Archive for Wednesday, December 13, 2006

Yellow House owners face drug, gun allegations

Federal charges against Lawrence couple follow yearlong investigation

December 13, 2006


After a yearlong investigation into what police had described as a sophisticated stolen-goods fencing operation, the owners of a Lawrence store have been charged with drug usage and gun possession.

An indictment unsealed Tuesday from U.S. Attorney Eric Melgren's office charges Guy S. Neighbors and his wife, Carrie Neighbors, the owners of Yellow House Store, 1904 Mass., with one count of possessing firearms while they "were unlawful users of a controlled substance." Both were arrested Tuesday morning by agents from the Internal Revenue Service and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service.

The charge, which carries a penalty of up to 10 years in prison, is a relatively obscure one, according to Guy Neighbors' attorney, Jim George.

"It's one I haven't seen before," said George, who has been practicing criminal law in federal courts for 14 years.

The indictment claims the couple possessed four handguns, four rifles and three shotguns on or about Dec. 2, 2005, the day Lawrence Police served the first of a series of search warrants at the store and the Neighbors' home in the 1100 block of Andover Street. Marijuana plants were found during one of the searches of their home.

A Lawrence Police Department spokesman said in December 2005 that the first search warrants served that month were part of a two-month investigation into "one of the largest, most sophisticated fencing operations" local police had seen, involving stolen goods sold in the Lawrence area and through the Internet.

Since then, the Neighbors have been vocal in their criticism of police, claiming they were unfairly singled out for the investigation. They claimed that Lawrence Police posed as FBI agents while interviewing witnesses - an allegation the FBI said was unfounded - and that during one of the searches of the store, legal interns for their previous attorney picketed in front of the shop carrying signs such as "Investigate police corruption."

Guy Neighbors said earlier this month that he had filed a complaint against Lawrence Police alleging that officers had come to the store and started to question his wife without her attorney present.

Lawrence Police spokeswoman Kim Murphree on Tuesday referred questions about the case to the U.S. Attorney's Office.

George, Guy Neighbors' attorney, declined to give further comment about the case.


Ragingbear 11 years, 5 months ago

Translation: We really messed up the investigation and got a ton of the evidence tossed out. However, we went and found a way to get to them.

However, I laughed when they said "one of the largest, most sophisticated fencing operations". I can not believe that they didn't know about this place. I lived on these streets for over a year, and I can tell you that Yellow House was the quickest way to liquidate stolen and otherwise "found" property.

budwhysir 11 years, 5 months ago

I am sure everyone knows what I think about this

neighbal 11 years, 5 months ago

its Crazy to think all this time 1, whole Years worth of Tax payers money ( money that you, I and obviously the neighbors Paid Because there are no Tax Evasion charges) And NO charges for fencing Stolen goods (the saposed Original Reason for the Search"s" ) .....................Mabe Thats because there were no Stolen goods.

Has Any one used the Freedom of information Act to See what the FBI really Said ?? about this case ??. ABSOLUTLY NOTHING because the FBI never Got involved. They dont have any paper work on it. Because they never did an investigation.

This is Exactly what happens when you let the police run free with no watch dog group looking over thier shoulder to make sure they are following policy......

Richard Heckler 11 years, 5 months ago

It's been a year invetigating a sophisticated operation of fencing goods.

So is this a federal grand jury indictment?

Now they are charged with a little marijuana and guns they probaly had every right to own?

Sigmund 11 years, 5 months ago

Jim George is a FAR better attorney than that idiot they had early on, but calling this statute "relatively obscure" is a bit disingenuous. It's right there between prohibiting a fugitive from justice and committed mental patients from owning firearms. Anyone who has practiced criminal law in Federal Court for 14 years should probably be aware of it. Maybe he is setting up a ineffectiveness of counsel basis for the appeal of their convictions?

FYI, other people prohibited by this law from owning firearms are convicted stalkers, convicted felons, persons convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, and illegal aliens (including undocumented workers). Just so you know, ignorance of the law is not a defense, even by your attorney.

Linda Endicott 11 years, 5 months ago

Yeah, but I notice they still haven't charged them with STEALING ANYTHING...


preebo 11 years, 5 months ago


It is highly unlikely that he is attempting to setup a faulty defense for a possible appeal. That would bring about a dozen ethics violations. I would assume what he is doing here is showing the public that the peoples case against his clients is not only flimsy, but also rare and seldom employeed. It is clear that he is attempting to draw this case into the pulic eye because of the defendants position in the community. He assumes this will apply pressure on the police department. My only question here is. Why is the IRS arresting them on firearm possession? Why was the IRS involved at all? If this is a drug or illegal firearm possession case where is the ATF? One thing he should go after here is jurisdiction violations. However, I am not completely familiar with this case so I can't be certain.

