Motion Revoke Guy Neighbors Bond Attempt #8 by Lanny D Welch and Marietta Parker

Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 165 Filed 04/27/2009 Page 1 of 9
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
(Kansas City Docket)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 07-20124-02-JPO/CM
)
)
GUY MADISON NEIGHBORS, )
)
Defendant. )
UNITED STATES’ RENEWED MOTION TO

REVOKE DEFENDANT’S BOND
or, IN THE ALTERNATIVE,
MOTION FOR MENTAL EXAMINATION AND
FOR SHOW CAUSE HEARING
Comes now the United States of America, by and through the undersigned
Acting United States Attorney and herein moves this honorable court to revoke the
defendant’s bond for failure to comply with the terms of his pretrial release order in the
above-referenced cases or, in the alternative, moves for an order for a mental
examination of the defendant. In support of this motion, the government offers the
following:
Relevant Procedural Background
1. The United States incorporates by this references all claims and allegations
set forth in it’s Motion to Revoke Bond (Document [Doc.] 65) and the exhibits filed
1
thereto (Docs. 66, 67), filed on May 1, 2008.
2. On July 18 and July 21, 2008, this Court conducted a hearing on that motion 1
but before a decision was rendered on the issues, the parties submitted an agreed-upon
temporary restraining order “which specifically prohibits all parties in this matter from
making any statements, other than to members of the defendants’ immediate family ...
in writing, orally or by electronic dissemination, either personally or indirectly through
any party, including but not limited to any internet sites or through any form of
communication whatsoever which mentions the names of any witnesses, attorneys,
potential witnesses or of any persons associated with the investigation or prosecution”
of case No. 07-20123 and case No. 07-20073. (Doc. 118, p. 1-2).
3. On August 18, 2008, the provisions of the temporary restraining order were
made part of the conditions of the defendants’ bond in the cases styled United States v.
Guy and Carrie Neighbors, Case No. 07-20124 (Doc. 132) and Case No. 08-20105-
01/02-CM/JPO. (Doc. 27) Each of those orders provided in pertinent part: “Conditions
of release in the Obstruction Case will track those [which] have been previously set in
Case No. 07-20124 (the “EBayCase”) (Docs. 5 and 9). In addition to those conditions,
defendants shall comply with the agreed restraining order in the EBay Case (Doc. 118).”
(Docs. 132 and 27, p. 2). The defendant, Guy Neighbors, has again2 failed to comply
with these conditions of his bond
1
The United States requests the Court take judicial notice of all of the evidence
received at the hearing on that Motion.
2
See Doc. 128 and Doc. 142, Motions to Revoke Bond in Case No. 07-20124.
2
Violations of Conditions of Bond
4. On Wednesday, April 22, 2009, the defendant, Guy M. Neighbors, sent by
electronic mail, a message to various individuals under the heading “Lawrence Police
officer Mike McAtee corruptly operates as a Federal agent crossing state lines to
interrogate and harass people for federal Prosecutor Terra Morehead.” (Exhibit 1,
attached). Attached to that e-mail were various documents, one of which was entitled
“Notice of Motion Requesting a Change of Venue and to Have Both Prosecutors
Recuses [sic] Themselves from Said Cases as To Avoid the Appearance of A Conflict of
Interest.”
In his e-mail message, the defendant reiterated statements that he knew to be
false, to wit:
1. Federal Prosecutor Terra Morehead sent Lawrence Police

officer Mike McAtee across state lines to the State of Florida, to
investigate with the Jurisdictions [sic] of a Federal agent.
2. Lawrence Kansas Police officers Jay Bailek and Mickey Rantz

