back to Kansas City. I think it was about a day or
6 two later I got a call from Cecelia Wood, I said I'd like
7 to see the list of the people who claim that Lawrence PD
8 were impersonating FBI agents.
9 Q. And why did you want that list, why was it important
10 to your investigation?
11 A. Well, I had to talk to them to verify the
12 allegations that were being made.
13 Q. Did you ever receive a list from either Miss Swain
14 or Ms. Wood?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Did you have any contact with anybody in Lawrence
17 about these allegations?
18 A. What do you mean?
19 Q. Well, anybody with the police department?
20 A. Did I -- was I in contact with them?
21 Q. Well, did you interview anybody, did you review any
22 evidence, did you --
23 A. I talked --
24 Q. -- did you you listen to
25 A. Yeah, I talked to some of the police department

Page 193 of 257
189
1 individuals and they all claimed that they had not
2 identified themselves as FBI agents.
3 Q. Did you review a tape recording of the interview
4 with the person that they claimed had been saying that
5 FBI -- they were told that they were FBI agents?
6 A. Sarah Swain sent an affidavit of someone who -- and
7 if I -- if I remember correctly, the affidavit stated that
8 an individual from the Lawrence PD -- who they later
9 learned was from Lawrence PD identified themselves as a
10 federal agent or working with federal agents.
11 That affidavit I got several weeks after my
12 initial meeting with Sarah Swain.
13 Q. Was that the affidavit from Ms. Helm?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Were you ever able to make contact with Ms. Helm?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Why not?
18 A. Sarah Swain called and left me a voice mail message
19 on my voice mail saying I've set up a meeting in my office
20 with Ms. Helm on such-and-such date at such-and-such time.
21 I called her back, I said I was busy that day, I'd have to
22 reschedule. I never heard back from her. She sent a
23 letter to our office saying that I had stood her up at
24 this meeting, claimed that we weren't interested in
25 investigating this. My boss sent her a letter back saying

Page 194 of 257
190
1 if you want to set up a meeting with Agent Schaefer, you
2 have to do it verbally, you know, you can't just leave a
3 voice mail message. I never heard back from her since
4 then.
5 Q. Do you believe that you have done everything you can
6 to determine the truth of the allegations?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And after your investigation what conclusion did you
9 reach?
10 A. That the Lawrence PD did not act as FBI agents in
11 their investigation.
12 Q. All right. (Inaudible)?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Did you put together a (inaudible) file on this?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. I'm going to show you what's marked as Government's
17 Exhibit 15, can you identify that?
18 A. This is the initial e-mail from Sarah Swain to you,
19 as well as Mr. Bileck making the allegations that -- well,
20 I'll read it. "I have been contacted by numerous
21 individuals who have reported to me that they have been
22 accosted by federal agents or held against their will
23 and/or interrogated" --
24 Q. Before you read from that --
25 MS. PARKER: Your Honor, the government

191
1 would offer Government's Exhibit 15.
2 Q. (By Ms. Parker) These are all documents that are
3 (inaudible)?
4 A. Yes.
5 THE COURT: Mr. Duma, any objection?
6 MR. DUMA: No objection, Your Honor.
8 MS. PILATE: No objection.
10 Q. (By Ms. Parker) All right. Now you can read it.
11 A. This is from Sarah Swain. "I have been contacted by
12 numerous individuals who have reported to me that they
13 have been accosted by, quote, federal agents and held
14 against their will and/or interrogated against their will.
15 I have been in contact with numerous community
16 organizations. I would appreciate any help you could give
17 me getting to the bottom of this."
18 Q. (By Ms. Parker) And that was the initial complaint
19 that you tried to follow up on?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. But you were never able to obtain the necessary
22 information from Ms. Swain to support the allegations that
23 she or Ms. Helm were making?
24 A. No.
25 Q. Now, have you been following from time to time or

Page 196 of 257
192
1 are you aware of certain blogs that the Neighbors have
2 made alleging that you have not done your duty in this
3 case?
4 A. No, I haven't.
5 Q. All right. Let me your turn attention, there's a
6 notebook in front of you. If you would go to Exhibit 8A.
7 Okay. On the second page -- the top of the second page of
8 that exhibit, do you see where it said, "It is confirmed
9 by the Kansas City FBI that complaints involving Lawrence,
10 Kansas are only handled by the Topeka FBI and are not
11 within the jurisdiction of the Kansas City FBI agencies.
12 FBI agencies will only handle cases within their
13 jurisdiction. That that rule has been disregarded in this
14 case." Is that a true statement?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Why not?
17 A. I investigate cases anywhere in the Western District
18 of Missouri or all of Kansas. There are agents in the
19 Topeka RA that handle a certain territory, but that does
20 not confine them just to that area. They can still work
21 cases in other -- in other parts of the Kansas City
22 division's territory.
23 Q. And was there a coverup in this case?
24 A. No.

193
1 further.
2 THE COURT: Cross-examination.
3 CROSS-EXAMINATION
4 BY MR. DUMA:
5 Q. My understanding is that entire content of this
6 investigation done at the request of Sarah Swain who is a
7 licensed attorney in the state of Kansas, is that a
8 correct statement?
9 A. She's the one who made the initial allegations to
10 Marietta who then relayed them to me.
11 Q. And Ms. Swain is a licensed attorney, to your
12 knowledge?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And as such is an officer of the court?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. All right. So when she makes those sorts of
17 allegations, that's something that typically that your
18 office would take fairly seriously because as an officer
19 of the court if she makes allegations frivolously she
20 could lose her license to practice law?
21 A. I guess so, yeah.
22 Q. Are you an attorney?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Okay. I apologize for making that assumption.
25 In any event, you did want to follow

Page 198 of 257
194
1 through with that -- with these allegations because there
2 was an attorney that had specifically said I have
3 information that Lawrence PD are impersonating FBI agents,
4 correct?
5 A. Correct.
6 Q. Now, this Cecelia Wood, did you get her address or
7 did you get her cell phone or get any information where
8 you could contact her directly without having to go
9 through this attorney, Sarah Swain?
10 A. Yeah, I got her -- I believe it was her cell phone
11 number.
12 Q. Did you talk to Ms. Wood?
13 A. Yes, I did.
14 Q. And did Ms. Wood advise you that she had information
15 that she had received at the request or on behalf of
16 Ms. Swain about -- that would support the allegations that
17 the Lawrence PD had, in fact, been impersonating FBI
18 agents?
19 A. She said she had a list of about 10 to 12 names of
20 individuals who claimed Lawrence PD identified themselves
21 as FBI agents.
22 Q. And did you request that list from her?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Did you receive that list?
25 A. No.

Page 199 of 257
195
1 Q. Did you send her a subpoena of any sort, a grand
2 jury subpoena?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Did you have a way to contact her personally through
5 the information that you had?
6 A. Yes, I had her cell phone number.
7 Q. Did you go and talk to her personally about that
8 information?
9 A. No, I've only talked to her over the phone.
10 Q. Okay. Is there a reason why you wouldn't have gone
11 to somebody personally that supposed had the witnesses'
12 names of people that would support some pretty serious
13 allegations, why you just wouldn't have gone to her
14 personally and asked her for that information?
15 A. I did ask her for that information. She said she
16 didn't want to give it to me because they were afraid of
17 retributions from the Lawrence PD or someone else. As far
18 as I'm concerned, that's an attorney-client deal and
19 that's as far as I could go with it.
20 Q. Was Ms. Wood an attorney?
21 A. Uh, I don't believe so, no.
22 Q. Okay. So did you ever conference with one of the
23 attorneys at the Department of Justice to see whether, in
24 fact, that was an attorney-client privilege?
25 A. No.

Page 200 of 257
196
1 Q. Okay. Would it be fair to say that you did not
2 pursue this -- these allegations with very much fervor?
3 A. I don't think that would be fair to state, no. My
4 position is if you've got some allegations out there and
5 they don't want come forward with them, you know, what am
6 I going to do? I mean, her position was these people were
7 afraid to -- they didn't want their names given to me. I
8 mean, if someone's not going to make the allegation, what
9 am I supposed to do?
10 Q. Okay. Now Ms. Swain sent you an affidavit from
11 Ms. Helm, is that correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And was Ms. Helm, to your knowledge at the time the
14 affidavit was signed, a criminal defendant in any case?
15 A. Not to my knowledge, no.
16 Q. To your knowledge, was she a client of Ms. Swain?
17 A. I'm not sure.
18 Q. Can you tell us, please, what you did to follow up
19 in trying to ascertain the whereabouts of Ms. Helm?
20 A. I did leave a message with Sarah Swain that I would
21 like to talk to Ms. Helm in my office. And to call me and
22 set up some meeting and I never get a call back.
23 Q. Now, do you know that -- whether or not the
24 Neighbors called the Topeka division or office of the FBI
25 regarding this investigation?

