BACKGROUND In response to Guy and Carrie Neighbors in March 2006 by way of their counsel; Defense Attorney Sarah Swain,

turning in a formal complaint to LKPD Internal Affairs Sgt. Dan Ward that Lawrence Kansas Police officers Jay Bialek and Micky Rantz were posing as FBI agents and Indicating to witnesses that FBI Agents were involved in the Yellow House case as a means of coercion intimidating witnesses during the Investigation of the Yellow House case. In response to the complaints On April 20, 2006 LKPD Chief Ronald Olin wrote to Ms. Swain that quote I believe Sergeant Mike Pattrick from this department as well as Special Agent Bob Shaefer with the FBI has spoken with you in person about these very issues end quote. Kansas City Special Agent Bob Shaefer testified under oath in Federal Court during a hearing August 11th, 2008 before Judge OHara. That his actual name is Walter Robert Schaefer, and his jurisdiction is the Western District of Missouri. He did not have a file for the investigation, nor did he interview anyone in connection to the complaints. Mr. Schaefer also testified he did not view any of the affidavits in connection with Guy and Carrie Neighbors complaints.

In June of 2008, A representative from the Kansas City FBI verified that the Kansas City FBI does not have jurisdiction over Lawrence Kansas and does not do investigations into complaints of police misconduct from Lawrence Kansas. Special Agent Scott Gentine and Agent Denton Murray from the Topeka FBI verified they are the resident agency of the FBI with jurisdiction over Lawrence Kansas. Special Agent Scott Gentine also verified that the U.S. Attorney Marietta Parker who was actively Prosecuting the case, had Sent down Special Agent Bob Schaefer to investigate the Neighbors complaints. To insure the impartiality of the Courts, it is a conflict of interest for a Prosecutor to be involved in the investigations involving the case outside the court room of misconduct involving color of law violations directly involved with the investigation of the case she is prosecuting. Because it is a crime for a Police officer to impersonate an FBI agent and would constitute coercion, a constitutional violation of Fifth and fourteenth Amendment rights in violation 42. U.S.C. 1983 . Therefore all evidence derived from the Investigation thereafter would be an extension of the exclusionary rule and inadmissible Fruits from the Poisonous tree Including all search warrants. Silverthorne Lumber Co. v United States.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The Investigation by the Lawrence Kansas Police Department into the Business Yellow House Store Incorporated began in December in 2005.

During a pre-indictment hearing at the Kansas Department of Justice U.S. Assistant Attorney Marietta Parker accused the Neighbors of bringing this on ourselves when they filed complaints accusing the officers of posing as FBI agents. She told them the investigation had cost a lot of money and therefore she was going to forfeit the Yellow House building regardless of the outcome of any plea agreements reached by both parties.

In August 2006, the Neighbors at the request of AUSA Marietta Parker and through the advice of counsel agreed to a Proffer. In exchange for the proffer the Prosecutor indicated the drug and gun charge would not be prosecuted in Federal Court and would be referred back to the State for prosecution as a misdemeanor. And depending on the level of cooperation; there would also be considerations made in the other case at sentencing. In November 2006 the Neighbors turned in a formal complaint to LKPD Internal Affairs that Officer Jay Bialek and Micky Rantz had violated their rights and the Officers had violated the proffer agreement

by entering their business and attempting to question them without their attorney present, and that the officers had violated the chain of evidence rule by returning a Sony digital camera that had been seized during a search warrant and never logged into the evidence custodian. In response to Guy and Carrie Neighbors exercising their Constitutional right to regress the Government through complaints, the AUSA Marietta Parker informed Carrie Neighbors attorney Aaron McKee that she intended to file an Indictment immediately against the Neighbors in Federal Court for the drugs and guns. James George Guys attorney unaware of this development contacted Guy and informed him the Government was happy with his cooperation.

On December 7, 2006 AUSAs Marietta Parker and Terra Morehead followed through with the threat and had the Neighbors strong armed arrested in their home, instead of allowing them by way of counsel to turn themselves in. USA v. Neighbors case 06-20171-01/02-CM1 JPO. Charged with being unlawful users with firearms. The Neighbors were taken into custody at 8am and held nearly 8 hours before being given anything to eat. When defense attorney James George questioned AUSA Terra Morehead about the harsh treatment of his clients, her response was quote The Neighbors needed to be shown who was boss. end quote.