Richard Heckler 11 years, 5 months ago

Don't know if this would apply but on personal experience it was discovered that the KBI and FBI most of the time do not get involved unless requested.

There has been a huge space in time since all of this transpired human memories will be a bit dusty perhaps?

promitida 11 years, 5 months ago

Seriously people, stop being so critical. If they had nothing to hide, the police wouldn't have found anything.

doc1 11 years, 5 months ago

This is Lawrence. The people here are on the side of the suspect(s) not victim(s). I hate that. Of coarse according to George Bush 1 out of 4 americans are retards. Evidently a high percentage of them are posting on here. Wait, I'm posting to. Dooohhh!

roger_o_thornhill 11 years, 5 months ago

"Who are the victims in this case?"

-Who's stolen items were fenced? That's a start.

"Just so you know, ignorance of the law is not a defense, even by your attorney."

-I know that this is probably an important aspect of law, but where does the average person learn what is and isn't illegal? I remember having to waste part of my life in highschool learning "equine science", but there was never a class teaching about laws. I learned through common sense, hearing things from others and on TV, and through trial and error.

local_support 11 years, 5 months ago

"Seriously people, stop being so critical. If they had nothing to hide, the police wouldn't have found anything."

Law enforcement needs to make a case any way they can. If this requires stretching the actual facts of the case to bring a charge then I highly doubt they would hesitate to do so. Innocent until proven guilty, lest we forget.

budwhysir 11 years, 5 months ago

Get a can of paint, wont be to long untill the blue house opens

Janet Lowther 11 years, 5 months ago

Another case where when the police have a grudge against someone they can find SOMETHING to charge them with.

If they hadn't found the pot, they probably would have charged 'em with improper storage of "Hazardous materials" (ammonia or chlorine based cleaners, pesticide, soldering flux, etc.)

Honestly people, we have such an accumulation of laws that people can easily commit felonies with no criminal intent.

The old doctrine of "Mens rea" needs to be reintroduced to our courts. It might be acceptable to convict people of minor infractions like speeding without providing evidence that they intended to break the law, but proving intent should be an essential requirement of sending someone to jail.

adky 11 years, 5 months ago

It's not often I agree with Marion, but he is right on the money today. LPD have some problem with this couple and they set out to get them. From what I understand, they had the guns legally but were caught with a bit of pot. Most folks would just be looking at a pot possession case, but because our beloved law enforcement has a problem with the Neighbors, they have brought up this obscure charge. Anyone else would have gotten a ticket.

yellowhouse 11 years, 5 months ago

Tell me this folks,

How do you fight for your rights when you are up against a corrupt police department, that not only refuses to investigate the publics repeated complaints about misconduct of the officers? Yet offers no review board for the victims of police abuse to report to?

Then one week after a formal complaint is turned into the police dept. Law enforcement retaliates and arrests individuals with obscure unheard of charges!

Just asking!

justthefacts 11 years, 5 months ago

"I know that this is probably an important aspect of law, but where does the average person learn what is and isn't illegal? "

Many sources for this information.

First and foremost, statutes; will provide access to all Kansas statutes, and amendments. Go to that page, click on "Statutes" in the left hand column, then do a word or phrase search in the "key word" box.

Searching Kansas cases for discussions on statutes or common law principles is also pretty easy, on-line. Go to, click on "published opinions" and then (again) to a key word/phrase search.

There are similar web sites for federal laws and cases. Anyone wanting to know more about whether a specific action they're contemplating is covered by the law could at least do a search!

You can also get/seek legal advice from qualified attorneys. The key is finding one who has experience in a given area of law; it's becoming quite specialized! Sure you can be your own attorney too - just like you can be your own dentist and take out your teeth. But it can be a big mess. So, if it's a complicated problem, or you aren't sure what to do, it's best to pay the service provider trained in that area.

Finally, how about some good old fashioned common sense? Who among us doesn't know that possession (let alone growing) of pot is still illegal? [Side note: I would, however, be interested in knowing how many pot busts or prosecutions occur, in Lawrence, on a yearly basis.} And possession of guns - surely anyone having one should know the laws on them? I might not know exactly what a sentence would be, but I could be pretty sure that if I broke gun or drug laws, and got caught, there's a price to pay!