Page 201 of 257
197
1 A. I believe Guy Neighbors stopped by the Topeka
2 office.
3 Q. And wasn't it true he was just trying to find out
4 what, in fact, had been done regarding this investigation?
5 A. I don't know what he was trying to find out. I know
6 he stopped by there, talked to some agents there.
7 Q. About this investigation involving the Lawrence PD
8 and the impersonation, correct?
9 A. I believe so.
10 Q. Well, did they -- do you know if they told him
11 whether or not there was, in fact, an investigation?
12 A. I think they told him that he was -- I think they
13 told him that they were aware he had been charged with a
14 crime and before he gave a statement, he might think about
15 going through his attorney first.
16 Q. Do you know whether or not they shared with him any
17 information regarding the underlying investigation into
18 the Lawrence Police Department?
19 A. I think he brought a binder full of -- of internet
20 notes and whatnot.
21 Q. Do you know if the agents there though answered his
22 questions about what had been done in relation to an
23 investigation to follow up as to what the Lawrence Police
24 Department was doing as it relates to the impersonation of
25 FBI agents?

Page 202 of 257
198
1 A. I don't know what they -- I don't know what they
2 told him.
3 Q. Did you have a conversation with him about the
4 meeting they had with Mr. Neighbors?
5 A. I think I got a voice mail from them saying they had
6 met with him and asked me to call them, I think, is
7 what -- I don't recall exactly what -- but they left me a
8 message saying that they had met with him. And I believe
9 they asked me to give him a call. 'Cause they were under
10 the impression that I didn't exist or something to that
11 effect or thought that it might be some type of coverup or
12 something like that.
13 Q. Did you, in fact, contact the Neighbors?
14 A. I believe I made a call to them and got an answering
15 machine.
16 Q. Did you know what the Neighbors' connection was with
17 these allegations, if they were coming from Ms. Swain?
18 A. I'm not following.
19 Q. Well, there were allegations coming through attorney
20 Sarah Swain --
21 A. Uh-huh.
22 Q. -- that somebody in the Lawrence Police Department
23 had been impersonating someone from the Federal Bureau of
24 Investigation, correct?
25 A. Correct.

Page 203 of 257
199
1 Q. Do you know what the connection was between Guy or
2 Carrie Neighbors as to her desire to have that
3 investigation proceed?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Okay. So as far as you know, they might have had
6 information that would, again, substantiate these
7 allegations that were out there?
8 A. If they did, I didn't get it.
9 Q. All right. Now, the allegations were specifically
10 as to Officer Bileck and Detective -- or strike that,
11 Officer Rantz out of the Lawrence PD, is that correct?
12 A. Uh, I don't think it was that specific. I think it
13 was that there were several Lawrence PD officers who were
14 impersonating FBI agents. I believe that was the general
15 allegation.
16 Q. Do you have the affidavit that Ms. Swain sent to you
17 from Ms. Helm?
18 A. No, I don't.
19 Q. Do you have your -- with you your case file
20 involving this investigation?
21 A. No, I don't have the case file, no.
22 Q. Is this Exhibit 15 that has a couple of e-mails and
23 a letter from Sarah Swain as well as a letter from, I
24 guess, your supervisor, that would not be the complete
25 case file in this matter, would it?

200
1 A. No, it wouldn't.
2 Q. Where would the investigative file in this matter be
3 currently located?
4 A. It's at our office.
5 Q. Do you know on how many occasions the Neighbors
6 would have contacted the FBI to find out what had happened
7 as a result of their investigation of the Lawrence Police
8 Department?
9 A. Do I know how many times they contacted our office?
10 A. Yes, sir.
11 A. No, I -- I don't think I've ever been contacted.
12 Q. Well, I think you said they contacted the Topeka
13 division --
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. -- on at least one occasion?
16 A. Right.
17 Q. Do you know on how many occasions they may have
18 contacted either the police or Topeka division or the
19 Kansas City division of the FBI regarding that?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Okay.
22 MR. DUMA: I don't have any further
23 questions. Thank you.

201
1 BY MS. PILATE:
2 Q. Agent Schaefer, I think you testified that you did
3 not interview any civilian witnesses in this
4 investigation, is that correct?
5 A. Uh --
6 Q. Other than any conversations you may have had with
7 Ms. Swain?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Okay. So you didn't talk to any of the persons who
10 were allegedly the recipients of these misrepresentations
11 as to their contacts with the police?
12 A. No.
13 Q. Okay. Now, you understood that the persons who had
14 been the recipients of this misinformation and
15 misrepresentation were witnesses in the case against Guy
16 and Carrie Neighbors, correct?
17 A. Correct.
18 Q. And your relationship with law enforcement is such
19 that you could have called up Ms. Parker, could you not
20 have, and asked her who are some of the witnesses in this
21 case?
22 A. I could have, yes.
23 Q. Okay. And if you had asked her that, she likely
24 would have provided you with names of witnesses against
25 Mr. and Ms. Neighbors, correct?

202
1 A. I would assume she would, yes.
2 Q. And you could have interviewed those witnesses to
3 see if they had been provided any misinformation about who
4 was contacting them, correct?
5 A. I could have.
6 Q. Okay. But you didn't do that, did you?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Now, are you aware of a meeting that occurred
9 between Agent Jentime(ph), am I pronouncing that right,
10 and Mr. Neighbors?
11 A. Just what I related before. I know he went in there
12 and met with him.
13 Q. Okay. Now, are you aware of any documents that were
14 turned over by Mr. Neighbors to Agent Jentime?
15 A. I don't know if he turned them over or brought them
16 with them, but what I read from Agent Jentime was that he
17 came in with a binder full of documents.
18 Q. Okay. And did you review any of those documents?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Are you aware of a statement made by a Brad
21 Perecko(ph) who states that he also was the recipient of
22 misinformation or misrepresentation as to the identity of
23 the law enforcement officers who were contacting him?
24 A. No.
25 Q. And did anyone ever tell you that Mr. Perecko stated

Page 207 of 257
203
1 that Agent Bileck said to Ms. Neighbors -- or said with
2 regard to Ms. Neighbors that she is going down and she
3 will take her husband with her?
4 A. No, I'm not aware of that.
5 Q. Okay. So you don't know that Mr. Perecko had given
6 a statement to this effect?
7 MS. PARKER: Objection, that assumes facts
8 not in evidence that he gave a statement. The
9 officer said he doesn't know anything about it.
10 THE COURT: I think -- listen to the
11 question juxtapose (inaudible). Do you understand
12 the present question?
13 THE WITNESS: Could you run it by me again?
15 Q. (By Ms. Pilate) Let's go back a couple steps. You
16 knew that Mr. Neighbors had brought in some, quote,
17 internet notes, some kind of binder, correct?
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. But you don't know what, if anything, he actually
20 turned over to Agent Jentime, correct?
21 A. No.
22 Q. And what I want to know is if Agent Jentime told you
23 anything about an allegation or allegations from a Brad
24 Perecko that he had been contacted by law enforcement
25 agents who held themselves out as federal agents or agents

Page 208 of 257
204
1 in connection with the federal investigation and that they
2 had said, with regard to Ms. Neighbors, she is going down
3 and she will take her husband with her?
4 A. I don't know anything about that.
5 Q. Okay. So Agent Jentime never told you that?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Okay. And specifically you were not aware that that
8 allegation in terms of any misrepresentation or any -- any
9 pressure that may have been implied in that, that that
10 concerned statements allegedly made by Officer Bileck,
11 you're not aware of that?
12 A. No.
13 Q. Okay. Have you ever investigated the Lawrence
14 Police Department other than this one investigation here?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Okay. Do you know of anybody in the FBI in this
17 area who has investigated the Lawrence Police Department?
18 MS. PARKER: Your Honor, at this point I'm
19 going to object to the broadness of the question.
20 I don't believe the issue is the Lawrence Police
21 Department, it is the witnesses -- specific
22 witnesses in this case who have been maligned.
23 THE COURT: Sustained.
24 Q. (By Ms. Pilate) Do you know if anyone in the FBI
25 has ever investigated any of the Lawrence police officers

