Advertisement

Archive for Tuesday, February 14, 2012

Two Lawrence police department employees suspended, pending investigation

February 14, 2012

Advertisement

Two Lawrence Police Department employees have been suspended pending an investigation of alleged inappropriate conduct, Police Chief Tarik Khatib said Monday evening.

Khatib said he could not disclose the nature of the allegations because it was a personnel matter.

“We conduct personnel investigations all the time,” he said. “When we do, sometimes — depending on what the allegations are — we put people on suspension.”

Khatib did not specify whether the employees were commissioned officers or civilian employees. He said the employees had not been arrested on any criminal charges.

Comments

smitty 2 years, 2 months ago

Maybe it's the two LPD employees who leaked the cover up and corruption information in the YH case . roflmao

0

oneeye_wilbur 2 years, 2 months ago

All this wasted time on Yellow House by the police and everyone else. The stuff in that store very rarely had any value at all. Doesn't Lawrence have better things to do. It's hard to believe that the sale of goods even paid for the rent and utilities let alone make a living.

What's computer really worth? What's a vacumn really worth, how about old stoves and refrigerators? How much money has been spent to date on this Yellow House case? Does anyone really know?

0

Paul R Getto 2 years, 2 months ago

Kill this thread and put it out of its misery. I'll donate a few bucks to 'smitty' so he/she can start a website to memorialize this mess. After it's running we can give the link to the Daily Show.

0

been_there 2 years, 2 months ago

To begin with, the court is aware of the number of allegations in this case that [Ms. Neighbors] was obstructing or attempting to obstruct or did in fact obstruct justice during the course of these proceedings. Over the years, the court has viewed much evidence of [her] alleged activities. . . . [N]early all of [her] activities have been related to the offenses or other closely related offenses. The court is mindful of [her] argument or mentioning of her First Amendment constitutional rights that she believed that she was exercising during the course of these proceedings. . . . In regards to this objection, the court believes what was most persuasive . . . [is] the fact that there does appear to have been attempts made by Miss Neighbors to impede or at least stall the prosecution of her case as well as malign the prosecution. Mindful of the language in . . . Section 3C[1].1, the court . . . find[s] that there was an attempt to obstruct justice, and as such, there is support for a two level adjustment[.]

0

been_there 2 years, 2 months ago

Turning to Ms. Neighbors coconspirators' reliance on her to purchase property they could not sell elsewhere, Mr. Bateson testified that he sold stolen property to Ms. Neighbors, instead of going to a pawn shop, because Ms. Neighbors did not require identification that would link him to the stolen property. He also testified that Ms. Neighbors agreed to write checks to him in names other than his own, because he did not "want to write [his] name" on her seller's form stating that the property was not stolen. Id. at 985. Mr. Crawford testified that Ms. Neighbors did not require identification before buying property from him. Rather, identification only came into play "to cash the checks" from the Yellow House. Id. at 1035.

0

been_there 2 years, 2 months ago

James Ludwig testified that he began dealing with Ms. Neighbors in January 2004 and dealt with her on an almost daily basis. He stated that when he told Ms. Neighbors some of the merchandise he would be bringing in was stolen, "[s]he said [I] can live with that." Id. at 1393.

Anthony Reyes, who worked for Ms. Neighbors at the Lawrence Yellow House, also testified. He stated that when Ms. Neighbors bought new, in-the-box items, she moved them to a storage closet where no one could see them. He also testified about the time a police officer from the University of Kansas showed up at the store with a list of bicycles stolen from campus. According to Mr. Reyes, Ms. Neighbors reviewed the list and told the officer she did not recognize any of the stolen bicycles identified. After the officer left, however, Ms. Neighbors remarked that two of the bicycles on the officer's list were "in her possession." Id. at 1272.