It would have been constitutionally challenging for a federal court to convict the Neighbors of being an unlawful user in violation of 18 U.S.C. & 922(g) (3). Case USA v. Neighbors 06-20171-01/02-CM1 JPO. Based upon the constitutionality of the definition. A conviction would be a violation of due process because the definition of "unlawful user is too vague to supply the defendants with adequate notice that their conduct was prohibited. United States v. Cooper, 173 F.3d 1192, 1202 (9th Cir. 1999). Specifically noted, In determination of the definition of the term "unlawful user" should be supported by "the statutory history," Which indicated that 922 was enacted "to keep firearms out of the hands of those not legally entitled to possess them because of ...their criminal background" Id. at 136566. Specifically, it is noted that 922 explicitly included unlawful drug users as an individual having a "criminal background". Both defendants having had no criminal background, or drug histories would not fall under the vague definition of "unlawful user".

With indictment under District Court for the District of Kansas case number 06-2071-01/02-CM/JPO. Initiated in conjunction with misuse of the legal process, in retaliation for the defendants filing a complaint alleging police misconduct, violations of the chain of custody rule, and sending out E-mails and public internet postings along with blog sites, All fall within an exercise of The First Amendment assuring the Fundamental Right to Free Speech.

Making the circumstances of the indictment and arrest a case of Prosecutorial Misconduct. The fact both defendants were denied

food while being held in a cell for 8 hours December 8th, 2006. Clearly was an act of retaliation by the prosecution, and a violation of Guy and Carrie Neighbors protected Fourteenth Amendment constitutional and civil rights. In violation of the Eighth Amendment. Forbidding cruel and unusual punishments" clearly this shows "deliberate indifference" by the responsible officials.
Attorney Jim George was informed by prosecution team member Terra Moorehead that the arrest and Indictment was handled in this cruel manner to quote Show Guy and Carrie Neighbors who is boss. (Clearly this establishes retaliation and Malice by the prosecution.) Genito v. Rabinowitz, 92 N.J. Super. 225 (App. Div. 1966). Guy and Carrie Neighbors were first indicted with being users of a controlled substance in possession of firearms on December 7, 2006, in a prior case in this court, United States v. Neighbors, Case No. 0620171-CM. After substantial time on the speedy trial clock had run, the government filed a motion to dismiss the indictment in that case on May 4, 2007, based on additional evidence that the government argued it had discovered during an ongoing investigation. The Honorable Carlos Murguia, United States District Judge, granted the governments motion and dismissed the first indictment without prejudice. On June 20, 2007, the government re-indicted Mr. and Mrs. Neighbors. The second indictment included the same charge as the first indictment (as Count 2) as well as additional charges of conspiring to manufacture marijuana and two counts of knowingly

and intentionally manufacturing marijuana. The second indictment was filed absent of any new incidents or additional evidence. On September 11, 2007, counsel for Ms. Neighbors filed a motion to dismiss Count 2 (doc. #24) in which Mr. Neighbors subsequently joined (doc. #28) based on a violation of the Speedy Trial Act. This court granted the motion but reserved the determination of whether to dismiss Count 2 with or without prejudice until after an evidentiary hearing. That hearing was held on November 27, 2007. Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM Document 36 Filed 12/21/2007 Page 4 of 22 On June 25, 2007, defendants were rearrested at their home and a search incident absent of a search warrant to arrest was performed. They were not given the option to self surrender, and the government pointed out they were not treated any differently than any other defendants. Mr. Neighbors was taken under arrest on the first floor of the house while two female officers went upstairs and, after watching Ms. Neighbors dress, handcuffed her and placed her under arrest. They were taken in police vehicles to court that day and counsel was appointed for them. They were held in custody for about four to six hours. Mr. Neighbors testified that no one asked him about his former counsel, James George, and he was not allowed to call Mr. George. The court originally appointed Alex McCauley to represent him. Mr. McCauley subsequently withdrew from the case due to a conflict of interest because he had formerly represented an informant in this case. Prior to his withdrawal from the case Mr. McCauley spent approximately 4 hours in his office going over the prosecutions discovery with Mr. Neighbors, During the meeting Mr. McCauley

highlighted and took notes on the discovery. Before contacting his client Mr. Neighbors, Mr. McCauley filed a motion to stop the speedy trial clock without notifying his client Guy Neighbors, or Phil Gibson Carrie Neighbors attorney, then withdrew from the case and turned over the discovery along with the notes and highlights back to the Prosecutor. The documents in the discovery given to Mr. Neighbors new attorney Dionne Sheriff did not match the documents that Mr.
Neighbors had gone over with his former attorney Mr. McCauley.
Vindictive prosecution occurs when a prosecutor brings additional charges solely to punish the defendant for exercising a constitutional or statutory right, such as a defendants right to a jury trial. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 6 U.S. v. VanDoren, 182 F.3d 1077.