205
1 whose actions are at issue in this case?
2 MS. PARKER: Objection, foundation.
3 There's no foundation that this agent knows who has
4 been involved in this investigation of the Lawrence
5 Police Department.
6 THE COURT: Well, the witness has already
7 answered. But the objection is overruled.
8 Q. (By Ms. Pilate) Okay. Agent Schaefer, you're aware
9 that there are a number of officers involved in this case,
10 correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Okay. And would those officers include Officer
13 Bileck?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Okay. And Officer Rantz, R A N T Z, are you
16 familiar with that?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And a Detective McAtee, correct?
19 A. Correct.
20 Q. Are you aware of any other officers or detectives
21 from the Lawrence Police Department who are involved with
22 this case?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Okay. With regard to those three, are you aware of
25 whether the local FBI in this area, in this region, has

Page 210 of 257
206
1 ever investigated any of those three officers?
2 A. I'm not aware.
3 Q. Okay. Do you know if the FBI has ever investigated
4 any allegations of evidence or property being lost or
5 otherwise disposed of by the Lawrence Police Department?
6 A. No, I'm not.
7 MS. PILATE: That's all I have. Thank you.
10 THE COURT: You may step down. Thank you.
12 THE COURT: Does the government have any
13 further witnesses?
14 MS. PARKER: I have two more, I think
15 they'll both be very brief. The next witness will
16 be Officer Mark Sarna.
18 sworn.)
19 MATTHEW D. SARNA,
25 BY MS. PARKER:

Page 211 of 257
207
1 Q. Would you state your name and spell your last name
2 for the record, please?
3 A. Matthew D. Sarna, S A R N A.
4 Q. And where are you employed, sir?
5 A. With the Lawrence, Kansas Police Department.
6 Q. And where do you live? Without giving a street
7 address, just tell us the street you live on, the hundred
8 block of what street?
9 A. I live in the 2700 block of Wild Flower Drive.
10 Q. And that's in Lawrence?
11 A. Yes, ma'am.
12 Q. Does any other -- do you live near Officer Jay
13 Bileck?
14 A. Yes, I do.
15 Q. How close are you to him?
16 A. I am three doors down from him.
17 Q. Would you describe the beginning of your street and
18 the end of your street? Does it go through east to west,
19 north to south, how is it configured.
20 A. Our street runs north to south with an adjoining
21 street that is in like a U-shape, which is Blue Stem
22 Drive. It is not a through street, though.
23 Q. All right. So your street is not a through street?
24 A. Correct.
25 Q. I want to direct your attention to April the 14th of

208
1 2008, this spring.
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. At that time did you know or were you familiar with
4 an individual by the name of Guy Neighbors?
5 A. Yes, I was.
6 Q. And how did you know Mr. Neighbors?
7 A. I've known Mr. -- the family for several years. My
8 previous assignment, I was assigned as a school resource
9 officer at Free State High School in Lawrence and had the
10 occasion to know their son who -- who went to school
11 there, Andy.
12 Q. And prior to April the 14th, had you ever had any
13 disagreements with or any problems with Mr. Neighbors?
14 A. No.
15 Q. No hard feelings?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Were you familiar with the type of vehicle he drove
18 or still drives?
19 A. One of them, yes.
20 Q. All right. Which one was that?
21 A. It was a white -- I believe it's a Ford truck with
22 the Professional Delivery Services on the side of it.
23 Q. That's a title that's written on the side of the
24 truck?
25 A. Yes.

Page 213 of 257
209
1 Q. Did you see Mr. Neighbors in that truck on your
2 street the morning of April the 14th?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. About what time?
5 A. It was about 10:30 or 11 o'clock, I was actually
6 outside on the porch with my son and saw him driving by to
7 the -- from the south to the north.
8 Q. All right. And the direction he was traveling, was
9 he traveling toward or away from Mr. Bileck's house?
10 A. He had already gone past Mr. Bileck's house and was
11 passing mine.
12 Q. All right. How fast was he going?
13 A. Not speeding by any means, 10 to 15 miles an hour.
14 Q. Reasonable, safe speed?
15 A. Right.
16 Q. Did you see him stop anywhere?
17 A. No, I did not.
18 Q. All right. Did you think anything about that
19 sighting at the time?
20 A. I just thought it was kind of odd that I knew that
21 Officer Bileck was in litigation in this case and I
22 thought it was kind of odd that he was over in that
23 neighborhood.
24 Q. He being Mr. Neighbors?
25 A. Mr. Neighbors, yes.

Page 214 of 257
210
1 Q. Didn't see anybody -- didn't see him stop and
2 deliver anything?
3 A. No, I did not.
4 Q. Didn't see him pick up anything?
5 A. No, I did not.
6 Q. Now I want to -- that was the only time, then, you
7 saw Mr. Neighbors in the truck on the 14th?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And you actually could see him, am I correct?
10 A. Yes, that time I could.
11 Q. Direct your attention to the evening of April the
12 15th of 2008.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Where were you?
15 A. I was actually in my garage that evening and was --
16 Q. At home?
17 A. Yes, at home.
18 Q. And did you see Mr. Neighbors' truck again?
19 A. As I walked out of the garage, I saw his truck near
20 the end of the block.
21 Q. All right. And which direction was it traveling,
22 toward or away from Mr. Bileck -- Officer Bileck's house?
23 A. Again, it was going from the south to the north.
24 Q. And going from south to north, is there any way he
25 could have gotten on your street and proceeded to where

Page 215 of 257
211
1 you saw the truck without passing Officer Bileck's house?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Now, were you able to see who was driving the truck
4 that time?
5 A. That night I did not see exactly who was driving.
6 Q. But you were certain it was that truck?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Again, did you see it stop anywhere?
9 A. No, I did not.
11 further.
12 THE COURT: Thank you. Cross-exam.
13 MR. DUMA: Nothing.
14 THE COURT: Ms. Pilate.
16 BY MS. PILATE:
17 Q. Is there a street that intersects in that area
18 called 27th?
19 A. 27th is the street that -- that he would be going
20 north to --
21 Q. Okay.
22 A. -- yes.
23 Q. Okay. And are you aware of any pick ups that
24 Mr. Neighbors may have made just around the corner there
25 on 27th?

212
1 A. No, I am not.
2 Q. And would you have any knowledge as to whether or
3 not he would have repeatedly been in that area 'cause he
4 had some customers there who needed a number of items
5 picked up?
6 A. No, I would not.
7 Q. And you acknowledge that on the side of this truck
8 it says delivery service?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And you're aware that in his shop -- or the shop
11 that he has with Ms. Neighbors, that they sell previously
12 owned goods, correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And are you aware that they sometimes pick up those
15 goods as a convenience for their customers and take them
16 to their store?
17 A. I'm not aware of that policy --
18 Q. Okay.
19 A. -- but that very well might be.
20 Q. And that they also deliver goods? Were you aware of
21 that?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Okay. So you wouldn't be surprised, for instance,
24 if you saw Mr. Neighbors out picking up or dropping off a
25 consumer item of some size?

213
1 A. No.
2 Q. Okay. So you don't know whether or not he has
3 customers there just around the corner, do you?
4 A. No, I do not.
5 Q. Okay. And, in fact, he might have customers
6 anywhere in Lawrence, isn't that correct?
7 A. Correct.
8 MS. PILATE: Okay. That's all I have.
9 MS. PARKER: Just two questions.
11 BY MS. PARKER:
12 Q. If Mr. Neighbors had a customer around the corner on
13 27th Street, would he need to drive by Officer Bileck's
14 house?
15 A. Wouldn't have to, no.
16 Q. And how many times since you've been in the house
17 that you live in have you seen Mr. Neighbors (inaudible)?
18 A. That -- those -- that one time only. Well, the one
19 time that I saw him. The other time I did not actually
20 see him in the truck, but saw his truck, yes.
21 Q. So the only two times you've seen Mr. Neighbors'
22 truck on your street were April 14th and April 15th?
23 A. Yes, ma'am.
24 Q. How long have you lived there?
25 A. I've lived there approximately ten years.