pose as FBI agents while conducting Federal investigations for Marietta
Parker and Terra Morehead in the Yellow House case, to cover-up for
missing evidence, search warrant & chain of custody violations and the
lack of FBI involvement in the case.
3. Kansas city FBI agent Walter Schaefer, poses as FBI agent Bob
Shaefer, to conduct fake FBI investigations outside of his agencies [sic]
juristictions [sic] to cover-up for Federal Prosecutor Marietta Parker, who
is conspiring to cover-up police misconduct.
The defendant is fully aware that all of the individuals mentioned in these paragraphs
are witnesses in the case or are attorneys representing the government. In light of the
un-controverted evidence received at the hearing on the government’s first motion to
revoke bond and by his own admission that the allegations of sexual misconduct are
3
mere rumors, it is clear that the defendant intentionally and purposefully violated the
conditions of his bond. Therefore, the United States respectfully submits that Guy M.
Neighbors continues to engage in conduct that constitutes a violation of § 21-4004,
K.S.A., criminal defamation; of 18 U.S.C. § 1503, influencing an officer3; and of 18
U.S.C. § 1512, witness tampering. Without question, the e-mail sent by the defendant
on April 22, 2009, constituted a violation of the conditions of the defendant’s bond and
establishes that he is unwilling to conform his behavior to the order of the court.
Therefore, the government requests that the defendant’s bond be revoked and that he
be detained until the completion of the trial of this case.
Motion for Mental Examination
Should the Court determine that there is insufficient evidence of the intentional
violation of the terms of Guy Neighbors’ supervised release, the United States
respectfully submits that the false statements the defendant published in his e-mail of
April 22, 2009, gives rise to the inescapable conclusion that he is currently suffering
from a mental disease or defect that prevents him from conforming his conduct to the
requirements of the terms of his pretrial release or that he suffers from a mental disease
or defect that causes him to be subject to delusions. Clearly, the defendant should
know that several of the above-referenced statements are not true because at the
3
The false allegations of professional and sexual misconduct by the prosecutors
taken together with the demand in the attachment to the e-mail, entitled “Notice of
Motion Requesting a Change of Venue and to Have Both Prosecutors Recuses [sic]
Themselves from Said Cases as To Avoid the Appearance of A Conflict of Interest”
indicates that the defendant continues in his attempts to prevent the attorneys for the
government from prosecuting the cases now pending against him, a clear attempt to
corruptly influence these officers of the Court in the lawful performance of their duties.
4
hearing on the government’s first Motion to Revoke Bond, it was established that: all
physical evidence recovered during the investigation of this case is either in the custody
of the Lawrence, Kansas, Police Department or has been returned to the rightful owners
(Doc. 150, Transcript of Motions held on July 18 and 21, 2008, testimony of S.A. D.
Nitz, at pp. 217-18); that neither Officer Bailek nor Officer Rantz posed as FBI agents
during the investigation of this case (Doc 150 at p 37-38, testimony of P.O.M. Rantz);
and that F.B.I. S.A. Walter Robert “Bob” Schaefer conducted an investigation of those
allegations and was unable to corroborate the allegation. See (Doc. 150 at p 186-192,
testimony of S.A. W. Schaefer).
In addition to the reassertion of these allegations, the defendant made false and
defamatory allegations of misconduct by the prosecutors in this case without any basis
in fact to support those allegations. In his e-mail of April 22, he states:
Where is the oversight of Government spending and constitutional law that

would allow Federal Prosecutors in an abuse of power spend millions of
tax dollars investigating and prosecuting meritless cases, using defense
attorneys and law enforcement as their own personal pawns, operating
outside of their agencies jurisdictions and the law, crossing state lines,
City officers acting as Federal Investigators, repeatedly violating citizens
[sic] Constitutional rights without consequence.
Now we are hearing rumor of a sex scandal involving high ranking
officials, the same officials who are the alleged violator [sic] of human
rights. Please we need a complete investigation into these two
prosecutors and the cases they have prosecuted.4
Ex. 1. These statements establish reasonable cause to believe that the defendant may
presently be suffering from a mental disease or defect such that he rendering him
currently unable to assist in his defense.
4
Counsel for the United States categorically and unequivocally deny each and
every one of the allegations made against them in the defendant’s e-mail of April 22nd.
5
Title 18, United States Code, Section 4241(a) provides in pertinent part:
(a) Motion to determine competency of defendant – At

any time after the commencement of a prosecution for an
offense and prior to the sentencing of the defendant, ... the
attorney for the Government may file a motion for a hearing
to determine the mental competency of the defendant. The
court shall grant the motion, or shall order such a hearing on
its own motion if there is reasonable cause to believe that
the defendant may presently be suffering from a mental
disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent to the
extent that he is unable to understand the nature and
consequences of the proceedings against him or to assist
properly in his defense.
(b) Psychiatric or psychological examination and report.--

Prior to the date of the hearing, the court may order that a
psychiatric or psychological examination of the defendant be
conducted, and that a psychiatric or psychological report be filed
with the court, pursuant to the provisions of 4247(b) and (c.)
Title 18, United States Code, Section 4247 provides in pertinent part:
(b) Psychiatric or psychological examination. – A

psychiatric or psychological examination ordered pursuant to
this chapter shall be conducted by a licensed or certified
psychiatrist or psychologist, or if the court finds it
appropriate, by more than one such examiner.... For
purposes of an examination pursuant to an order under
section 4241, ... the court may commit the person to be
examined for a reasonable period, but not to exceed thirty
days, ... to the custody of the Attorney General for placement
in a suitable facility. Unless impracticable, the psychiatric or
psychological examination shall be conducted in the suitable
facility closest to the court.. The director of the facility may
apply for a reasonable extension, but not to exceed fifteen
days under section 4241, ... upon a showing of good cause
that the additional time is necessary to observe and evaluate
the defendant.
(c) Psychiatric or psychological reports. – A psychiatric or

