Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 07912234953

    Uploaded by

    Jones, Walker
    126 views24 pages
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS UNTIED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff, v. Case No: 07-20073-CM 07-20124-CM 08-20105-CM CARRIE NEIGHBORS, Defendant 1, GUY M. NEIGHBORS Defendant 2, DEFENDANT [1]’S MARSDEN MOTION [Pursuant to People v. Marsden, 2 Cal. 3d 118 (1970)] COMES NOW on this 26th day of April 2010, the Defendant [1], Carrie Neighbors, is filing a Marsden Motion to dismiss counsel of record, for being inadequately represented, pursuant to People v. Marsden, 2 Cal. 3d 118 (1970). The Motion is As follows: 1). The Defendant [1] has made good faith attempts to address her concerns in recent letters to her counsel. [See reference Attachments 1 - 4] 2). The Defendant [1] can show that her attorney of record is inadequately representing her by both his proffer to the court on case no. 07-20124-01-CM-JPO on 08/25/09, (In which makes him a witness) as well as, his recent responses letter to her concerns. [see ref Attach 5 & 6] 3). Also on 08/25/09 the attorney of record [John Duma] failed to object to the Motion for Mental Examination, without any supporting evidence or probable cause by the government. 4). The Defendant [1] and the attorney of record have an irreconcilable conflict, and as a result, ineffective representation is already, as well as, is the likely outcome. 5). The Defendant [1]’s counsel of record seems to be fixated on a plea agreement and refusing to address tampered evidence, extorted witnesses, misleading information to the court through testimony by the prosecution, as well as, speedy trial issues, in which the defense can clearly show. 6). The Defendant [1]’s counsel refuses to file requested motions for the Defendant [1], and has advised her he cannot defend her, if she goes to trial, as well as, the prosecutions motion for the mental evaluation, whereby is ineffective representation, and violated Kan S. Ct. Rules Discipline for Attorneys, whereby cannot remain attorney of record. MEMORANDUM AND LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT [1]’S MARSDEN MOTION 03/16/2010 Letter to Counsel 7). The Defendant has advised and / or requested the counsel of record on 03/16/2010, 03/25/2010, 04/09/2010, and 04/19/2010, (Attachments 1-4) attorney violated attorney-client privilege, when she wanted attorney to file a show cause on the U.S. Attorney, in which violated the court order in 2008, when she recently sent out a press release on 12/17/09, that Defendant [1] was involved in identity theft, and bank fraud. Defendant [1] requested and advised her counsel to not have any conversation with the U.S. Attorney, but to directly file a show cause for contempt. The Defendant [1]’s counsel then proceeds to contact e-mailed the U.S. Attorney and fails to comply with the Defendants request, in which also violated Kansas Bill of Rights § 11, in which the alleged matter was published for justifiable ends, the accused party shall be acquitted. 8). Defendant [1] requested her counsel of record contact her second attorney (Aaron McKee) and get his notes from the proffer to discredit the officers version, in which her counsel advised her that Aaron McKee was reluctant to discuss the matter, whereby he should have filed a subpoena to produce the materials, in which he failed to do. 9). Defendant [1] attempted to address the release of the property, in which the counsel stated he did not want to become a witness during the return of the property. The counsel of record expects the Defendant to go to the police Depart