214
1 MS. PARKER: Thank you. Nothing further.
2 THE COURT: Thank you, Officer. Next
3 witness.
4 MS. PILATE: I'm sorry, I just had one more
5 question.
6 THE COURT: Go ahead. Hopefully that means
7 one as opposed to double the number.
8 MS. PILATE: No, it's very short.
9 RECROSS-EXAMINATION
10 BY MS. PILATE:
11 Q. Do you know whether or not Mr. Neighbors may have
12 used this street that you saw him on to turn around so
13 that he could come back the right way onto 27th Street and
14 enter a driveway?
15 A. I don't understand the question.
16 Q. Okay. Is it possible that the street where you saw
17 him could be used by him or any other motorist to
18 essentially change their direction of travel on 27th
19 Street by entering this street and then doing the loop and
20 coming out?
21 A. Yes.
22 MS. PILATE: Okay. That's all I have.
23 Thank you.
24 THE COURT: Okay. You may step down.
25 Thank you, Office. Next witness.

215
2 MS. PARKER: Your Honor, as the last
3 witness the government would call, post
4 administrator David Nitz.
6 sworn.)
7 DAVID NITZ,
13 BY MS. PARKER:
14 Q. Would you state your name, please, and spell your
15 last name for the court reporter?
16 A. David Nitz, spelled N I T Z.
18 A. The United States Postal Inspector's Office.
19 Q. And have you been involved in the investigation of
20 the -- well, an investigation called the Yellow House
21 investigation?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And how did your involvement begin? When was that?
24 A. My involvement began in approximately the latter
25 half of November of 2005 or '6, just before the first

216
1 search warrants that were in December.
2 Q. And that first search warrant, that was issued by a
3 state judge, is that correct?
4 A. Correct.
5 Q. All right. At that time was the US Attorney's
6 Office or any federal prosecuting body involved in that
7 investigation?
8 A. Not at that time, no.
9 Q. And were you aware that there was a press conference
10 that the Lawrence Police Department gave after that first
11 search warrant?
12 A. I was not aware of it at the time, no.
13 Q. You have since become aware of it?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. But you were not involved in that?
16 A. No, I was not.
17 Q. And was any other federal agent involved in that
18 press conference that you know of?
19 A. Not that I know of, no.
20 Q. And when did you present the initial investigation
21 to the US Attorney's Office?
22 A. Initial information was presented for the next
23 couple months after that.
24 Q. Not until long after that press conference?
25 A. Correct.

Page 221 of 257
217
1 Q. All right. Now have you been from time to time
2 following the Yellow House blogs, either on the corruption
3 in justice site or the Yellow House blog spot site?
4 A. Yes, I have seen them from time to time, yes.
5 Q. And have you read allegations that there is evidence
6 missing from the evidence room that was collected in some
7 of the search warrants that were issued in this case?
8 A. Yes, I have read those allegations.
9 Q. Now, have you gone to the evidence room and actually
10 inventoried the evidence that has been collected in all of
11 those search warrants?
12 A. I have.
13 Q. All right. And there were a number of people that
14 were working on that inventory at the time, correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. All right. And who was on that inventory team?
17 A. Myself, Special Agent Rob Jackson-Birez(ph) was
18 present, I believe, you were present, Officer Jay Bileck
19 was present, and I believe Officer Rantz was present, but
20 I'm not sure.
21 Q. And the evidence technician or custodian there at
22 the Lawrence Police Department was also involved in some
23 of the --
24 A. Yes. Yea, they were present also.
25 Q. And after that inventory was taken, did you find

218
1 that there was any evidence missing?
2 A. No, all the evidence was accounted for either by
3 being present -- present in the evidence room or had been
4 returned and the proper documentation with that.
5 Q. When you say it was returned, returned to the
6 rightful owners?
7 A. Correct.
8 Q. All right. And in some instances were a few things
9 returned to the Neighbors?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And all of the items that were returned were
12 properly documented and accounted for, correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Were there any guns missing?
15 A. No.
16 Q. How many guns were there, if you remember?
17 A. Eleven guns, I believe.
18 Q. And in the course of this investigation, have the
19 defendants from time to time on their blogs acknowledged
20 that they know you're involved in this investigation?
21 A. Yes, numerous times.
22 Q. Have you been informed that you will be a witness in
23 this case?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Have you received any direct communication from

Page 223 of 257
219
1 either Guy or Carrie Neighbors during the course of your
2 investigation since the charges were filed in this case?
3 A. Yes, I have.
4 Q. Would you tell the Judge what kind of direct
5 communication you've had and who it's come from?
6 A. I have received e-mails to my inspection service
7 e-mail address, my official government e-mail address,
8 from Guy Neighbors using the e-mail address Guy Smiley, I
9 can't remember the exact address, but it's Guy Smiley.
10 Q. I'm going to show you on of the exhibits, Exhibit
11 9A, is this an example of the kind of communication you
12 have received over the months from Mr. Neighbors?
13 A. Yes, it is.
14 Q. And tell the Court what Exhibit 9A is.
15 A. 9A is an e-mail dated as being sent Thursday, April
16 24th, 2008 at 3:25 a.m. from Guy N and then in brackets,
17 guysmiley@hotmail.com.
18 Q. And in the course of your investigation, have you
19 obtained information on who the subscribers to the e-mail
20 address Guy Smiley is?
21 A. I have.
22 Q. Show you Government's Exhibit 9L. Do you recognize
23 that document?
24 A. Yes, I do.
25 Q. What is that document?

Page 224 of 257
220
1 A. That is a document provided by eBay/PayPal in
2 reference to the yellow hair bargains, Yellow House store,
3 bargain guide 44, their e-mail for their eBay accounts and
4 it also references physical addresses of the Yellow House
5 store and -- and of their residence.
6 Q. And does this document contain information about the
7 guysmiley@hotmail.com (inaudible)?
8 A. Yes, it does. It lists it has as a PayPal.
10 government offers Exhibit 9L.
11 MR. DUMA: No objection by Ms. Neighbors.
12 THE COURT: Miss Pilate, how about you?
14 THE COURT: 9L is admitted.
15 Q. (By Ms. Parker) Going to the bottom entry there
16 under 9L, number 2, the Ppal e-mail address
17 guysmiley@hotmail.com, what is the name of the
18 accountholder?
19 A. The name of the accountholder is Guy Neighbors.
20 Q. And what is the address of that account?
21 A. Yellow House store, Topeka, 1104 Andover, Lawrence,
22 Kansas.
23 Q. And do you know what's located at 1104 Andover?
24 A. 1104 Andover is the residence of Guy and Carrie
25 Neighbors.

Page 225 of 257
221
1 Q. Now, how many e-mails have you received directly
2 from the Guy N. or Guy Smiley address?
3 A. I think there were approximately 11 prior to filing
4 of original motions. There's been another 12 or so prior
5 to this weekend and there were three this weekend.
6 Q. All right. When you say 11 prior to the filing of
7 this -- you mean the motion to revoke bond?
8 A. Correct.
9 Q. All right. And after the filing of the motion, how
10 many have you received?
11 A. Including the ones this weekend, probably about 15
12 or 16.
13 Q. And directing your attention to Government's
14 Exhibit 20.
15 A. Is it in here?
16 Q. If it's not, I have a copy, let me show it to you.
17 Let me give you -- do you recognize that?
18 THE COURT: Counsel, what's the exhibit
19 reference?
20 MS. PARKER: Exhibit 20.
21 THE COURT: With no suffix, no A, B or C
22 suffix?
23 MS. PARKER: Oh, no, it's just plain old
24 20.

Page 226 of 257
222
1 Q. (By Ms. Parker) Do you recognize that e-mail?
2 A. Yes, this was an e-mail that was sent from Guy N. on
3 Saturday, July 19th, approximately 1303 hours and it was
4 sent to me.
5 Q. And that contains some new allegations of wrongdoing
6 on the part of some of the agents, correct?
7 A. Yes. Specifically, the allegation in the title is
8 that officers -- it says Michael Rantz and Mike McAtee
9 were less than honest in the hearing on Friday, July 18th.
10 Q. Now, one more question. You said that from time to
11 time there have been allegations made that there have been
12 (inaudible)?
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. Related to these things?
15 A. Correct.
16 Q. And how many guns were (inaudible)?
17 A. I was able to account for 11.
18 Q. I'll show you what's been marked as Exhibit 21 and
19 ask you if you can identify that?
20 A. Uh --
21 Q. (Inaudible).
22 A. Yes, it is. And this one is -- was directed to Dave
23 Corliss.
24 Q. (Inaudible).
25 A. According to the address at the top, it looks like

