civil document

8/3/2019 Civil Document

1/13


2/13

The foregoing named defendant's in this cause have knowingly and willfully conspired to violateCarrie Neighbors Due process of law, harassed her and conspired to provide the court with non-credible perjured testimony by K.U. Detective Michael Riner in an abuse ofAuthoritative discretion to

falsely arrest, falsely imprison, torture, discriminate, control and selectively prosecute, as well asfraudulently Federally indict the plaintiff in violation of the Constitution and Jurisdictional SupremeCourt Rule. In support of said allegations Plaintiff states as follows:It is necessary for a department or agency of the Federal Government to prove standing. Ifan agencyisn't vested with authority by law, it lacks standing to bring a complaint. So the court also lacks subjectmatter jurisdiction.1.) LACK OF JURISDICTION

Search warrant executed on August 8th, 2008, accusing the Plaintiff of "Federal Obstruction ofJustice" by Detective Michael Riner with the Kansas University Police Department, and executed withassistance from Lawrence Kansas Police department and the Postal Inspector lacked jurisdictionalauthority over Federal Statutes, Acts, codes and regulations. "Federal Jurisdiction cannot be assumed,but must be clearly shown. [Brooks v. Yawkey, 200 F.2d. 633]

Federal arrest warrant executed on August 8th, 2008 by Postal Inspector David Nitz, based uponKansas University Detective Mike Riner's theft investigation violated the jurisdictional authority ofPost office statutes, constituted malicious conspiracy under Color ofLaw, resulting in the arrest of theplaintiff, in violation of the Plaintiffs fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment rights of due process,without an official compliant that any trespass of laws had been committed involving the US. Mails.The arrest and Frivolous Federal Indictment solely based upon a state investigation by the UniversityOfKansas police involving an alleged stolen laptop sold to the Plaintiffs business the Yellow HouseStore, continues to cause extreme duress and pain to Plaintiff for an ongoing period ofmore than 3years.

2


3/13

2.) UNLAWFUL ARREST AND DETENTION OVERVIEW: Kansas University Detective Michael Riner served a search warrant on the Plaintiff's business;

The Yellow House store, and the Postal Inspector David Nitz Acting outside of his jurisdiction of

authority rules and regulations served arrest warrant on the Plaintiff and her husband on Friday August8,2008 for "obstruction of Justice" in violation ofTitle 18, USC lS12(c)", in the University's stateinvestigation of a stolen laptop from the University ofKansas, sold to the Plaintiffs resale store, stolenby a University employee Robert Sample, that was being investigated by the University PoliceDetective Mike Riner. The investigation did not fall under federal statutes, codes, Acts, or regulationsand did not involve any crime of the U.S. mail. "Under where the Federal Agents lack authority overjurisdiction, so to the Federal courts lack jurisdiction." [Brooks v. Yawkey, 200, F 2d. 633].

During the execution of the search on 08-08-08 the stores surveillance video cassette was stolenby the officers from the recorder and a blank "offbrand tape" was put in its place. (The blank tape hasbeen sealed in an evidence bag for future DNA fingerprint analysis, as it is not possible that thePlaintiff's DNA will be on it, since Plaintiff was arrested prior to the search, theft and switch).

The Plaintiff, prior to the purchase was not aware that the laptop in question had been stolen, nofederal or state law had been trespassed upon by the Plaintiff. Cooperating with the investigation,Plaintiff turned over the laptop and showed Detective Riner the sellers form that Robert Sample hadfilled out. Detective Riner copied the information onto his "field notes" then asked for the actual formto take with him. Plaintiff informed Detective Riner that she allowed him to copy the information fromthe form, however due to the corrupt investigation already in progress by the Lawrence PoliceDepartment, she would need her attorney present if she was to make any statements or turnover thesellers form as evidence. Plaintiffs attorney John Duma had already informed her he would not beavailable until Monday. Four hours later Detective Riner, several KU uniformed police officers,

3


4/13

Lawrence Kansas Police officers including Micky Rantz and Jay Bialek and Postal Inspector DavidNitz served a search warrant upon the business signed by a state Judge and Federal arrest warrant onthe Plaintiff and her husband for "obstruction of justice". Ifan agency isn't vested with authority bylaw, it lacks standing to bring a complaint, or make an arrest.2). PERJURY BY KANSAS UNIVERSITY DETECTIVE MIKE RINER:

On August Ill", 2008 in Federal court for the District ofKansas, K. U. Detective Mike Riner wascalled to the stand to testify about his state level investigation into the laptop allegedly stolen fromKansas University. He falsely testified that the plaintiff had not let him see the sellers form. However infailing to get the lie straight, in the "Application for arrest affidavit" by Postal Inspector David Nitz, itclearly states that Mr. Riner was shown the form bearing Robert Sample's name and information.Detective Riner also took notes from the sellers form on his yellow note pad, and used the informationobtained from the form to arrest and further investigate the seller of the laptop; K.U. Employee RobertSample. It was found during the investigation that Mr. Sample had stolen numerous items from hisemployer, and sold the items to the Pawn Shop. Plaintiff was selectively prosecuted in connection toMr. Sample's criminal acts. (No action was taken against the Pawn Shop.)