psychological report ordered pursuant to this chapter shall be
prepared by the examiner designated to conduct the psychiatric or
psychological examination, shall be filed with the court with copies
6
provided to the counsel for the person examined and to the

attorney for the Government, and shall include--
(1) the person’s history and present symptoms;
(2) a description of the psychiatric, psychological, and
medical tests that were employed and their results;
(3) the examiner’s findings; and
(4) the examiner’s opinions as to diagnosis,
prognosis, and--
***
(A) if the examination is ordered under
section 4241, whether the person is suffering
from a mental disease or defect rendering him
mentally incompetent to the extent that he is
unable to understand the nature and
consequences of the proceedings against him
or to assist properly in his defense....
Because of the defendant’s most recent publication of information he knows to
be false, in violation of the clear and unambiguous language of the temporary
restraining order and the orders of the court relating to the terms of his pretrial release,
the United States submits that this conduct gives rise to a reasonable belief that the
defendant is currently unable to understand the proceedings and to assist in his own
defense. Therefore, the United States moves this Court for an order directing the
defendant to the custody of the Attorney General pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 4241 4247
for a mental examination to determine if the defendant is suffering from a mental
disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent to the extent that he is unable to
understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him or to assist
properly in his defense.
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the United States respectfully requests
that this defendant be found in violation of the terms of the temporary restraining order
and his pretrial release conditions and, for the reasons stated in this motion and in the
7
government’s prior Motions to Revoke Bond in Case No. 07-20124 (Docs. 64 - 66 and
129) and that he be detained. In the alternative, the United States respectfully requests
an order directing the defendant to the custody of the Attorney General pursuant to 18
U.S.C. §§ 4241 and 4247 for a mental examination to determine if the defendant is
suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent to the
extent that he is unable to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings
against him or to assist properly in his defense.
Respectfully submitted,
s/ Marietta Parker, KS Dist. Ct. #77807

Acting United States Attorney
500 State Avenue; Suite 360
Kansas City, Kansas 66101
Telephone: 913-551-6730
Facsimile: 913-551-6541
E-mail: marietta.parker@usdoj.gov
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that on the 27th day of April, 2009, the foregoing was
electronically filed with the clerk of the court by using the CM/ECF system which will
send a notice of electronic filing to the following:
John Duma
303 E. Poplar
Olathe, KS 66061
Attorney for Defendant Carrie Marie Neighbors
8
Cheryl A. Pilate
Morgan Pilate LLC
142 N. Cherry
Olathe, KS 66061
Attorney for Defendant Guy Madison Neighbors
I further certify that on this date the foregoing document and the notice of
electronic filing were mailed by first-class mail to the following non-CM/ECF participants:
None
s/Marietta Parker
Acting United States Attorney
9
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 165-2 Filed 04/27/2009 Page 1 of 61

Motion Revoke Guy Neighbors Bond Attempt #8 by Lanny D Welch and Marietta Parker

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

Motion Revoke Guy Neighbors Bond Attempt #8 by Lanny D Welch and Marietta Parker

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 165 Filed 04/27/2009 Page 1 of 9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

UNITED STATES’ RENEWED MOTION TO

Relevant Procedural Background

thereto (Docs. 66, 67), filed on May 1, 2008.

in writing, orally or by electronic dissemination, either personally or indirectly through

communication whatsoever which mentions the names of any witnesses, attorneys,

potential witnesses or of any persons associated with the investigation or prosecution”

with these conditions of his bond

Violations of Conditions of Bond

4. On Wednesday, April 22, 2009, the defendant, Guy M. Neighbors, sent by

“Notice of Motion Requesting a Change of Venue and to Have Both Prosecutors

In his e-mail message, the defendant reiterated statements that he knew to be

1. Federal Prosecutor Terra Morehead sent Lawrence Police

2. Lawrence Kansas Police officers Jay Bailek and Mickey Rantz

un-controverted evidence received at the hearing on the government’s first motion to

Neighbors continues to engage in conduct that constitutes a violation of § 21-4004,

K.S.A., criminal defamation; of 18 U.S.C. § 1503, influencing an officer3; and of 18

be detained until the completion of the trial of this case.

Motion for Mental Examination

testimony of S.A. W. Schaefer).

in fact to support those allegations. In his e-mail of April 22, he states:

Where is the oversight of Government spending and constitutional law that

currently unable to assist in his defense.

(a) Motion to determine competency of defendant – At

(b) Psychiatric or psychological examination and report.--

(b) Psychiatric or psychological examination. – A

(c) Psychiatric or psychological reports. – A psychiatric or

provided to the counsel for the person examined and to the

Because of the defendant’s most recent publication of information he knows to

be false, in violation of the clear and unambiguous language of the temporary

for a mental examination to determine if the defendant is suffering from a mental

properly in his defense.

against him or to assist properly in his defense.

s/ Marietta Parker, KS Dist. Ct. #77807

You might also like