223
1 City of Lawrence address, e-mail address?
2 Q. (Inaudible).
3 A. Yes, it is.
5 government offers Government's Exhibit 21.
7 Miss Pilate?
9 MS. PARKER: (Inaudible).
11 Counsel, did you offer Exhibit 20?
12 MS. PARKER: If I did not, I'd offer it
13 now. I meant to.
14 THE COURT: Mr. Duma, any objection?
17 MS. PILATE: Uh, none, Your Honor.
19 Q. (By Ms. Parker) Going to -- now I'm back on
20 Exhibit 21, the -- would you read that first paragraph in
21 its entirety, "The reason."
22 A. Okay. "The reason I Massachusetts on -- am writing
23 you today is due to my concerns of the conduct of the
24 Lawrence Police Department in the investigation of our
25 business, the Yellow House store," Yellow House store is

Page 228 of 257
224
1 in quotes. "On December 2nd, 2005, Lawrence police issued
2 a search warrant on our business and our home. There were
3 no charges filed as a result of the warrant. However,
4 more than $10,000 in property was confiscated during the
5 search from both our home and business. Included in the
6 seized property were 11 guns that were securely unloaded
7 and stored in a locked gun safe."
8 Q. So according to this e-mail sent to one of the
9 Lawrence city commissioners on April the 29th of 2006,
10 Mr. Neighbors acknowledges that 11 guns were seized, is
11 that correct? Is that a fair reading?
12 A. That is a fair reading, yes.
14 further.
15 THE COURT: Cross-exam?
16 MR. DUMA: Thank you, Your Honor.
18 BY MR. DUMA:
19 Q. Mr. Nitz, the Neighbors got your e-mail from you,
20 would that be a true statement?
21 A. Yes, it would have been likely from my business
22 partner.
23 Q. You gave it to them because initially you had asked
24 them to provide you some information, tax records, et
25 cetera?

225
1 A. No, that is not correct.
2 Q. Is it something that you had given to them, I guess
3 on a business card, is that correct?
4 A. Yes. The business card would have -- my business
5 card would have likely been left at the business and/or
6 residence during the execution of the federal search
7 warrants that I had obtained and those were executed in
8 July.
9 Q. You received Exhibit Number 20 --
10 A. Correct.
11 Q. -- is that right? And you were here when we had the
12 first several hours of this hearing last Friday, correct?
13 A. Yes, I was.
14 Q. On page 2 of Exhibit Number 20, it basically sets
15 out, according to the document itself, what Mr. Neighbors
16 observed occurred at the time of the hearing, would you
17 agree with that?
18 A. I would have to assume that since this came from Guy
19 that that was his account of what occurred during the
20 hearing.
21 Q. And he says here on this -- go down to the third
22 line there on -- we're on page 2 of Exhibit 20, and it
23 says, "It was clear to me the officers that took the stand
24 and I felt like they were less than truthful." Isn't that
25 what it says?

226
1 A. That is what it says.
2 Q. And that's Mr. Neighbors' opinion according to the
3 document itself, correct?
4 A. Correct.
5 Q. All right. And then down a little bit further and
6 it said that Officer Rantz had talked about all the stress
7 that it had -- been caused by these blogs and that -- but
8 when the Judge asked Officer Rantz if anyone told him they
9 believed he was guilty of the stuff that I posted,
10 Officer Rantz said, no. Now, you were here Friday,
11 correct?
12 A. Yes, I was.
13 Q. And that's exactly what Officer Rantz did say, isn't
14 that true?
15 A. Something to that effect. The Court record would be
16 a better reflection of that.
17 Q. Okay. And then down a little bit further it talks
18 about, "Officer Mike McAtee admitted that he has been
19 approached at least twice from other people in the police
20 department about the rumors of his alleged illegal drug
21 activity, wow, so people on the department have heard the
22 same thing as I posted." Do you see that down there?
23 A. Yes, I do see that sentence.
24 Q. All right. And wouldn't you agree that as a result
25 of the hearing Friday, if anything, defendant explained

Page 231 of 257
227
1 where the Neighbors were hearing the rumors in the
2 community, in the Lawrence community, about Officer
3 McAtee, correct?
4 A. I believe Officer McAtee's testimony reflected that
5 those occasions were basically false, the allegations by
6 Guy and Carrie.
7 Q. Officer McAtee testified that there had been other
8 allegations previously that he had been accused of using
9 drugs even -- prior ever even hearing about the Neighbors,
10 correct?
11 A. That I'm -- I don't follow.
12 Q. Okay. And then wouldn't it be a fair
13 encapsulization of this page 2 of Government's Exhibit 20
14 to say that if a reporter had been sitting back here in
15 court on Friday and had reported what was testified to at
16 the time, it would be very similar to what is contained on
17 page 2 of Exhibit 20?
18 A. I don't know if that's what a reporter would get out
19 of that testimony in that hearing or not.
20 Q. But it's a possibility?
21 A. I think it would be not a possibility considering
22 some of the activities allegedly took place outside the
23 courtroom, the e-mails, and reporters in here would not
24 have seen that.
25 Q. Okay. Now, as to Exhibit Number 21, this document

Page 232 of 257
228
1 was sent to Dave Corliss he is a city commissioner in
2 Lawrence, is that correct?
3 A. I'm not sure what his position, but I believe he is
4 with the City of Lawrence in some capacity.
5 Q. Basically, it talks about the concern that Guy
6 Neighbors had with the way that there was a search warrant
7 issued on their business and home and he was complaining
8 that, in fact, they were innocent people that had worked
9 in Lawrence for many, many years and they felt like they
10 were being unjustly accused of a crime. Would that be a
11 fair reading of this document?
12 A. I would need to read through it again, but that is
13 probably what he is putting forth in that e-mail.
14 Q. All right. And so as a law enforcement officer, if
15 a defendant says to you, this is not fair, I didn't do
16 anything wrong, you come into my house and you've
17 disrupted my business and my life, that's not going to
18 affect your moving forward with the underlying prosecution
19 of the case, is it?
20 A. No, it is not.
21 Q. All right. Thank you.
22 MR. DUMA: No further questions.
25 BY MS. PILATE:

Page 233 of 257
229
1 Q. Inspector Nitz, you're not claiming that you've been
2 harmed in any way by receiving these e-mails, are you?
3 A. Not directly by the fact that I'm receiving them.
4 There are other people listed on there that are receiving
5 them that could possibly see my name on there.
6 Q. And how would you have been harmed by other people
7 seeing the e-mails?
8 A. Because some of the e-mails are reflective upon what
9 this investigation is going and allegations of wrongdoing,
10 that investigation in which I am a part of.
11 Q. Okay. And has any non-law enforcement person, a
12 citizen, ever come to you and said, Inspector Nitz, I'm
13 concerned about how you're handling this investigation?
14 A. No, I have never had anybody come to me and say that
15 I'm concerned about --
16 Q. So your -- your reputation out there in the
17 community has not been harmed, is that correct?
18 A. I don't know that. I've had others that have
19 contacted me that know nothing about this case and said
20 they found the information about it. So I don't know who
21 all would have the information.
22 Q. But with regard to these e-mails, you're not making
23 any claim that these e-mails have harmed your reputation
24 or at least you don't have any evidence of that, would
25 that be correct?

Page 234 of 257
230
1 A. I don't -- I don't know whether it has been or not.
2 There's media --
3 Q. Okay. Well, I'm asking if you have evidence of any
4 harm to your reputation?
5 A. Not from the e-mails, no.
6 Q. Who is Rob Jackson?
7 A. Rob Jackson is a special agent with the IRS.
8 Q. Are you aware of an allegation concerning missing
9 laptop computers?
10 A. Uh, by who?
11 Q. Computers that belong to the Neighbors that are
12 missing.
13 A. Oh, yes, there has been an allegation.
14 Q. Okay. And have you resolved that issue?
15 A. Yes, there is no evidence of missing computers. In
16 fact, none of them are missing.
17 Q. And how many laptops were seized?
18 A. I'd have to go back to the documents, but there were
19 approximately, I believe, maybe during the first search
20 warrant, five computers seized that I've not -- I would
21 have to look at the documentation to be sure. And during
22 the second search warrant of the computers that were
23 received, one of those was also one that had been seized
24 in the first search warrant and had been returned to the
25 Neighbors. And so during the second search warrant, that

231
1 computer would have been seized again.
2 Q. So how many laptops are presently in the custody of
3 law enforcement with regard to this investigation?
4 A. I'd have to go back to the evidence document to find
5 that out.
6 Q. You just don't know sitting here today?
7 A. No, that without looking at those. I could say a
8 number and it could be wrong.
9 Q. And you, in fact, provided the Neighbors with your
10 e-mail address, correct?
11 A. I would have provided a business card that does have
12 my e-mail address on it either during the searches or
13 during a meeting we had with them afterwards.
14 Q. And you're not claiming that you personally have
15 been influenced or intimidated or anything like that from
16 having those e-mails land in your in-box, are you?
17 A. It's not just the e-mails, but it's the content of
18 the blogs that reference me (inaudible).
19 Q. I'm asking you about the e-mails. Were you harmed
20 in any way by those e-mails landing in your in-box? Are
21 you intimidated or influenced by receiving an e-mail?
22 A. Uh, it is one in which it seems to be the rhetoric
23 of everything that they send out, which is, we're sending
24 this to people so that we can hopefully have an influence
25 on the investigation to stop the investigation.

