Cou TBSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT!!! K0Y 20. PH 3: 36 FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS ay, ~ Forfeiture Allegation I, this allegation cannot be proven and must be dismissed<—~ Additionally, Forfeiture Allegation II secks to claim money in the amount of $525,000.00. The Govemment 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 intemet 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 Righteen, 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Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM Document 191 Filed 07/27/09 Page 4 of 5 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 i WHEREFORE, based on the above and foregoing arguments and authorities, Defendants respectfully request that this Court grant their Motion to Dismiss Forfeiture Allegation TI. Respectfully Submitted, Isl 2 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 Thereby 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 27 day of July, 2009.UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, vs, CARRIE MARIE NEIGHBORS, an GUY MADISON NEIGHBORS, pending in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas between the above-named parties, The action includes a Forfeiture Allegation in which forfeiture of the above-named property is sought. The property to be forfeited by reason of the foregoing and pursuant to the provisions contained in and to which this Lis Pensens refers, is described as follows: ‘a building located at 1904 Massachusetts, Lawrence, Kansas, legally described in Douglas County, Plate/Record Id. U02708 as located at “Haskell Place, Block 1 N. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS. (KANSAS CITY DOCKET) Plaintiff, Defendant: 25 Ft Lt. 2,” All right, title and interest in the property hereby vests in the United States of America upon adjudication of a criminal forfeiture under Title 18, United States Code, Section 982 and Title 21, iS PENDENS, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the foregoing action has been commenced and is now United States Code, Section 853 ooh 155 Baiyyiever See ese tae, Gm Bet XN BOK 1O2BRIESISO Fes e "\ teoas Counly Regter of Case Book: 1028 Page: 3950 yeu Peary Fs 80 TRE, bates Aca E mia Case No, 07-20124-KHV/DIWDated at Wichita, Kansas, this 25th day of September, 2007. ERIC F. MELGREN United States Attomey IETTE B, GURNEY ‘Assistant United States Attorney 301 N. Main, Suite 1200 Wichita, Kansas 67202 (316) 269-6481 KS. S.Ct. #11602 STATE OF KANSAS, COUNTY OF SEDGWICK: ss |, Annette B Gurney, of lawl age, being first duly swom, upon her oath, deposes and states: ‘That she is an Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Kansas, one of the attomeys for plaintiff, that she has read the above and foregoing Amended Notice of Lis Pendens and knows the contents thereof, and that all ofthe statements made therein are true to the best of my knowledge and belief ANNETTE B. GURNEY Assistant United States Atomey This instrument was acknowledged before me on September 25, 2007, by Annette B. Gurmey, known lo me as an Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Kansas. A hE PUBLIC # som iozemmesgs+ A?