IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

UNITED STATES, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 07-20124-CM
)
GUY MADISON NEIGHBORS, )
)
Defendant. )

DEFENDANT’S JOINT
MOTION TO DISMISS FORFEITURE ALLEGATION II
OF SECOND SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT

Defendants Guy Neighbors and Carrie Neighbors, by and through their respective

counsel, hereby move this Honorable Court to dismiss Forfeiture Allegation II of the Second

Superseding Indictment. The statute cited, 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)( C), does not permit forfeiture

for any crime charged against defendants. Moreover there is not any rational relationship

between the requested forfeiture figure and the amount of money allegedly illegally obtained, as

recited in the indictment.

FACTS

The Second Superseding Indictment has two separate forfeiture allegations. These relate

to different charged crimes. Forfeiture Allegation I relates to Counts One through Sixteen and

Eighteen of the second superseding indictment. Count One of the second superseding indictment

charges conspiracy to commit wire fraud, mail fraud and money laundering. Counts Sixteen

through Eighteen of the second superseding indictment charge money laundering offenses.

1
 Forfeiture Allegation II relates to Counts One through Fifteen of the second superseding

indictment. Count I of the second superseding indictment charges a conspiracy to commit wire

fraud, mail fraud and money laundering. Counts Two through Fifteen of the second superseding

indictment allege wire fraud offenses.

Forfeiture Allegation II states as follows:

“Upon conviction of one or more of the offenses alleged in Counts

One through Fifteen of this Superseding Indictment, defendant(s)
CARRIE MARIE NEIGHBORS and GUY MADISON
NEIGHBORS shall forfeit to the United States pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)( C) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461( c) any property
constituting or derived from proceeds obtained directly or
indirectly as a result of the said violation(s), including but not
limited to the following:

a. A sum of money equal to $525,000 in United States currency,

representing the amount of proceeds obtained as a result of the
offenses in Counts 1 through 15 for which the defendants are
jointly and severally liable;”

The indictment goes on to list as substitute assets a building located at 1904

Massachusetts Street, Lawrence Kansas, and a residence located at 1104 Andover, Lawrence,

Kansas.

18 U.S.C. § 981 provides as follows:

(a)(1) The following property is subject to forfeiture to the United States:

( C) Any property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from

proceeds traceable to a violation of section 215, 471, 472, 473, 474, 476,
477, 478, 479, 480, 481, 485, 486, 487, 488, 501, 502, 510, 542, 545, 656,
657, 842, 844, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1014, 1028, 1029, 1030, 1032, or 1344
of this title or any offense constituting “specified unlawful activity” (as
defined in section 1956(c)(7) of this title), or a conspiracy to commit such
offense.”

2
Defendants are not charged with violation any of the listed sections.

Section 1956(c)(7), which is also referenced in the statute, defines the term “specified

unlawful activity.” Defendants are not charged with any crimes contained within the definition.

As defendants are not charged with a violation of any of the sections listed under the

Forfeiture Allegation II, this allegation cannot be proven and must be dismissed.

Additionally, Forfeiture Allegation II seeks to claim money in the amount of

$525,000.00. The Government has provided no basis for this claim whatsoever. The second

superseding indictment states a claim that defendants were paid a total of $525,000.00 for all

sales made over the internet. Nowhere in the indictment is there a claim that $525,000.00 was

obtained through illegal means. There is also no explanation of how the figure was calculated or

what evidence could support it. Nothing indicates that every single sale made over the internet

was of stolen property.

The Government has listed round figures of money paid to people who allegedly sold

stolen property to defendants. These round figures from the indictment total $169,848.00.

Nowhere is there even an allegation that everything purchased from these individuals was stolen.

Thus, there are no facts alleged whatsoever to support the forfeiture of $525,000.00

The Government has also charged that specific amounts were paid for specific stolen

items that serve as the basis for substantive counts. The specific items listed in the indictment

total $3,212.00. The indictment, in Counts Sixteen, Seventeen and Eighteen, claims that a total

of $950.00 was obtained by the sale of stolen property. These amounts are the only specific

amounts alleged in the indictment to have been received by defendants as the result of

transactions involving allegedly stolen property. The Defendants are entitled under the Fifth and

3
Sixth Amendments to fair notice of the allegations against them. There is nothing in the

indictment – in either legal authority or factual allegations – that supports Forfeiture Allegation

II.

WHEREFORE, based on the above and foregoing arguments and authorities, Defendants

respectfully request that this Court grant their Motion to Dismiss Forfeiture Allegation II.

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ .
Cheryl A. Pilate, KS No. 14601
Morgan Pilate, LLC
142 N. Cherry Street
Olathe, KS 66061
(913) 829-6336 Telephone
(913) 829-6446 Fax
Attorney for Guy Neighbors

AND

/s/ John Duma

John Duma, KS No. 10760
Attorney at Law
303 E. Poplar
Olathe, KS 66061
Telephone: 913-782-7072
Facsimile: 913-782-1383

Attorney for Carrie Neighbors

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and accurate copy of the above and forgoing response was
served on all parties of record pursuant to the ECF system on this 27th day of July, 2009.

4
_/s/ Cheryl A. Pilate