I could be wrong, but in this instance, it sounds like the attorney isn't aware of the law b/c it's a penalty issue, not an illegal possession/use issue. Penalty laws keep getting "tweeked" by lawmakers, so only someone closely following those tweeks might know/understand the latest sentencing provisions enacted by state and federal law makers.

budwhysir 11 years, 5 months ago

Marion- you have not agreed with me for a long time but I believe you have some interesting words in your post

Nate Poell 11 years, 5 months ago

Marion, I believe George W. Bush is the head of the current administration. He's had, what, six years and entirely friendly congresses to get those statutes rewritten? Get over Clinton, man.

Nice derail, by the way. I personally don't give a damn if they grow pot, but I do know that it's currently illegal to do so. Unless they're doing it as some sort of civil disobedience exercise -- which is highly (heh) unlikely -- then they're total freakin' idiots to think that the cops are going to lay off them. I live pretty close to the Yellow House, and it's sketchy at best.

Oh, and neighbal, you're perfectly within your rights to make an FOIA request. Stop asking others to grind your ax for you.

budwhysir 11 years, 5 months ago

Marion, I dont think you tried a derail, I believe most are not even on the train.

Do you have a figure as to the total amount of money?

Nate Poell 11 years, 5 months ago

Marion, hey I'm with you on decriminalization. The "war on drugs" has been an expensive failure. However, the fact remains that growing dope is still illegal, and the folks that do grow have two choices: 1) stop, or 2) continue and be prepared to face the consequences if they're busted. And again, Bush has had six years and three very friendly congresses to get the laws rewritten, and this bust occurred under his administration. So, absent any other explanation, he must feel the same way Kl1nt0n does about this.

MerryPresent 11 years, 5 months ago

What have they been doing since their store closed in July?

Jamesaust 11 years, 5 months ago

"It's one I haven't seen before."

18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) is indeed an uncommon basis for an indictment outside of a few narrow contexts.

Alone, it is quite a b/s application. The law is perhaps most useful for having something to hold over the head of low-level types working within some type of drug distribution organization. I suspect, however, that the indictment serves to leverage cooperation on the original fencing issues. (Tune in tomorrow for the next episode of this soap opera to see who rats out the other first. Or, will true love convince one to take the fall for the other?)

I don't believe I agree with Marion about the statute existing as a backdoor gun law, although the language of the law is very broad and vague (but I doubt unconstitutionally vague). Indeed, one would not need to be using and possessing the firearm at the same time at all! Still, while the use of firearms does not require the distribution of drugs, the distribution of drugs does require the use of firearms.

Ironically, the odds of limiting this statute actually should improve under a Democrat-controlled Congress. There is a strong interest in reversing the Bush Administration's limitation of state's rights on decontrol and legalization of medical marijuana. And (g)(3) as written directly conflicts with that.

bugmenot 11 years, 5 months ago

Sorry, I like firearms reduction laws. The kind of people who deal in stolen goods are just the kind of people I'd rather not have owning firearms or selling firearms.

Danielle Brunin 11 years, 5 months ago

I am completely neutral in this matter, mainly because I have no firsthand knowledge of what has been going on at Yellowhouse. However, there are a couple of things that I don't understand. First, why are the Neighbours being singled out when a fair number of pawn shops in this city probably do the same thing? On the other hand, imagine you're the Neighbors. If you believe the police to have a grudge against you and are using every excuse they can find to charge you with something, why would you keep marijuana plants in your house? The guns, big deal, but pot? Duh. It seems pretty screwy on both sides, in my ever-so-humble opinion.

Confrontation 11 years, 5 months ago

"Of coarse according to George Bush 1 out of 4 americans are retards." Well, now isn't that the pot calling the kettle..... I don't know if he said this, but I'd guess that number is extremely low.

doc1 11 years, 5 months ago

Still baffles me how alot of people posting feel sorry for the Neighbors. Why, because they were selling stolen items! Makes no sense people would want to defend them. Who cares if the investigation has taken a year. Thats pretty common. The time the investigation takes has no bearing on if they are guilty or not. Other agencies may investigate similar crimes over a period of years. The ONLY victims here are the people who had their possessions stolen and sold by the Neighbors.

a4d2j10 11 years, 5 months ago

The yellow house store has not been closed by any means . If you people want to critize someone you people need to know the hole truth before you talk about someone be hind there backs.

Kontum1972 11 years, 5 months ago

hmmm..what would the "DECIDER" do in this case....?