Feb 27, 2008 Marietta Parker files a Superseding Indictment USA v. Neighbors 07-cr-20124-CM-JPO without any new incidents, in response to moot a motion by defendants attorney Phil Gibson to remove a Lis Pendens against the Neighbors home at 1104 Andover, and the Business Property at 1904 Massachusetts in violation of the 10th circuit courts statutes. 1.Because there have been no guilty pleas, or convictions as required by the 10th circuit court for lis pendens or forfeitures, the actions of the Government have placed "punishment" upon the defendants in connection with the forfeiture and lis pendens actions.

According to Kansas law, a forfeiture proceeding under K.S.A. 65-4171 is civil in nature, and the statutory scheme is not so punitive as to negate legislative intention to establish a civil remedial mechanism. However the Prosecutor Marietta Parker in this case, against Kansas statutes, has used the forfeiture proceeding as a form of punishment. The lis pendins placed against the defendants property, absent of the

required notification of the lis pendens within 60 days of the filing and in violation of the "10th circuit court statutes" has placed a heavy burden upon the defendants, has interfered with the sale of the property, and has prejudiced the defense by creating a tremendous financial burden upon the defendants. The governments response to the defendants motion to remove the lis pendens was to file a superseding indictment including another forfeiture allegation against the same property; just two days after the defendants filed the motion to release the lis pendens. Creating more prejudice and punishments upon the defendants. The actions by the Government in this case have amounted to a penalty associated to a pending case without a plea or conviction in place. There is a question of law, where this court's review is unlimited. See Memorial Hospital Ass'n, Inc. v. Knutson, 239 Kan. 663, 668, 722 P.2d 1093 (1986). The Neighbors have been subjected to "multiple punishments" for the same alleged offense in this case. See State v. Cady, 254 Kan. 393, 396, 867 P.2d 270 (1994) (citing Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 165, 53 L. Ed. 2d 187, 97 S. Ct. 2221 [1977]). The United States Supreme Court consolidated two United States Court of Appeals cases from the Ninth and Sixth Circuits. Both circuits held that the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibited the government from both punishing the defendant for a criminal offense and forfeiting defendant's property for the same offense in a separate civil action. (As is what has taken place here in this case) When a forfeiture proceeding against property is proceeded against before a person is held guilty and condemned, and therefore causes hardship, "punishment" and prejudice against that person, then it does constitute a civil action against that person as a 'punishment."

The Fifth Amendment clearly states that forfeiture cannot be used as punishment for the criminal offense.282 U.S. at 581. When the Government places actions against the defendants of cruel and unusual punishment during an arrest, then clearly the defendant has been pre-punished for a pending crime, and therefore any punishments placed upon the defendants in the future for the same alleged crime would constitute a violation of the Fifth Amendment rights of the defendant.

The prosecutor Marietta Parker has knowingly presented the courts with false information, hearsay evidence by convicted felons in exchange for a deal was presented before a Grand Jury in USA v. Neighbors 07-cr-20124cm-JPO It was established through an earlier evidence hearing before the Honorable Federal Judge John Lungstrum that testimony by Patrick Nieder before the Grand Jury was egregious and riddled with false accusations. The perjured testimony presented to the Grand Jury should have rendered the original indictment itself not constitutionally valid. To be constitutionally valid, an indictment must allege lucidly and accurately all the essential elements of the offense endeavored to be charged. State v. Greer, 238 N.C. 325, 327, 77 S.E.2d 917, 919 (1953). The purpose of the evidence presented before a Grand Jury is to determine if a reasonably minded jury could accept the relevant evidence as adequate and sufficient to support the conclusion of defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Parr, supra at 463-64; see also, United States v. Goss, 650 F.2d 1336, 1341-42 (5th Cir. 1981).