232
1 Q. But are --
2 A. Specifically (inaudible).
3 Q. -- you influenced when you receive an e-mail
4 containing Mr. Neighbors' point of view, are you
5 influenced to do something as a result of that?
6 A. If you're asking if I'm going to discontinue my
7 investigation because of them, then the answer is no.
8 Q. Okay. And you're not intimidated from that e-mail,
9 are you?
10 A. Not intimidated to stop the investigation, no.
11 Q. Okay. Were you intimidated in some other way?
12 You're a law enforcement officer. Are you saying you're
13 intimidated by an e-mail landing in your in-box?
14 A. I understand what I believe to be the intent of the
15 e-mails, which is to stop the investigation.
16 Q. Okay. And is it the right of every citizen when
17 they think the government is doing wrong to petition the
18 government and point out what they think the -- the flaw
19 or the shortcoming or the problem is?
20 A. Correct. There's a process by which the individual
21 can petition the government.
22 Q. For redress --
23 A. It's not through e-mails.
24 Q. -- of grievances, correct?
25 A. Correct. But the standard protocol is not to send

233
1 an e-mail to (inaudible).
2 Q. But, in fact, you provided your e-mail address to
3 Mr. Neighbors, did you not?
4 A. It is on --
5 THE COURT: Counsel, we've covered this I
6 think four times.
7 MS. PILATE: Okay. And I just have a few
8 more questions. I'm almost finished.
9 Q. (By Ms. Pilate) And with regard to the e-mail to
10 Mr. Corliss, which is Exhibit 21, did you note anything in
11 that e-mail that was in any way intended to intimidate
12 anyone?
13 A. I would to read through that entire e-mail.
14 Q. Okay. Do you want to --
15 A. Sure.
16 Q. -- just take a quick 30 seconds.
17 A. Towards the bottom Guy Neighbors mentions, "I
18 believe the only crime that we have committed is the fact
19 that we are a bi-racial couple." The intent, as I read it
20 of the e-mail, is to have an influence to discontinue the
21 investigation.
22 Q. And isn't Guy Neighbors saying there that in his
23 opinion he and Carrie haven't done anything wrong?
24 A. That is what they are saying.
25 Q. Okay.

234
1 A. That is what he is saying.
2 Q. And isn't Mr. Neighbors --
3 MS. PARKER: Your Honor, I'm going to
4 object. This is about the third time he's not been
5 allowed to complete his answer. And I would
6 request he be allowed to do so.
7 Q. (By Ms. Pilate) Go ahead, sir.
8 A. Could you restate that last question?
9 Q. I am not sure I can accurately restate the last
10 question. What was your last answer?
11 A. Well now I've been interrupted a couple times and so
12 I don't remember what the reference of the question
13 exactly.
14 THE COURT: Let's try it again.
15 Q. (By Ms. Pilate) Okay. We were talking, I believe,
16 about whether or not Mr. Neighbors was entitled to express
17 his point of view that he did not think that he and
18 Ms. Neighbors had done anything wrong. Do you believe
19 they're entitled to address that point of view?
20 A. I do not believe there was any problem or anything
21 committed being wrong by them sending the e-mail to
22 Mr. Corliss.
23 Q. Okay. And, in fact, in this e-mail does he not
24 reference the fact that he and Ms. Neighbors have been
25 involved in Big Brothers and Big Sisters, have been

Page 239 of 257
235
1 involved in foster care, have been involved in their
2 church, those aren't exactly things intended to intimidate
3 or scare somebody with, are they?
4 A. I believe their intention of this may be to go with
5 the fact that the -- the sentence following that, "I
6 believe the only crime we're committed is the fact that we
7 are a bi-racial couple."
8 Q. Well, isn't it true that in society some people
9 maybe have feelings, even today, about interracial
10 couples?
11 A. I don't know that I'd feel comfortable commenting
12 about what other people's thoughts are on -- on bi-racial
13 couples.
14 Q. Well, isn't that something Mr. Neighbors is entitled
15 to have an opinion about, to wonder if people look at them
16 a certain way because they are an interracial couple?
17 Could he not have an opinion about that?
18 A. He could.
19 Q. Is there anything intimidating about expressing
20 that?
21 A. Not about expressing that, no.
22 MS. PILATE: Okay. That's all the
23 questions I have.

Page 240 of 257
236
1 THE COURT: You may step down. Thank you,
2 Mr. Nitz.
4 MS. PARKER: That's all the evidence the
5 United States has.
6 THE COURT: Is that all the evidence? How
7 much evidence do you think you're going to have, if
8 any?
9 MR. DUMA: Your Honor, we have (inaudible).
11 MS. PILATE: None for Mr. Neighbors.
12 THE COURT: Counsel, first of all, I want
13 to confirm that the exhibit sheet that I've been
14 running is accurate and squares with your notes.
15 Please follow along. My notes indicate the
16 following exhibits have been admitted by
17 stipulation: 1A and 1B, 2A through 2D inclusive,
18 3, 4, 5A through 5C inclusive, 6, 7, 8A through 8H
19 inclusive, 9A through 9J inclusive. And further,
20 although not originally as part of the stipulation
21 at the beginning of the hearing, my notes indicate
22 that we received into evidence some of these over
23 objections. But in any event, Exhibits 9L, 13
24 through 16 inclusive, 18 through 20 inclusive. As
25 well as 20A, B, C. Exhibit 21. And finally

237
1 Defendant's Exhibit 1.
2 First of all, are there any of those
3 exhibits that I've listed as having been received
4 into evidence that your notes indicate were not
5 actually admitted? Ms. Parker?
6 MS. PARKER: Your Honor, I believe this is
7 an accurate reflection of our notes.
8 THE COURT: Mr. Duma?
9 MR. DUMA: (Inaudible.)
11 MS. PILATE: I don't disagree.
12 THE COURT: Are there any exhibits that I
13 did not inventory that any of the parties believe
14 were admitted or that they care now to offer?
15 MS. PARKER: Your Honor, may I make one
16 correction? I believe that part of the
17 government's initial attachment to its motion
18 included Government's Exhibit 9K, which we meant to
19 offer if we didn't as part of the voluminous
20 Exhibit 9. So if we haven't offered it, we would
21 do so now.
25 MS. PILATE: What is 9K?

Page 242 of 257
238
1 THE COURT: It's an e-mail dated April 25,
2 2008.
3 MS. PILATE: From Mr. Neighbors?
4 MS. PARKER: Yes, to Inspector Nitz.
6 THE COURT: Exhibit 9L -- excuse me,
7 Exhibit 9K is admitted by stipulation.
8 Okay, counsel, any other exhibits that you
9 meant to offer which are not part of the record?
10 Hearing none, there's some additional work I'd like
11 you to do before the Court makes a ruling and
12 indeed, before we even hear the closing argument,
13 if that's your desire to present.
14 First of all, Ms. Parker, may I safely
15 assume that the only statements about which the
16 government complains among the voluminous e-mail
17 record that's before us are those that are
18 specifically inventoried either in the original
19 motion or the reply brief in support of the motion?
20 MS. PARKER: No, Your Honor, I think that
21 the government is relying on all of the statements
22 that the government has offered evidence on that
23 are contained in all exhibits.
24 THE COURT: Very well. In order to -- and
25 that was my concern. In order to narrow the

Page 243 of 257
239
1 record, especially as there are First Amendment
2 considerations here, I do want proposed findings of
3 fact and conclusions of law that, as opposed to
4 incorporation by reference to today's record or
5 exhibits in general, I want to know specifically
6 verbatim by page number, line, entire statement,
7 statements about which the government contends form
8 the basis of either witness intimidation, criminal
9 defamation under state law, or improper contact
10 with witnesses in violation of that aspect of the
11 order setting conditions of release.
12 Can the government submit its proposed
13 findings by Friday of this week?
14 MS. PARKER: We will work as hard as we can
15 to get that done.
16 THE COURT: Government shall have until
17 Friday of this week to file its proposed findings
18 of facts and conclusions of law and by Wednesday of
19 next week I'd like for each of the defendants to
20 file a proposed findings and conclusions in
21 opposition and the government will have until two
22 weeks from today in which to file any closing you
23 want.
24 One of the issues, counsel, that I'd like
25 you all to look at would be given the state of the