0

been_there 2 years, 2 months ago

Patrick Nieder, a drug dealer, testified that he traded cocaine for stolen merchandise and then sold the stolen merchandise to Ms. Neighbors. He did this from the late nineties until 2003 or 2004, and dealt with Ms. Neighbors about three times a week. When asked whether he told Ms. Neighbors the items he was selling her were stolen, he answered, "Yes, sir, I did"; indeed, he told her "more than once." Id. at 1204. But this admission did not halt Ms. Neighbors' business with Mr. Nieder. Further, when Mr. Nieder was asked whether he knew what Ms. Neighbors did with the items that he sold to her, he answered: "Yeah, she put em on the internet and soldem, or on eBay or something." Id. at 1206. He elaborated that he frequented her store and "she pretty much told [him] what she was doing" with the stolen merchandise he sold her. Id. at 1207.

0

been_there 2 years, 2 months ago

At trial, numerous coconspirators testified, including Lewis Parsons, Patrick Nieder, James Ludwig, Michael Aldridge, Nicole Beach, Marcus Crawford, James Ludwig, and Stacy Barnes-Catlett. Other witnesses included an employee of Ms. Neighbors, Anthony Reyes, and LPD Officer Rantz.

Lewis Parsons, a truck driver, testified that he primarily sold Ms. Neighbors new, in-the-box DeWalt tool sets he had stolen from Home Depot or Lowe's. When Ms. Neighbors asked him if the tool sets he was selling her were stolen he "said yes." Id. at 1079. Nevertheless, Ms. Neighbors continued to buy tool sets from him. Mr. Parsons also testified that Ms. Neighbors asked him whether he could get "more DeWalt tool sets . . . , and I said yeah, I could. . . . She bought all the DeWalt cordless tool sets that I could bring in, and I brought in, oh, my God, I don't know, a bunch." Id. at 1080-81.

0

been_there 2 years, 2 months ago

During the December 2005 search of Ms. Neighbors' home, officers found sixteen cases of stolen athletic shoes, ten to twelve bicycles, empty bicycle boxes, business records related to the Yellow House, new jeans with tags still attached, shipping boxes, and packaging material. During the July 2006 search of her home, officers found new, in-the-box merchandise, including: an electric toothbrush, an underground electric dog fence, a mechanical bore sight for a firearm, a security camera, and a telephone. All of the items found in July 2006 had eBay auction numbers attached.

During the December 2005 search of the Yellow House in Lawrence, officers discovered stolen merchandise, including a new, in-the-box Sony Cybershot camera, with its pricing label removed.3 The camera and other stolen goods, many of which had eBay auction numbers attached, were found in a "back closet area . . . that had [a] door . . . marked private." R., Vol. 2 at 860. In and around the back closet officers also found, among other items, four electric razors and a perfume set. It was later determined that the razors and perfume set had been stolen from a Dillons. During the July 2006 search of the Yellow House in Lawrence, officers found several new, in-the-box tool sets near the back closet with eBay auction numbers attached.

0

been_there 2 years, 2 months ago

Neighbors files motions...Duma accused of ineffective counsel repeatedly

I've followed this case for several years. Duma is only on the case until the sentencing....Neighbors has made multiple claims of ineffective counsel, the most current motion for dismissal of Duma has been filed since the trial. Neighbors is filing pro se motions on his poor representation. By smitty on December 05, 2010 at 10:46 AM

John Duma Review John Duma represented Carrie Neighbors in the Yellow House case. A very difficult Federal case that has drug on for 5 years. He stood by his client, no matter what challenges the client or the case puts to him. He is a tiger when it comes to defending his client in the court room. When the world says give up, hope whispers try one more time. I am proud to have Mr. Duma in my corner of the court room. By Carrie Neighbors on September 04, 2010 at 06:59 PM

0

Ron Holzwarth 2 years, 2 months ago

One time my jaw literally dropped when a police officer gave sworn testimony in court that was nowhere near what happened. I mean, nothing like that happened at all! I was totally dumbfounded. And throughout all his testimony, he stared straight ahead, spoke in a monotone, and never moved his head at all.

He swore in court that he saw me walking across my yard, detained me, and wrote me a citation.

What actually happened was that I answered a knock on the door, and he was standing there, so I invited him in. And then, he looked at and we discussed my completely restored 1881 Steinway piano, which I was rather proud of. Then, he wrote me a citation which was later thrown out of court.