Detective Riner gave perjured testimony as a Federal witness at the hearing on August 11 th, 2008that the Plaintiff had concealed the sellers form from him, when shown the sellers form on the witnessstand, he again committed perjury and claimed he had never seen it. When the defense revealed thefact that his notes would contradict his testimony he testified he had "shredded" the notes. During thesubsequent hearing on August 18 th , 2008, U.S. Attorney Terra Morehead proffered to the court that Mr.Riner claimed to have found the notes he had earlier testified to shredding. At the close of the hearingthe Magistrate judge ruled that no bond violations had occurred and ordered that the Plaintiff bereleased from Federal custody and her bond reinstated. On August 19 t" , 2008, based upon Kansas

4

-...-


5/13

University's Detective Mike Riner's fraud upon the court, the Government's Attorney's moved forwardand obtained an indictment before a Federal Grand Jury against the Plaintiff for "Federal Obstructionof Justice" [US. V Carrie Neighbors 08-20105-cm (2008)] .

3). COMPLAINT FILED FOR PERJURY:On September 16, 2008, a complaint detailing KU Detective Mike Riners federal perjury,

ongoing unconscionable vendetta constituting harassment of the plaintiff and her business, along withcopies of Mike Riners defamatory blogs under the user name Michael1 on the Lawrence Journal Worldweb site was submitted by the Plaintiff to the University of Kansas Public Safety office. CaptainSchuyler Bailey received the complaint on behalf of the Department.

On October 8th, 2008, in a conflict of interest due to the fact Marietta Parker was the Prosecutingattorney in the case that Riner was committing perjury for, The University Police Director Ralph V.Oliver responded with a letter informing the Plaintiff that he had allegedly forwarded the complaints tothe U.S. Attorney Marietta Parker. No further action was taken by the University or the Prosecutor inregards to the serious allegations against Detective Riner.

With no accounting for the Plaintiffs complaints and requests for review, KU Detective Riner hasescaped any accountability for his violations of both State and Federal law, he has been held above thelaw by his Controlling Agency as well as the Governments Prosecuting Attorney's in this matter. He hasbeen allowed to continue to commit abuse of discretionary authority and power, violations of oath,candor, jurisdiction, selective prosecution, perjury and due process violations under color of law. Mr.Riner was repeatedly used as a witness by the Federal Prosecutors in the interrelated cases against thePlaintiff, as a staple witness to secure a frivolous Federal Indictment for "Obstruction of Justice, as wellas the Federal Prosecutors have continued to use his peIjurious testimony before the Federal Districtcourt Judge and subsequent trial Jury.

5


6/13

Detective Riners false allegations have damaged the plaintiff and enabled the Prosecution tovindictively:A). Falsely arrest and incarcerate the Plaintiff.B). Force the Plaintiff into a court order to shut down her internet sales, which resulted in huge lossesofprofits for her business.C). Plaintiff was held in Federal Prison until she agreed under duress to sign an unconstitutional gagorder to relinquish her I l Amendment right to free speech, which prevented all parties from makingpublic comments about the case. In violation of the court order Detective Riner continued to blog aboutthe Plaintiff, defamatory her and her business on the internet.

D). Prosecutors revoked Plaintiff's bond on September 28th , 2010 and she was sent to Federal prisonon the premise that she violated the gag order when she sent a request that the Postmaster General inWashington D.C. Review the Postal Inspectors violations of law and jurisdictional authority.

E). The Federal District court used the unconstitutional Obstruction case for a 2 point enhancement on the Plaintiff's sentence. That decision is currently under appeal. CONCLUSION:

The use ofKansas University Detective Michael Riners acts of Fraud upon the court haveenabled the U.S. Attorney's expanded allegations of offenses against the Plaintiff well beyond the faceof the indictment, in violation of statute, misrepresented the constitution, and operated outside of legalauthority. The transfer of the State investigation to a Federal Prosecution violates the Constitution andSupreme court rule. In an ongoing pattern of abuse, the conspiracy to violate due process of law hascaused irreparable harm to the Plaintiffs life, reputation, liberty, business, right of due process, andoperated outside of legal authority. Rights secured by the Constitution of the United States are carvedin stone, and they are cumulative, they are not independent or elective unless someone knowingly