Page 244 of 257
240
1 record, what inference the Court should draw, for
2 that matter may draw, about the truth or falsity of
3 the statements in question. The state of the
4 evidence before us simply has the assertions in the
5 e-mails. Second, the testimony of the officers to
6 the effect that most of the statements are false
7 and then silence from the defense side of the
8 aisle.
9 Now I am inclined to assume that because of
10 the Fifth Amendment considerations that the
11 defendants and their attorneys have made a tactical
12 and strategic decision not to have the defendants
13 testify. But given the state of the record,
14 frankly, I'm inclined to conclude factually that
15 the statements complained of are false since
16 there's no evidence in this record to suggest that
17 the statements are true.
18 As a subset of that issue, if the
19 defendants' position is that they -- there are
20 Fifth Amendment considerations that effectively
21 preclude them from testifying, I'd like the benefit
22 of your legal research on whether the situation now
23 before the Court is analogous to that which would
24 obtain in a civil litigation where a civil
25 defendant asserts the Fifth Amendment privilege,

Page 245 of 257
241
1 but nonetheless stands at the risk of having that
2 communication privilege used as the basis for an
3 adverse inference to at the trial of the civil
4 litigation. That issue has not been briefed, but
5 it seems to be implicit in this entire record.
6 Also, I would like counsel to brief as part
7 of the conclusions of law section of these
8 post-hearing (inaudible) whether rhetorical
9 questions, questions that appear on the face to be
10 purely rhetorical, may form the basis of a finding
11 of defamation. What I'm driving at here is many of
12 the statements -- perhaps not all of them, but many
13 of the statements that we're talking about are
14 couched in terms of, well, what if, Detective
15 McAtee's is a crook? What if Prosecutor Parker or
16 Morehead racists?
17 You know, a possible conclusion is that the
18 mere framing of the comment would preclude a
19 finding of defamation. I'm not sure that's the
20 law. I'm not sure that simply by raising a
21 rhetorical question and impugning the professional
22 reputation of folks, that that's necessarily a safe
23 harbor. And I'd like that to be researched.
24 And finally and perhaps most important in
25 my judgment, I would like counsel to brief whether

Page 246 of 257
242
1 a finding by the Court, based on the documentary
2 record, that one or both of the defendants is
3 mentally ill would necessarily preclude a finding
4 that their bond ought to be revoked. I do have
5 grave concerns after looking through these e-mails
6 about whether the defendants are competent to stand
7 trial. And given the time during which these
8 e-mails have been written, I also have concerns
9 about whether they were suffering from mental
10 illness at the time of the offenses charged in the
11 Indictment.
12 I really can't tell or at least haven't
13 made any final conclusion at this point as to
14 what's going on here. Defendants' written position
15 seems to be what's involved here is simply a
16 vigorous debate about the conduct of public
17 officials and that that's fair commentary to make
18 by the defendants in this criminal case. And if I
19 conclude, based on the evidence as a whole,
20 notwithstanding the defendants' silence and
21 conspicuous failure to challenge the officers'
22 testimony during this hearing that they were
23 engaged in Fifth Amendment -- excuse me, a First
24 Amendment debate and that would necessarily result
25 in a finding that their bond ought not be revoked.

Page 247 of 257
243
1 At the other end of the spectrum, it seems
2 for me, is a conclusion that could be reached based
3 on this record is that these two defendants have
4 been engaged in a systematic, not very subtle, not
5 very smart character assassination of government
6 agents simply doing their jobs. I haven't made a
7 conclusion that that's going on. I want to think
8 about this and see what I come up with in the
9 findings.
10 My hunch is, based on what's been submitted
11 thus far, without benefit of any oral argument you
12 all want to submit, is that these two defendants
13 are very possibly mentally ill and cannot control
14 their behavior. I mean, for the life of me, I'm
15 sure this has been made clear to both of these
16 defendants by their very experienced criminal
17 defense counsel, to make these kind of statements
18 during the pendency of a criminal case, seems to me
19 potentially to be tantamount to legal suicide.
20 An option that I would think any defendant
21 in any case, whether it be criminal or civil, would
22 want to have is to testify at trial in his or her
23 defense in order to challenge what the government
24 agents are saying. Oftentimes defendants, for a
25 lot of reasons, elect not to testify in a criminal

Page 248 of 257
244
1 case. But if you want to have the option to
2 testify in a criminal case, it seems to me thus
3 far, Mr. and Mrs. Neighbors, you've done nothing
4 but open the door to a lot of collateral
5 impeachment testimony and it will be very
6 difficult, it not impossible, for you or your
7 lawyers to confine the scope of testimony at your
8 trial.
9 So I suspect what you've done is take a
10 very bad case and make it worse. And the fact that
11 you've probably done that in violation of the
12 advice that you're getting from your lawyers is one
13 of the things that makes me wonder about whether
14 you are, from a mental perspective, competent to
15 stand trial. And I say that not to be
16 uncharitable, that's really more an observation
17 than a criticism.
18 Counsel, I will await further briefing that
19 I've indicated from you. And if any of the three
20 parties feel it would be helpful to reconvene to
21 present closing argument or focus the written
22 submissions, I will afford that opportunity to any
23 of the three parties.
24 In the vein hopes that it might be heated,
25 I will repeat an admonition that I thought I made

Page 249 of 257
245
1 clear at the close of Friday's hearing, but which
2 was obviously ignored. Notwithstanding some of the
3 blogs that have been introduced during today's
4 hearing, I did not state, imply or suggest anything
5 during last Friday's hearing from which these
6 defendants could have reasonably inferred that I
7 thought it was a smart idea for them to continue to
8 blog. And yet they've done so, for whatever
9 reason.
10 I would strongly suggest you stop blogging
11 about this case. For the reasons I've indicated.
12 And I say that irrespective of whether ultimately
13 if this case goes to trial, your allegations of
14 police misconduct are proven. It is simply not a
15 smart thing to do.
16 Now, this blogging that I've seen before or
17 in this record, even if I assume that it was an
18 attempt at First Amendment debate and commentary on
19 the conduct of public officials and even if I
20 conclude it's not an intentional effort of
21 character assignation of government agents just
22 doing their job, it strikes me as no more, at best
23 from the defendants' perspective, than junior high
24 gossip lines from girls. This sort of commentary
25 in terms of repetition of rumors that are

Page 250 of 257
246
1 unsubstantiated, done very the veil of rhetorical
2 questions, seems to me, at best, immature, if not
3 reckless. And indeed, I think it's cowardly. It's
4 just cowardly.
5 If you or any other citizen has a specific
6 complaint about a public official, whether it be
7 Detective McAtee or Judge O'Hara, and you have
8 specifics, by all means, fire away. But to raise
9 these blogisphere e-mail driven commentary about, I
10 heard some unnamed customer tell me that they heard
11 from somebody else that some government agent is a
12 bad person, it's cowardly. And I say that
13 irrespective of whether I revoke your bond or let
14 you continue blogging. In my judgment, this sort
15 of person is cowardly. This is the antithesis, in
16 my judgment, of the vigorous, robust informed
17 debate that the founders of the constitution really
18 envisioned. It just doesn't -- it doesn't reflect
19 very well on (inaudible).
20 I'll reserve final judgment based on the
21 written submissions and any request for oral
22 argument.
23 Ms. Parker, is there anything else at this
24 time on behalf of the government?