But, that did not happen in Lawrence, and for very obscure reasons, that officer's employment ended soon after that.

0

Oldsoul 2 years, 2 months ago

I have personally witnessed sordid, unconscionable misconduct by KU cops and the resident KY HR hacks during a federal investigation.

Douglas County takes incompetence and conflict-of-interest to record-setting levels, including tampering with evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, and crooked judges.Law enforcement here could easily star in a public service announcement exposing southern-justice, backwards practices. The KU witnesses who tried to smear me were hardly credible, so the case was dropped, but I should not have to live with so many hateful lies and be muzzled upon dishonest threat of legal retaliation.

0

rockchalker52 2 years, 2 months ago

This is my first smitty-thon of this magnitude. Iz quite the phenomenon. Would you say that was a 4 or 5 on the Richter or what? From where I sit, I don't see much impact.

0

Flap Doodle 2 years, 2 months ago

Every little mud show needs a geek to caper and gibber and draw in the rubes. That's smitty's job now.

0

LTownJayhawk 2 years, 2 months ago

While I don't like many of his other posts, I'm glad that Smitty posted what he did, even though it was through excessive posts. Most of the LPD cops (not all) are in to bending the law in their favor as it suits them and in my case I'm glad they did. The "evidence" they took from my home to parts unknown actually prevented my case from moving forward and it was ultimately dismissed. Apparently "logging" evidence on an affidavit and then not being able to actually produce it is a big no no, or as my attorney stated, it constituted a "broken chain of evidence" and it eventually served as the grounds for dismissal of the charges. Thanks LPD!

0

Hong_Kong_Phooey 2 years, 2 months ago

Seriously, LJ-World, is there no way you can keep Smitty from posting these endless diatribes that border on defamation? Of course not - you prefer to delete comments that use swear words and such.

0

samsnewplace 2 years, 2 months ago

Is there a way to block smitty and his boredom? I really don't want to read all his jibberish. thanks.

0

Crazy_Larry 2 years, 2 months ago

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." (a source)

0

Reader2 2 years, 2 months ago

Wow Smitty! What did Detective Riner ever do to you? Sounds like an awful lot of hate against the man.

0

Flap Doodle 2 years, 2 months ago

Think of all the little bytes wasted by smitty doing what smitty does.

0

smitty 2 years, 2 months ago

cont...

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 of Law, that Libellee's had/have at all times and in every measure, concerning their association with Affiant, operated outside the parameters of the Constitution of the United States of America, and within the bounds of treason, coercion, threat, duress, malfeasance, conspiracy, tort, unlawful conversion, theft of property and any other 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 have read the foregoing, and know its contents to be true to the best ofmy knowledge, except as to the matters which are therein stated on my information or belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true. This instrument is submitted upon good faith effort that is grounded in fact, warranted by existing law for the modification or reversal ofexisting law and submitted for proper purposes, and not to 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 of perjury, under the laws of the Republic of Kansas, that the foregoing is true and correct.

0

smitty 2 years, 2 months ago

cont...

Claim 02) Affiant affirms and alleges that through willful misconduct motivated by actual malice as clearly displayed by the University of Kansas Detective Michael Riner's defamatory internet blogging on but not limited to, the Journal World web site, in a public defamation about Affiant and her business before and during the investigation, resulting in an act of"contempt" of a court ordered gag on all parties involved in the case, conspiracy against rights in violation ofKS. Annot. codes, inequitable behavior and despicable conduct by an officer of the court including perjury and violations of discretionary authority. In a conspiracy to cover-up said misconduct the prosecution of Affiant in the University's investigation was transferred by the controlling agency (The University Public Safety police dept.) to the Federal Prosecutor Marietta Parker, along with Affiants complaints submitted to the University Police Internal Affairs about Detective Micheal Riner's violations ofAffiants civil rights under color of law, absent the controlling agency's execution of proper disciplinary investigation or authoritative action in the matter involving their own employee Detective Mike Riner, resulting in a Federal 3 Indictment so frivolous and vindictive, that the court did not even revoke Plaintiffs pretrial release upon the filing of the Indictment. Instigated outside of the jurisdiction, rules and regulations that govern said controlling agency's personnel issues and disciplinary process, resulting in the accomplishment of a conspiracy to further harassment, false arrest, false imprisonment, duress, 2 point enhancment on sentence January 12, 2011 , and continued depravation of rights due to the fact the said Federal Indictment has not been properly dismissed, resulting in abandonment of Affiant's protected constitutional right to due process of law. These resulting damages and injuries have bound Libellee's into a contract for restitution and reparation to Affiant.