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS UNTIED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff, v. Case No: 07-20073-CM 07-20124-CM 08-20105-CM CARRIE NEIGHBORS, Defendant 1, GUY M. NEIGHBORS Defendant 2, DEFENDANT [1]’S MARSDEN MOTION [Pursuant to People v. Marsden, 2 Cal. 3d 118 (1970)] COMES NOW on this 26th day of April 2010, the Defendant [1], Carrie Neighbors, is filing a Marsden Motion to dismiss counsel of record, for being inadequately represented, pursuant to People v. Marsden, 2 Cal. 3d 118 (1970). The Motion is As follows: 1). The Defendant [1] has made good faith attempts to address her concerns in recent letters to her counsel. [See reference Attachments 1 - 4] 2). The Defendant [1] can show that her attorney of record is inadequately representing her by both his proffer to the court on case no. 07-20124-01-CM-JPO on 08/25/09, (In which makes him a witness) as well as, his recent responses letter to her concerns. [see ref Attach 5 & 6] 3). Also on 08/25/09 the attorney of record [John Duma] failed to object to the Motion for Mental Examination, without any supporting evidence or probable cause by the government. 4). The Defendant [1] and the attorney of record have an irreconcilable conflict, and as a result, ineffective representation is already, as well as, is the likely outcome. 5). The Defendant [1]’s counsel of record seems to be fixated on a plea agreement and refusing to address tampered evidence, extorted witnesses, misleading information to the court through testimony by the prosecution, as well as, speedy trial issues, in which the defense can clearly show. 6). The Defendant [1]’s counsel refuses to file requested motions for the Defendant [1], and has advised her he cannot defend her, if she goes to trial, as well as, the prosecutions motion for the mental evaluation, whereby is ineffective representation, and violated Kan S. Ct. Rules Discipline for Attorneys, whereby cannot remain attorney of record. MEMORANDUM AND LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT [1]’S MARSDEN MOTION 03/16/2010 Letter to Counsel 7). The Defendant has advised and / or requested the counsel of record on 03/16/2010, 03/25/2010, 04/09/2010, and 04/19/2010, (Attachments 1-4) attorney violated attorney-client privilege, when she wanted attorney to file a show cause on the U.S. Attorney, in which violated the court order in 2008, when she recently sent out a press release on 12/17/09, that Defendant [1] was involved in identity theft, and bank fraud. Defendant [1] requested and advised her counsel to not have any conversation with the U.S. Attorney, but to directly file a show cause for contempt. The Defendant [1]’s counsel then proceeds to contact e-mailed the U.S. Attorney and fails to comply with the Defendants request, in which also violated Kansas Bill of Rights § 11, in which the alleged matter was published for justifiable ends, the accused party shall be acquitted. 8). Defendant [1] requested her counsel of record contact her second attorney (Aaron McKee) and get his notes from the proffer to discredit the officers version, in which her counsel advised her that Aaron McKee was reluctant to discuss the matter, whereby he should have filed a subpoena to produce the materials, in which he failed to do. 9). Defendant [1] attempted to address the release of the property, in which the counsel stated he did not want to become a witness during the return of the property. The counsel of record expects the Defendant to go to the police Depart

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    126 views24 pages

    07912234953

    Uploaded by

    Jones, Walker
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS UNTIED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff, v. Case No: 07-20073-CM 07-20124-CM 08-20105-CM CARRIE NEIGHBORS, Defendant 1, GUY M. NEIGHBORS Defendant 2, DEFENDANT [1]’S MARSDEN MOTION [Pursuant to People v. Marsden, 2 Cal. 3d 118 (1970)] COMES NOW on this 26th day of April 2010, the Defendant [1], Carrie Neighbors, is filing a Marsden Motion to dismiss counsel of record, for being inadequately represented, pursuant to People v. Marsden, 2 Cal. 3d 118 (1970). The Motion is As follows: 1). The Defendant [1] has made good faith attempts to address her concerns in recent letters to her counsel. [See reference Attachments 1 - 4] 2). The Defendant [1] can show that her attorney of record is inadequately representing her by both his proffer to the court on case no. 07-20124-01-CM-JPO on 08/25/09, (In which makes him a witness) as well as, his recent responses letter to her concerns. [see ref Attach 5 & 6] 3). Also on 08/25/09 the attorney of record [John Duma] failed to object to the Motion for Mental Examination, without any supporting evidence or probable cause by the government. 4). The Defendant [1] and the attorney of record have an irreconcilable conflict, and as a result, ineffective representation is already, as well as, is the likely outcome. 5). The Defendant [1]’s counsel of record seems to be fixated on a plea agreement and refusing to address tampered evidence, extorted witnesses, misleading information to the court through testimony by the prosecution, as well as, speedy trial issues, in which the defense can clearly show. 6). The Defendant [1]’s counsel refuses to file requested motions for the Defendant [1], and has advised her he cannot defend her, if she goes to trial, as well as, the prosecutions motion for the mental evaluation, whereby is ineffective representation, and violated Kan S. Ct. Rules Discipline for Attorneys, whereby cannot remain attorney of record. MEMORANDUM AND LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT [1]’S MARSDEN MOTION 03/16/2010 Letter to Counsel 7). The Defendant has advised and / or requested the counsel of record on 03/16/2010, 03/25/2010, 04/09/2010, and 04/19/2010, (Attachments 1-4) attorney violated attorney-client privilege, when she wanted attorney to file a show cause on the U.S. Attorney, in which violated the court order in 2008, when she recently sent out a press release on 12/17/09, that Defendant [1] was involved in identity theft, and bank fraud. Defendant [1] requested and advised her counsel to not have any conversation with the U.S. Attorney, but to directly file a show cause for contempt. The Defendant [1]’s counsel then proceeds to contact e-mailed the U.S. Attorney and fails to comply with the Defendants request, in which also violated Kansas Bill of Rights § 11, in which the alleged matter was published for justifiable ends, the accused party shall be acquitted. 8). Defendant [1] requested her counsel of record contact her second attorney (Aaron McKee) and get his notes from the proffer to discredit the officers version, in which her counsel advised her that Aaron McKee was reluctant to discuss the matter, whereby he should have filed a subpoena to produce the materials, in which he failed to do. 9). Defendant [1] attempted to address the release of the property, in which the counsel stated he did not want to become a witness during the return of the property. The counsel of record expects the Defendant to go to the police Depart

