tainted and mishandled evidence, failure to follow proper procedure, and chain of custody,testified by two Lawrence police officers, (as in [Doc 133])
any proffer by the Defendant  null and void.[See ref v.
THEREFORE the Defendant , acting as a pro se litigant, is filing a Reply to thePlaintiffs Response to the Defendant [I]'s Motion to Quash or Strike Defendant [I]'s Proffer inits entirety from this cause of action, due to the Officers testimony in [Doc 133], and PRAYSthe court Quash or Strike the Proffer, for the Plaintiffs breach of contract, as testified by theofficers in reference to the breach, and clearly altered statements of Defendant  as in [Doc133], whereby the Defendant  has clearly shown and met her 51
burden of proof that theAltered testimony, failure to document the proffer properly, and breach of contract by thePlaintiff, should result heavy in favor of the Defendant .
Carrie Neighbo s
1104 Andover Lawrence, Kansas 66049(785) 842-2785Reply to Plaintiffs Response to Quash or Strike Defendants  Proffer Page 3