6


7/13

chooses to forfeit one of the specified rights. Plaintiff has never forfeited her rights. If one of theconstitutionally secured rights is bypassed, administrative offices, including the Department of Justiceand the U.S. Attorney, and courts of the United States lack or lose subject matter jurisdiction.Plaintiff hereby requests in accordance to the Unclean Hands Doctrine, for willful misconductmotivated by actual malice toward the Plaintiff, that the controlling agency over Detective Mike Rineris Kansas University Police Department, as a result of a conspiracy against rights, resulting inmonetary, punitive damages in an amount to be decided by a Jury, as well as award a compensatorygeneral damages award to be payed to the Plaintiff Carrie Neighbors for her time, lost wages, violationsof Constitutional rights, loss of liberty, defamation, false arrest, and pain and suffering, directly relatedto the August 8th arrest, detainment, and vindictive prosecution, violations under color of law, for"Federal obstruction of Justice" in case 08-20105-cm.

The Plaintiff hereby graciously extends an offer for the University Public Safety PoliceDepartment and Detective Michael Riner, in honor, to respond to complaint, notice of suit and attachedaffidavit within 30 days. As stated in Plaintiffs sworn attached notice this hereby constitutes a privatecontract set out in admiralty and hereby gives consideration in the form of forbearance of suit for areasonable period of time, 30 days to respond to this sworn notice.Respectfully Submitted~ n n dated" .Dt2~ = c ~ a - r r - ~ ~ e - N - e - i - g ~ o - r - s - - - - - - - - + = ~ ~ ~ ~ -1309 Sunchase DriveLawrence, KS. 66044

7

... - ~ - - ..


8/13

- - - - - -vIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOUGLAS COUNTY, KANSAS Civil Court Department [Lawrence Kansas]

CARRIE NEIGHBORS Affiant KANSAS PUBLIC SAFETY:KANSAS UNIVERSITY POLICE DEPARTMENT Case No:LibelleeMICHAEL RINERLibellee

AFFIDAVITIAFFIRMATIONIN SUPPORT OFCOMPLAINT

AFFIDAVIT/AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT OF COMPLAINTThis sworn Affidavit is my presentment of "Official Notice ofFacts, and Demand for Answers

and relief' and an administrative remedy under notary and or witness presentment, for me; the AffiantCarrie Neighbors.

This is an offer for The Kansas University Public Safety Police Department and DetectiveMichael Riner, in honor, to respond to this Affidavit within 30 days to offer settlement in this dispute inthe amount of Five hundred thousand dollars. ($500,000.00). Affiants sworn notice hereby constitutes aprivate contract set out in admiralty Due to the fact Collaborative resolution rather than continuedlitigation would be the most efficient way to allow healing in this matter, Affiant hereby givesconsideration in the form of forbearance of suit for a reasonable period of time, 30 days to respond tothis sworn notice.

CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICEI f this affidavit is not properly rebutted with a counter-affidavit within thirty (30) days from the

date of its mailing, all paragraphs not denied shall be confessed affirmed, by such default, and shall beaccepted as dispositive, conclusive facts by the named Libellee's or other properly delegated authoritythere of, had the opportunity and "failed to plead." All Counter-affidavits must be signed with the valid
http:///reader/full/500,000.00http:///reader/full/500,000.00


9/13

legal name of the respondent.Affiant hereby states that she is of legal age and competent to state on belief and personal

knowledge that the facts set forth herein as duly noted below are true, correct, complete, and presentedin good faith regarding the illegal transfer of a state investigation by the above named Libellee's into aFederal complaint for prosecution that lacked jurisdict ion and authority.

It is now incumbent on you, the purported original Agency and oversight officials withdiscretionary authority to compel discovery of facts and evidence under UCC 1-308 (RSMO 400.1207). Including but not limited to any evidence under federal statutes that supports the investigation ofa stolen laptop from the University of Kansas by the University of Kansas police for a transfer toFederal Jurisdiction solely for prosecution in violation of Supreme court ruling. Affiant requests theLibellee's to provide evidence that the Plaintiff trespassed Federally under common law, constitutionallaw or public law and specifically identify Acts, Codes, Rules, Regulations and Statutes that support thetransfer ofthe allegations from State to Federal.

Claim 01) Affiant quotes: "Anything in repugnance to the Constitution is invalid or unlawful".Bond, supra. In {Bond v United States, No 09-1227 (June 16, 2011)J the Supreme court ruled in a 9-0decision, that bond had standing to challenge the federal statute 18 USC Section 3231, on the groundsthat transferring a State investigation into a Federal Prosecution interferes with the powers reserved tothe States.

In accordance to 18 USC Section 3231, part ofthe enactment of title 18 states: "The districtcourts ofthe United States shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts ofthe States, ofalloffenses against the laws of the United States. Nothing in this title shall be held to take away or impairthe jurisdiction ofthe courts of the several States under the laws thereof" Without the validity of 18USC 3231 a federal court must revert the powers of the federal courts back to the states.