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 24

    Case 2:08-cr-20105-CM-JPO Document 84 Filed 04/26/10 Page 1 of 24

    Case 2:08-cr-20105-CM-JPO Document 84 Filed 04/26/10 Page 2 of 24


    Case 2:08-cr-20105-CM-JPO Document 84 Filed 04/26/10 Page 3 of 24
    Case 2:08-cr-20105-CM-JPO Document 84 Filed 04/26/10 Page 4 of 24
    Case 2:08-cr-20105-CM-JPO Document 84 Filed 04/26/10 Page 5 of 24
    Case 2:08-cr-20105-CM-JPO Document 84 Filed 04/26/10 Page 6 of 24
    Case 2:08-cr-20105-CM-JPO Document 84 Filed 04/26/10 Page 7 of 24
    Case 2:08-cr-20105-CM-JPO Document 84 Filed 04/26/10 Page 8 of 24
    Case 2:08-cr-20105-CM-JPO Document 84 Filed 04/26/10 Page 9 of 24
    Case 2:08-cr-20105-CM-JPO Document 84 Filed 04/26/10 Page 10 of 24
    Case 2:08-cr-20105-CM-JPO Document 84 Filed 04/26/10 Page 11 of 24
    Case 2:08-cr-20105-CM-JPO Document 84 Filed 04/26/10 Page 12 of 24
    Case 2:08-cr-20105-CM-JPO Document 84 Filed 04/26/10 Page 13 of 24
    Case 2:08-cr-20105-CM-JPO Document 84 Filed 04/26/10 Page 14 of 24
    Case 2:08-cr-20105-CM-JPO Document 84 Filed 04/26/10 Page 15 of 24
    Case 2:08-cr-20105-CM-JPO Document 84 Filed 04/26/10 Page 16 of 24
    Case 2:08-cr-20105-CM-JPO Document 84 Filed 04/26/10 Page 17 of 24
    Case 2:08-cr-20105-CM-JPO Document 84 Filed 04/26/10 Page 18 of 24
    Case 2:08-cr-20105-CM-JPO Document 84 Filed 04/26/10 Page 19 of 24
    Case 2:08-cr-20105-CM-JPO Document 84 Filed 04/26/10 Page 20 of 24
    Case 2:08-cr-20105-CM-JPO Document 84 Filed 04/26/10 Page 21 of 24
    Case 2:08-cr-20105-CM-JPO Document 84 Filed 04/26/10 Page 22 of 24
    Case 2:08-cr-20105-CM-JPO Document 84 Filed 04/26/10 Page 23 of 24
    Case 2:08-cr-20105-CM-JPO Document 84 Filed 04/26/10 Page 24 of 24

    You might also like