To comport with our Criminal Procedure Act, an indictment must assert facts supporting every element of a criminal offense and the defendant's commission thereof with sufficient precision clearly to apprise the defendant . . . of the conduct which is the subject of the accusation. N.C. Gen. Stat. 15A-924(a)(5)(2006).
------------------------------------------------------

18 U.S.C. 1001 (1976) provides: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact, or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations, or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. ------------------------------------------------------Giving testimony to the grand jury that was "patently false and misleading in material respects and undoubtedly led to the erroneous indictment The use of false and perjured testimony cannot be reasonably explained or justified, and the use of such evidence is an affront to our justice system and a deprivation of the most basic and inalienable rights due each of us! Defendants Carrie and Guy Neighbors therefore move, pursuant to Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, that the Court should dismiss the

indictment due to the governments misconduct in knowingly and/or recklessly presenting false, misleading, and material testimony before the grand jury. As stated previously, the Government has failed to investigate and indicted this case by making deals and failing to responsibly and carefully examine each individuals actions and each individuals words. While the law of conspiracy may be broad in scope, its breadth is not limitless, and the Government must show each individuals willful and knowing involvement in an unlawful agreement with convincing, reliable and honest evidence beyond mere hearsay and speculation.

The United States Supreme Court has recognized that prosecutorial misconduct can justify the dismissal of an indictment if it is established that the violation substantially influenced the grand jurys decision to indict, or if there is grave doubt that the decision to indict was free from the substantial influence of such violations. Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States, 487 U.S. 250, 256, 108 S. Ct. 2369, 2374 (1988) (quoting United States v. Mechanik, 475 U.S. 66, 78, 106 S. Ct. 928, 945-46 (1986)).5 See also United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36, 46 & n.6, 112 S. Ct. 1735, 1741 & n.6 (1992)

(district courts supervisory power can be used to dismiss indictment because of misconduct before grand jury, at least where that misconduct amounts to violation of one of those few, clear rules which were promulgated by Supreme Court and Congress to ensure integrity of grand jurys functions, such as prohibitions against false declarations before grand jury and subornation of perjury) (citing, inter alia, Bank of Nova Scotia); United States v. Vallie, 284 F.3d 917, 921 (8th Cir. 2000) (An indictment cannot be based on perjured testimony, and the government may not use perjured testimony at trial if there is a reasonable chance that it would affect the jurys judgment[.]) (citations omitted). The Court should in the name of Justice and respect for the integrity of the courts and Justice system as a whole dismiss the Indictments based on the governments misconduct in knowingly and/or recklessly presenting false and misleading testimony to the grand jury.

Guy and Carrie Neighbors arrested 8-8-08 for Obstruction of Justice, by Postal Inspector David Nitz because Guy Neighbors informed KU Detective Mike Riner that he needed his attorney present before making any statements or turning over any paperwork in connection to an investigation which Mr. Neighbors and his wife were fully cooperating with. This arrest

ended up with the Neighbors spending 12 days incarcerated at Leavenworth Maximum security detention Prison.

During a detention hearing Aug. 11th , It was established that the PMB mail box used by the defendants in connection with the Ebay site was in the defendants true name and also included the names of the other people who would be receiving mail there as required by law. The hearing also established the shared bank account the defendant used in connection with the eBay site also had the defendants name as a signer on the account since 2006. Evidence was also presented to the courts to show that Robert Samples the seller of the Laptop had indeed signed the sellers form and the information on the sellers form including the number of laptops sold that day and the amount of $1,000 matched the information Mr. Samples had given the investigating officer. The investigating officer also stated under oath that Mr Samples had stated to the detective that the Neighbors did not know the laptop was stolen when they purchased it from him. Therefore the Government failed to present any evidence of wrong doing or fraudulent activity by the Neighbors. On Aug 18th, after spending 12 days in prison the Neighbors were released from Federal custody and the case was closed - Terminated 08-19-08. On 08-20-08 Based on the August 8th, arrest, a One count INDICTMENT In Federal Court is filed against the Neighbors by the Governments Prosecutor Terra Morehead. United States Of America vs. Guy & Carrie Neighbors case no.0820105-cm-jpO for violation of Title 18 section 1343 for wire fraud and

Title 18, sections 1512 (c) and 2. Even though no evidence of fraud could be provided by the Government during the Aug. 11 hearing.