Page 251 of 257
247
1 THE COURT: Mr. Duma, on behalf of
2 Mrs. Neighbors?
3 MR. DUMA: Your Honor, there's another
4 deadline out there for motions on the underlying
5 pending case. If we are (inaudible) would you be
6 ruling on that or will Judge Waxse be ruling on
7 that?
8 THE COURT: I don't know, Mr. Duma, for
9 certain. I would imagine that requests for
10 briefing extensions on the main part of the case
11 would be the province of Judge Murguia (inaudible)
12 rather than Judge Waxse. If Judge Waxse wants
13 to -- if Judge Murguia or Judge Waxse wants to
14 (inaudible).
15 Ms. Pilate, anything else on behalf of
16 Mr. Neighbors?
17 MS. PILATE: Your Honor, undoubtedly the
18 last few minutes have been very difficult for my
19 client.
20 THE COURT: They were for me as well.
21 MS. PILATE: I have to confess that, you
22 know, Mr. Neighbors is someone that I like and care
23 for and he's been, you know, a good client and I do
24 feel rather protective of both him and
25 Ms. Neighbors. I do think the hearing's been

Page 252 of 257
248
1 difficult for them, I think, frankly, being under
2 federal investigation has been very difficult and I
3 think those of us who work on this side of it and
4 don't have the experience of being on the receiving
5 end can sometimes forget how difficult and
6 disorienting and overwhelming an experience that
7 can be when you feel the full weight of the federal
8 government coming down on you.
9 And I would like some space here to
10 consider -- when I say space I mean -- I guess I
11 should be more specific -- time to have both of
12 these clients looked at simply because I believe
13 they are under an enormous amount of stress. I
14 think they're good people. I know, obviously, my
15 client much better than I know Ms. Neighbors, but
16 everything that I have ever heard about their
17 commitment to children, their commitment to their
18 own children, involvement with the Big Brothers/Big
19 Sisters, foster children, it's all true.
20 And I just -- I think they've been
21 overwhelmed, two people in a small business, with
22 the weight of all of these people coming down on
23 them. And rightly or wrongly, that is their
24 perception. And I think that's what stirred a lot
25 of this blogging. I've informed the Court I did

Page 253 of 257
249
1 not think the hearing would be good for my client's
2 mental health. I made offers to reach a compromise
3 with Ms. Parker and that did not work out. I don't
4 think these last two days of hearings have been
5 good for my client.
6 I will say in their defense that when you
7 feel that a lot is coming down on you, maybe you do
8 want to grasp at what you hear in the community.
9 And those things are out there. I mean, quite
10 honestly, Your Honor, I've heard them and I've
11 heard them for a long time and I would not have
12 asked the questions I asked without doing some
13 independent investigation, which I did do and I am
14 continuing to do.
15 So I want to stress that I think counsel
16 have operated, at least I hope, responsibly with an
17 eye toward, you know, respecting the dignity of the
18 tribunal and also protecting these two clients who
19 are, frankly, very dear to me.
20 And we do want a period of time and I will
21 will be filing a motion, at least on behalf of my
22 client, to get some time to conduct a mental
23 examination because I believe that it is good for
24 my client. And I wouldn't ask for it if I didn't
25 think it was. But I do think --

Page 254 of 257
250
1 THE COURT: Well, it may not be opposed.
2 MS. PILATE: -- they're good people.
3 THE COURT: You know, for the record, as
4 I've mentioned, this has not been a pleasant
5 hearing for the Court, but -- and I'm certain it's
6 not been pleasant for Mr. Neighbors or
7 Mrs. Neighbors. But by the same token, I think
8 Mr. and Mrs. Neighbors would be well-served to keep
9 in mind, notwithstanding the full weight of the
10 federal and state government that's lodged against
11 them, this probably hasn't been a real full
12 exercise (inaudible) by Detective McAtee or Officer
13 Rantz and Inspector Nitz.
14 I mean, this is -- to fan the flames with
15 this sort of unsubstantiated rumor mongering is not
16 helpful, I don't think. Now, if ultimately what
17 the defendants are suggesting is that because of
18 the weight of the government against them, they
19 have the right to have a catharsis and vent their
20 feelings without regard to what the collateral
21 consequences are, that's just not the law. And I'm
22 here to tell you.
23 But, Ms. Pilate, go ahead and file a
24 motion, I suspect the government may be filing a
25 motion. As I've indicated before, an issue I have

Page 255 of 257
251
1 on my mind is whether if -- if that motion is filed
2 and if it's granted, does that render moot this
3 whole exercise? At least temporarily? I don't
4 know if it does. But I'd like the benefit of three
5 good lawyers educating me before I made the
6 decision.
7 MS. PARKER: Your Honor, the government
8 will not oppose the request for mental examination.
9 We may file one of our own (inaudible), but we will
10 not oppose the request. But we would request that
11 that not delay the decision on whether or not these
12 blogs will be stopped.
13 THE COURT: Yeah, so we're clear on this, I
14 would not envision, Ms. Pilate, if there is a
15 request by the defendant for a noncustodial
16 evaluation commissioned by the defense, that we
17 would stop the present proceedings. Those would
18 continue. But if there were, for instance, a
19 government request or request for evaluation that
20 would be done in a custodial context it would
21 render moot some of the issues we have been hashing
22 out the last two trial dates. That's something
23 we're going to consider.
24 But if they're going to be your motions, I
25 guess I'd like to see those -- obviously I'd

Page 256 of 257
252
1 (inaudible) so we can take this all up. Very well.
2 We are adjourned.
3 (Whereupon, the proceedings were
4 adjourned.)
8 * * * * * * * *
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

253
1
4 C E R T I F I C A T E
7 I, Theresa E. Hallberg, Certified
8 Shorthand Reporter, do hereby certify that the
9 foregoing transcript is a true and correct
10 transcript of the audio recording of the
11 proceedings in said case to the best of my
12 knowledge and ability.
13 SIGNED, OFFICIALLY SEALED, AND FILED WITH
14 THE CLERK OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT this
15 day of , 2008.
16
17
18
19 S/
Theresa E. Hallberg, RMR,CRR
20
21
22
23
24
25

Transcript of Hearing & Testimony Case 07-20124-01 Marietta Parker US Attorney Yellow House Store Owners

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Transcript of Hearing & Testimony Case 07-20124-01 Marietta Parker US Attorney Yellow House Store Owners

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 150 Filed 11/03/2008 Page 1 of 257

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

BEFORE THE HONORABLE JAMES P. O'HARA, Magistrate Judge

TRANSCRIPT ORDERED BY: Ms. Parker

For the Government: Ms. Marietta Parker

For the Defendant Mr. John Duma

For the Defendant Ms. Cheryl A. Pilate

Transcript Prepared Theresa E. Hallberg, RMR, CRR

OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

8 Direct Examination by Ms. Parker 18

9 Cross-Examination by Mr. Duma 39

10 Cross-Examination by Ms. Pilate 42

11 Redirect Examination by Ms. Parker 76

12 Examination by The Court 78

13 Redirect Examination by Ms. Parker 83

14 Recross-Examination by Ms. Pilate 84

18 Direct Examination by Ms. Parker 93

19 Cross-Examination by Mr. Duma 108

20 Cross-Examination by Ms. Pilate 115

21 Redirect Examination by Ms. Parker 159

23 Walter Robert Schaefer:

25 Direct Examination by Ms. Parker 186

OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

1 Cross-Examination by Mr. Duma 193ii

2 Cross-Examination by Mr. Pilate 201

6 Direct Examination by Ms. Parker 207

7 Cross-Examination by Ms. Pilate 211

8 Redirect Examination by Ms. Parker 213

9 Recross-Examination by Ms. Pilate 214

13 Direct Examination by Ms. Parker 215

14 Cross-Examination by Mr. Duma 224

15 Cross-Examination by Ms. Pilate 229

21 Government's Exhibit No. 1A 8 8

22 Government's Exhibit No. 1B 8 8

23 Government's Exhibit No. 2A 8 8

24 Government's Exhibit No. 2B 8 8

25 Government's Exhibit No. 2C 8 8

OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

1 Government's Exhibit No. 2D 8 8 iii

2 Government's Exhibit No. 3 8 8

3 Government's Exhibit No. 4 8 8

4 Government's Exhibit No. 5A 8 8

5 Government's Exhibit No. 5B 8 8

6 Government's Exhibit No. 5C 8 8

7 Government's Exhibit No. 6 8 8

8 Government's Exhibit No. 7 8 8

9 Government's Exhibit No. 8A 8 8

10 Government's Exhibit No. 8B 8 8

11 Government's Exhibit No. 8C 8 8

12 Government's Exhibit No. 8D 8 8

13 Government's Exhibit No. 8E 8 8

14 Government's Exhibit No. 8F 8 8

15 Government's Exhibit No. 8G 8 8

16 Government's Exhibit No. 8H 8 8

17 Government's Exhibit No. 9A 8 8

18 Government's Exhibit No. 9B 8 8

19 Government's Exhibit No. 9C 8 8

20 Government's Exhibit No. 9D 8 8

21 Government's Exhibit No. 9E 8 8

22 Government's Exhibit No. 9F 8 8

23 Government's Exhibit No. 9G 8 8

24 Government's Exhibit No. 9H 8 8