Nate Poell 11 years, 5 months ago

Damn Marion, relax and ease up on all the whiny namecalling. And yes, it is in fact the issue in that Bush is currently head of the administration under which this bust occurred. He's the DECIDER, as Kontum1972 pointed out, and he's apparently decidemerated to not push for any change. And oh yeah, what JamesAust said.

Sigmund 11 years, 5 months ago

Calling this statute a drug statute is like saying the laws against drinking and driving are attempt to bring back Prohibition. On the other hand, a GUN CONTROL STATUTE (which this clearly IS) limits who and under what circumstances a person can own a gun.

Apparently when the law was written someone decided that people addicted or using illegal drugs should not be allowed to own firearms. Go figure. And if I remember correctly, it was the LIBERALS that wanted lots of restrictions on firearms, but apparently not when the person is using illegal drugs. Who would have guessed?

Possessing pot IS ILLEGAL, and in the majority of countries I might add. I don't like the idea of someone who feels they can pick and choose what laws they will obey and which laws they will ignore owning firearms. What other laws will they decide don't apply to them once they own a firearm? I also like the idea that people addicted to coke, meth, ecstasy and dozens of other drugs being forbidden by this GUN CONTROL LAW to own firearms. Call me an old stick in the mud.

The only problem I have with the neighbors case is they have not yet been specifically charged with fencing stolen goods. That would lead me to believe there is not enough evidence to prove that case beyond a reasonable doubt. Doesn't mean they didn't do it, after all they never convicted Al Capone for being a mobster, just a tax cheat.

betti81 11 years, 5 months ago

ragingbear--good point.

adky--a plant is NOT a 'bit of pot'. how are they not being charged with intent to sell, possession, etc?

as to the who the victims are, there are many out there. unfortunately, many of those whose possessions were sold to this "business" were sold by drugged out relatives. the rightful owners may not seek justice because in their misguided attempt to "save" said relative, they refuse to press charges. this does not mean the goods were not stolen.

adky 11 years, 5 months ago

Someone in law enforcement here does not approve of miscegenation!

Sigmund 11 years, 5 months ago

I wonder how long it would take for the race card to be played!

bangaranggerg 11 years, 5 months ago

what race card sigmund the house was yellow. If the house was black things might be different.

budwhysir 11 years, 5 months ago

I would like to know when the topic changed around here, I am hanging around trying to get information on the article listed above and now we are talking about rainbows??????

budwhysir 11 years, 5 months ago

I think everyone should stop and read the comic strips take a breath and come back in 5 min. snoopy is realy funny this week.

tdiddy 11 years, 5 months ago

You mean to tell me in 2006 you people still don't think there aren't people who think that way. should I remind you about M.Richards. (freak)

Of course some individuals are closed minded about that, but to take a man's dream of owning his own business is wrong. So he pissed you off, Man-up and go on about your business. Don't be chicken-#*@t and take his business.

If they did have Mary-jane then the surely have a problem, but I noticed they still have their kids and the store is open and contributing to Lawrence's economy.

Were the Feds' really called in? if so they have'nt said much!!!

mutpuppy 11 years, 5 months ago

How are all of you still talking down about the yellowhouse for fencing. What about the other pawn shops and the bargain depot where stolen goods are recovered MORE than at the Yellow House. How come they are not in the news. YOU know that if the police had ANY evidence to fencing they would have produced that charge...since that's what they want to get the Yellow House for, not pot! This looks to me like they are trying to make a whole lot of something out of nothing. How many people are charged with possession of MJ and why are they not on the front page of the news when the police tke their pot!?
I smell something fishy!

Sigmund 11 years, 5 months ago

Once last time. The Neighbors have not been charged with a drug crime. They have been charged with a firearm crime.

Linda Endicott 11 years, 5 months ago

And since the charges were for guns and pot only, there was no need to even bring up anything about fencing. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. Yet the police are still talking about it, and the local media is lapping it up like dogs.

Matter of fact, if the police hadn't been up their a&&es for so long, the gun and drug charges probably never would have happened. Having pot wasn't the brightest thing to do, when they knew they were under investigation, but all of us have had our not so bright moments in life.

After months and months of investigation by the police, and this is the best they can come up with?

It just sounds to me like it's purely harassment.

Linda Endicott 11 years, 5 months ago

I'm not saying that it's beatable, Marion...just saying that's it's pretty pitiful that after months and months of investigation, they couldn't find any proof to charge them with fencing, so this is what the police chose to do instead.

That, to me, sounds like police harassment.