LEGAL STANDARDS

. To punish a person because he has done what the law plainly allows him to do is a due process violation of the most basic sort.. Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 363 (1978). Although a prosecutor has broad discretion in his charging decisions, there are two important limitations on this authority. First, a prosecutor may not bring charges with a vindictive motive, since ..penalizing those who choose to exercise. constitutional rights, .would be patently unconstitutional... North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 724 (1969), overruled on other grounds by Alabama v. Smith, 490 U.S. 794 (1989) (quoting United States v. Jackson, 390 U.S. 570, 581 (1968)); see Guam v. Fegurgur, 800 F.2d 1470, 1473 (9th Cir. 1986). Nor may a prosecutor selectively enforce the law

based on race, religion or some other arbitrary classification, including the exercise of rights under the First Amendment. Guam, 800 F.2d at 1473; United States v. P.H.E., Inc., 965 F.2d Though similar, vindictive prosecution and 1 selective prosecution are distinct claims governed by different legal standards. See United States v. DeTar, 832 F.2d 1110, 1112 (9th Cir. 1987). A motion to dismiss on grounds of selective prosecution is filed herewith.
848, 849 (10th Cir. 1992).1 No evidence of actual bad faith is necessary to establish the Claim of Prosecutorial Vindictiveness. Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21, 28 (1974); United States v. Groves, 571 F.2d 450, 454 n.1 (9th Cir. 1978); United States v. DeMarco, 550 F.2d 1224, 1227 (9th Cir. 1977); see also United States v. Ruesga-Martinez, 534 F.2d 1367, 1369 (9th Cir. 1976) (.the mere appearance of vindictiveness is enough to place the burden on the prosecution.) .

Once the defendant shows that charges have been increased after they have exercised a constitutional or statutory right, the defendant has demonstrated an .appearance of vindictiveness. on the part of the prosecutor. United States v. Shaw, 655 F.2d 168, 171

(9th Cir. 1981) (citing United States v. Groves, 571 F.2d at 453). With this prima facie showing, or other evidence of .a realistic likelihood of vindictiveness. Vindictiveness is presumed and the burden shifts to the government to prove that the increase in the severity of the charge was not based on a vindictive motive. See United States v. Spiesz, 689 F.2d 1326, 1328 (9th Cir. 1982); Shaw, 655 F.2d at 171; United States v. Burt, 619 F.2d 531, 536 (9th Cir. 1980); see also RuesgaMartinez, 534 F.2d at 1369 (when prosecution reindicts the accused after he exercises a procedural right, the prosecution .bears a heavy burden of proving that any increase in the severity of the alleged charges was not motivated by a vindictive motive.). . An indictment must be dismissed if there is a finding of .actual. vindictiveness, or if there is a presumption of vindictiveness that has not been rebutted by objective evidence justifying the prosecutors action,. The Indictment must be dismissed. United States v. Johnson, 171 F.3d 139, 140 (2d Cir. 1999) (per curium); see Spiesz, 689 F.2d at 1328.

REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL OF INDICTMENT BECAUSE THIS PROSECUTION IS VINDICTIVE This case involves all forms of prosecutorial vindictiveness condemned by the courts. First, as the prosecutors own words reveal, this ongoing prosecution of Guy and Carrie Neighbors is motivated by vindictiveness against the Neighbors for their continued exercise of First Amendment rights. The Prosecutor has freely admitted that the Neighbors have brought this on themselves because of their continued complaints against the Government. Their public blogging which during a hearing in front of the Honorable Judge Murguia, Terra Morehead had an emotional mental breakdown and pleaded with the Judge to gag the Neighbors because their public blogging had caused her cases to be under investigation 5 years back. It is the right of these defendants to be tried by an impartial prosecutor by a jury of their peers. This cannot possibly be accomplished with the current prosecutors handling this case. As it was decided earlier by this court the defendants had a right to speak freely about the prosecution of their case.