Affiant's charges were transferred to the Federal Government in violation of Constitutional law,2


10/13

causing affiant unconscionable harm by forcing her to be tried by the Federal Government instead ofthe State where she would have received less time (or never been prosecuted at all.) See [US. VSharpnack, 355 US 286 (1957)] It further specifies that "Whoever. . is guilty ofany act or omissionwhich. ..would be punishable i fcommitted or omitted within the jurisdiction of the State . .in which suchplace is situated, by the laws thereof in force at the time ofsuch act or om ission, shal l be guilty ofalike Uederal} offense and subject to a like punishment'.

In [Carol Ann Bond v. United States, No. 09-1227], the Supreme court stated that any act ofCongress repugnant to the Constitution is void. Lower courts are required to follow Supreme Courtrulings.

Claim 02) Affiant affirms and alleges that through willful misconduct motivated by actual maliceand as clearly displayed by the University of Kansas Detective Michael Riner's defamatory internetblogging on the Journal World web site in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1018 about Affiant and her businessbefore and during the investigation, resulting in an act of contempt of a court ordered gag on all parties,conspiracy against rights in violation of 18 U.S.C. 241, inequitable behavior and despicable conduct byan officer of the court including perjury and violations of discretionary authority.

In a conspiracy to cover-up said misconduct the prosecution ofAffiant in the University'sinvestigation was transferred by the controlling agency (The University Public Safety police dept.) tothe Federal Prosecutor Marietta Parker, along with Affiants complaints submitted to the UniversityPolice Internal Affairs about Detective Micheal Riner's violations ofAffiants civil rights under color oflaw, absent the controlling agency's execution of proper disciplinary investigation or authoritativeaction in the matter involving their own employee Detective Mike Riner, resulting in a FederalIndictment so frivolous that the court did not even revoke Plaintiffs pretrial release. Instigated outsideof the jurisdiction, rules and regulations that govern said controlling agency's personnel issues anddisciplinary process, resulting in the accomplishment of a conspiracy to further harassment, false arrest,

3


11/13

false imprisonment, duress, unconstitutionally enhanced sentence on September 28,2011 andabandonment ofAffiant's protected constitutional right to due process of law. These resulting damagesand injuries have bound Libellee's into a contract for restitution and reparation to Affiant.

Claim 03) Since actions speak louder than words, and by actions contracts are consummated,Libellee's actions have made manifest, with open disregard for the Rule ofLaw, that Libellee'shadlhave at all times and in every measure, concerning their association with Affiant, operated outsidethe parameters of the Constitution of the United States ofAmerica, and within the bounds of treason,coercion, threat, duress, malfeasance, conspiracy, tort, unlawful conversion, theft ofproperty and anyother offenses known to be injurious to Affiant.

Affiant reserves the right to amend in order that the truth be ascertained and justly determined.VERIFIED AFFIDAVIT

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I, Carrie Neighbors, Sui Juris, solemnly affirm and verify that I haveread the foregoing, and know its contents to be true to the best ofmy knowledge, except as to thematters which are therein stated on my information or belief, and as to those matters, I believe them tobe true. This instrument is submitted upon good faith effort that is grounded in fact, warranted byexisting law for the modification or reversal of existing law and submitted for proper purposes, and notto cause harassment and unnecessary delay or costs, so help me God. See Supremacy Clause(Constitution, Laws and Treaties are all the supreme Law of the Land.)I declare under penalty ofperjury, under the laws of the Republic ofKansas, that the foregoing is true

oL-Ul- \ 0 d-..O \2J-un-'s_______authorized representative I

1309 Sunchase DriveLawrence, KS. 66044

4


12/13

On this day came before me the Affiant, a living flesh and blood woman to oath and attest and affirmthe signature is true, complete and correct on the foregoing affidavit. Carrie Marie Neighbors, theabove signed, who is personally known by me or upon proper oath and identification, personally camebefore me, the subscriber, a notary public in and for said County and State, and Duly Affirmed the truthof the foregoing Affidavit in my presence. The Affiant also acknowledged the signing thereof to be herown voluntary act and deed, signing the within instrument in my presence and for the purpose thereinstated. I /0-/2My Commission expires on: /VOt,) ,'Jort( IZo J 3Notary Public ~ t R r n d l l . . J. dD seal:

l


13/13

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document entitledcomplaint and Affidavit i ~ above captioned matter was deposited in the United States Mail, firstclass postage prepaid, on \ C ) , 2t3J2.,..addressed to the clerk of the Court including asecond copy for Chambers:Clerk of the Court for:

Respectfully Submitted,

Carrie Neig bo s1309 Sunchase DriveLawrence, KS. 66044

Sworn to, before me this dayof :::)c.h.V--Ovf'1 ' 201'1.

civil document

Documents