If they hadn't been so obsessed with trying to find stolen goods, they never would have found the pot and guns to begin with.

I'd like to know exactly how anyone is supposed to be sure that they don't have stolen goods? Maybe that used washer or dryer you bought at the garage sale last week might be stolen?

Most people don't keep their receipts, even for major purposes, especially after the warranty ends. So how can anyone ever be sure that they haven't bought stolen stuff?

How do you prove that what you have is yours legally, and not stolen, without a receipt?

Sigmund 11 years, 5 months ago

Marion, you and I disagree on this issue, but I have a question and I hope you might have an answer (or at least an possible explanation). The Neighbors are facing one count of violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3);

(g) It shall be unlawful for any person- ... (3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)); ... to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

Yet, the couple possessed four handguns, four rifles and three shotguns. Couldn't they be facing eleven counts, not just one? If so it lets a little air out of the vendetta theory, doesn't it?

Also, the statute clearly REQUIRES proving "unlawful user" when in possession of the firearm, not mere possession of a "controlled substance" and firearm. Ths may not be as opened and shut of a case as you think.

Sigmund 11 years, 5 months ago

Could you provide a citation for your assertion that "If one is in possession of an illegal substance, one is an "unlawful user"."

I find no such language. Further, the only definition of a user I found is of a "ultimate user" from the Controlled Substances Act and it clearly doesn't apply.

"(27) The term "ultimate user" means a person who has lawfully obtained, and who possesses, a controlled substance for his own use or for the use of a member of his household or for an animal owned by him or by a member of his household." Controlled Substances Act

As far as I can tell, the Feds must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the unlawful use was at the same time they possessed the firearms, not just possession of a controlled substance. And what about the multiple counts? One count, but seven violations. Interesting, no?

Sigmund 11 years, 5 months ago

You have missed my point. Use is NOT the same as possession, and the Statute requires illegal use. You can illegally possess but not illegally use. Don't you get that?

If the Neighbors merely possessed but did not USE controlled substance then the statute doesn't apply, no matter how many firearms they possessed. Use is harder yo prove than possession. Don't you get that?

And still no explanation of why not eleven charges instead of one. 4+4+3=11. Don't you get that?

neighbal 11 years, 5 months ago

Dude Number one................... they did not sell buy or Trade the guns they were family arielooms, A Father in law died and left the guns to the neighbors, and other family members in his will... I know this because I recieved one of them. If it is a crime to recieve a gun that was left to you by a dieing relative I just dont know what this world is comming to..

It is F-ing Rediculas. Some people in the lawrence police Dont want to admit they put thier foot Directly in thier mouth because they know of the repercussions that making false statements, and bringing charges up on false pretense will do.

unite2revolt 11 years, 5 months ago

Considering they have to be found guilty by a jury of their peers, I think they will probably find a way to plead out of this (lesser charges like posession) with only fines and community service, maybe a little probation.

Sigmund 11 years, 5 months ago

Growing is not illegal use. And still no explanation of why only one charge. If you can't find a statute that defines use as mere possession, just say so. If you have no explanation of why not eleven charges, just say so.

Some people.....

Sigmund 11 years, 5 months ago

Unite, they are NOT charged with possession of pot. They are charged with a FIREARM offense. What an idiot...

Sheila Couchman 11 years, 5 months ago

Whew! You all are sure in an uproar here. No one even mentioned the fact that the Neighbors were state licensed foster care home either. Wonder where they hid all those guns and the plants during the inspections? They cared for small children...hmmmm....that worries me more than any of the piddly charges.

Jamesaust 11 years, 5 months ago

Wow. I was told there was further discussion of 18 U.S.C. 922 and there was.

Two quick points:

"Users" do not need to defined in the statute as they are already defined elsewhere - the dictionary. The is no need for a specialized definition of "user." Indeed, this leads to the more important point -- there are only two excuses for being in possession of a controlled substance: to use or to distribute to users. Trust me, the Neighbors WANT to be users in the eyes of the law, not distributors.

Also, the statute as written does not multiply into multiple counts based upon the quantity of drugs or firearms. One may possess an arsenal at the time of drug use but one has committed only one violation of the statute. (One may however multiply the counts by falling under multiple purchases of firearms at different times but proving the pairing of purchase and use backwards in time is difficult and time-consuming and doesn't really get you that far: even if convicted, a court is likely to have any sentences for such to run concurrently.)

mutpuppy 11 years, 5 months ago

you know what they without sin cast the first stone... I have never smoked pot, but almost EVERYOne I know has at one time or another. To me that is a less dangerous drug than Alcohol and the only reason alcohol is legal is because it caused too much organized crime to be illegal. I think more people are killed by alcohol poisioning and drunk driving than a buzz. It's irrelevant now, but most everyone I know owns a gun too.

yellowhouse 11 years, 5 months ago

Formal Complaint Alleging Conspiracy between Aaron McKee Esquire Attorney at Law & Lawrence Police Prosecution investigation team In regards to the Yellow House Store Investigation.