Piling on additional charges and Indictments against a defendant for exercising this right constitutes a paradigmatic example of vindictive prosecution. Cf. United States v. P.H.E., Inc., 965 F.2d 848, 853 (10th Cir. 1992) (holding that a prosecution motivated by a desire to discourage expression protected by the First Amendment is barred and must be enjoined or dismissed, irrespective of whether the challenged action could possibly be found to be unlawful) (citations omitted); United States v. Adams, 870 F.2d 1140, 1145 (6th Cir. 1989) The broad discretion accorded prosecutors in deciding whom to prosecute is not .unfettered,. and a decision to prosecute may not be deliberately based upon the exercise of protected statutory rights..) (citations omitted); Brooks v. United States, 450 U.S. 927 (1981) stating that a court must reconcile the rule that a prosecutor has broad discretion to file charges where there is probable cause with the rule that vindictive conduct by prosecutors is unacceptable and requires control); see also City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451, 462-63 (1987) (.The freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free

nation from a police state..).

If there is any doubt from the prosecutors words or actions that this prosecution is vindictive, the sequence of ongoing events since 2005 confirms this.

As in other cases where courts have dismissed indictments due to prosecutorial vindictiveness, the prosecutors have repeatedly responded more harshly and vindictively in response to the Neighbors continued assertion of their statutory rights.. See Groves, 571 F.2d at 453-54; DeMarco, 550 F.2d at 1227-28; see also Spiesz, 689 F.2d at 1328 (.A claim for vindictive prosecution arises when the government increases the severity of alleged charges in response to the exercise of constitutional or statutory rights..). The result in this case ought not to be different. As if the fact that the prosecutors have continuously retaliated with harsh treatment, staged an FBI investigation, interfered with the Defendants ability to make a living, and had the Neighbors repeatedly arrested and subjected to searches while represented by counsel were not enough, there is additional direct evidence that the prosecutors in this case are continuing to be vindictive against the defendants by filing yet a third Indictment based on an arrest for Obstruction of Justice under a statute which the charges do not fall under, based on a State investigation which should not have merited Federal Charges, after a hearing August 11th, 2008 revealed no evidence of wrong doing by the defendants . In Wright v. United States, 732 F.2d 1048 (2d Cir. 1984), the court established that a defendant has a constitutional right to a

.disinterred prosecutor. and that a prosecutor .is not disinterested if she has, or is under the influence of others who have, an axe to grind against the defendant. .... Id. at 1055. The prosecutor here as acted as a .stalking horse against the Neighbors . and is in no way disinterested.

DEFENDANT NEIGHBORS IS ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY IN CONNECTION TO THIS VINDICTIVE PROSECUTION CLAIM AND TO AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING although The Neighbors believe that the prosecutors behavior and admissions regarding the reasons for this prosecution and the new charges, standing alone, requires that the Indictment be dismissed, they respectfully request, in the alternative, for discovery to be handed over for examination and to allow defendant to properly prepare for trial and be able to actively participate in their own defense, and an evidentiary hearing on the vindictive prosecution claim. See Adams, 870 F.2d at 1145-46 (holding that defendants were entitled to discovery on their vindictive prosecution claim and stating that .where there has been a prima facie showing of .a realistic likelihood of vindictiveness,. it is incumbent upon the district court to .conduct an evidentiary hearing where the governments explanations can be formally presented and tested..) (quoting United States v. Andrews, 633 F.2d 449, 453 (6th Cir. 1980) (en banc)). To be entitled to such discovery, a defendant must come forward with .some evidence. of each of the elements of the defense. See United States v. Armstrong, 517

U.S. 456, 465 (1996). The Neighbors have done this and the discovery They seek in particular all documentation of police reports, theft reports in connection to any property that was seized during the searches that had been reported stolen, witness statements, physical evidence, documentation, video evidence and Grand Jury minutes, held by the prosecutor and the Justice Department -- will bolster their claims that they are being targeted for prosecution because of prosecutorial vindictiveness. Cf. Adams, 870 F.2d at 1146 (.It is hard to see, indeed, how the defendants could have gone much farther than they did without the benefit of being able to see, copy or investigate the discovery and evidence being used against them. CONCLUSION This case has gone on for nearly four years. It has entailed filing charges, dismissing charges, refilling charges, having the same charges dismissed again. Unwarranted searches, illegal forfeiture allegations, false arrest, public false allegations against the defendants, incarceration, violations of speedy trial law, and the violations of basic Constitutional rights that should be afforded to every American citizen including the Neighbors. This case has gone on long enough and due to its vindictive nature the Neighbors respectfully request the courts dismiss all pending Indictments with prejudice.

Dated October 20, 2008. Respectfully submitted to the courts By Defendants Guy Neighbors and Carrie Neighbors

Pro-se