December 14, 2006.

I believe my former attorney Aaron McKee was conspiring with the prosecution in my case, and attempting to sabotage my defense.

On Aug. 23rd during a telephone conversation, Aaron asked me to set up a paypal account in order to pay him his legal fees, I told him that it could only be set up in someone else's name, (since the Lawrence police had me suspended from both paypal and EBay within the first two weeks of the investigation) He asked me to set it up any way.Considering possible pending money laundering charges and after discussing it with my husband I refused.

I believe Aaron had been giving me bad advice, and not fully informing me regarding my rights and options. (Documented details are being withheld at this time.) He arranged for a plea agreement with the Federal investigators. I agreed to cooperate fully with the investigation. I was promised In exchange for my cooperation the Guns and Drug charges were to be moved down to a State level (which would carry probation only sentence.) I also was to be notified of an indictment instead of being arrested, as part of the plea. He failed to get the agreement in writing, and after I cooperated fully with the prosecution my deal was accepted by the prosecutors.

On Dec. 12th 2006, I was federally arrested, handcuffed and taken to into custody at 8:00 am and held in a cell with my feet shackeled until 3:30 pm being denied food the entire day. . I feel this was an act of terrorism and torture by the prosecuting agency by which my attorney failed to properly defend me from. I trusted in the honesty and integrity of the system, and my attorney. Both have failed me miserably.

On August 30th, 2006 After Federal Agents (from the Postal service) approached the case; Guy replaced his criminal Attorney Sarah Swain with a federal Attorney Jim George.



yellowhouse 11 years, 5 months ago


Aaron was not in agreement with this (even though Guys case is separate from Carries) He proceeded to make phone calls that included but are not limited to the following. On August 30th he telephoned a Prosecution team member to inform him of Guy's Actions and discuss the case with him even though Guy was not his client. They both agreed Guy was quote "messing up the case."

On august 31, 2006 Aaron made a deregulatory telephone call to Guys new attorney Jim George and informed him that Guy was having financial problems and would not pay him as a client, and also led him to believe there were financial issues in dealing with us as clients, even though Guy is not his client and he had no right to be discussing the case. This was an apparent attempt to get Jim not to continue to represent Guy.

Aaron continued to have numerous documented conversations with the prosecuting team outside of my presence and without my knowledge.

I believe details of the case were discussed, and my attorney client privilege was breached. He was asked to gather more information for the prosecution during a conversation with an investigator on 9-11-2006

On December 19th 2006 two lead investigators came into our store The Yellow House to question me, (Carrie) about some specifics on the case. Due to the fact my attorney Aaron represented me at the time, and the officers could only have legally approached me with his permission, I believe Aaron conspired with the two investigators and gave them permission to talk to me (Carrie), outside of his presence, and without my permissin, clearly a violation of my constitutional Miranda rights laws against self incrimination.

On 11/15/2006 he called me to inform me the police were wanting to question me again. At that time I was convinced of the conspiracy between him and the police and terminated our attorney client relationship.

He then proceeded to have phone conversations with the prosecution.

I feel the appropriate thing to do would have been to simply fax them a notice informing them that he no longer represented me. The fact he had phone conversations with them regarding the case he was no longer involved in was very unprofessional and inappropriate

yellowhouse 11 years, 5 months ago


Gods gentle spirit shall carry me through

He shall gently guide me in all I do

Weather I'm down, or at my best

I know through his gentleness I am blessed.

Galatians 5:22-23

a2thek 11 years, 5 months ago

What's up with the feds in this town? I know they went in on Free State CU and took down a guy and his brother over what the paper reports as "growth problems" God, dont F**k with the feds. I dont know whats going on, hell you look good and smell good then you must be doing something wrong or illegal. Good ole America. Small businesses lose and large businesses always find a way to win. Can you say "Walmart". The evil empire of the world. The feds cant touch them. HEll, their probably working for them.

bambam 11 years, 5 months ago

I know that one of their customers that was mentioned in the paper makes a living by stealing and selling the items I cant beleive that they didnt know it everyone else in town does.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.