0

smitty 2 years, 2 months ago

cont...

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)] the Supreme court ruled in a 9-0 decision, that bond had standing to challenge the federal statute 18 USC Section 3231, on the grounds that transferring a State investigation into a Federal Prosecution interferes with the powers reserved to the States. In accordance to18 USC Section 3231, part of the enactment of title 18 states: "The district courts ofthe United States shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive ofthe courts ofthe States, ofall offenses against the laws ofthe United States. Nothing in this title shall be held to take away or impair the jurisdiction a/the courts a/the several States under the laws thereof" Without the validity of 18 USC § 3231 a federal court must revert the powers of the federal courts back to the states. 2 Affiant's charges were transferred to the Federal Government in violation of Constitutional law, causing affiant unconscionable harm by forcing her to be tried by the Federal Government instead of the State where she would have received less time (or never been prosecuted at all.) See [US. V Sharpnack, 355 US 286 (1957)] It further specifies that "Whoever. .. is guilty ofany act or omission which. .. would be punishable ifcommitted or omitted within the jurisdiction ofthe State ... in which such place is situated, by the laws thereof in force at the time ofsuch act or omission, shall be guilty ofa like [federal] offense and subject to a like punishment". In [Carol Ann Bond v. United States, No. 09-1227], the Supreme court stated that any act of Congress repugnant to the Constitution is void. Lower courts are required to follow Supreme Court rulings.

0

smitty 2 years, 2 months ago

cont...

constructive notice If this affidavit is not properly rebutted with a counter-affidavit within thirty (30) days from the date of its service, all paragraphs not denied shall be eonfessed affirmed, by such default, and shall be accepted as dispositive, conclusive facts by the named Libellee's or other properly delegated authority there of, had the opportunity and "failed to plead." All Counter-affidavits must be signed with the valid legal name ofthe 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 presented in good faith regarding the illegal transfer of a state investigation by the above named Libellee's into a Federal complaint for prosecution that lacked jurisdiction and authority. It is now incumbent on you, the purported original Agency and oversight officials with discretionary 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 of a stolen laptop from the University of Kansas by the University of Kansas police for a transfer to Federal Jurisdiction solely for prosecution in violation of Supreme court ruling. Affiant requests the Libellee's to provide evidence that the Plaintiff trespassed Federally under common law, constitutional law or public law and specifically identify Acts, Codes, Rules, Regulations and Statutes that support the transfer of the allegations from State to Federal.

0

smitty 2 years, 2 months ago

in the district court of douglas county, kansas Civil Court Department [Lawrence Kansas] carrie neighbors Affiant v kansas public safety: kansas university police department Case Libellee michael riner Libellee affidavit/affirmation in support of complaint

affidavit/affirmation in support of complaint This sworn Affidavit is my presentment of "Official Notice of Facts, and Demand for Answers and relief' and an administrative remedy under notary and or witness presentment, for me; the Affiant Carrie Neighbors. This is an offer for The Kansas University Public Safety Police Department and Detective Michael Riner, in honor, to respond to this Affidavit within 30 days to offer settlement in this dispute in the amount of

Five hundred thousand dollars. ($500,000.00). Affiants sworn notice hereby constitutes a private contract set out in admiralty Due to the fact Collaborative resolution rather than continued litigation would be the most efficient way to allow healing in this matter, Affiant hereby gives consideration in the form of forbearance of suit for a reasonable period of time, 30 days to respond to this sworn notice.

0

smitty 2 years, 2 months ago

cont...

conclusion: Under the direction of The Kansas Public Safety Department (KU Police) Kansas University Detective Michael Riners acts of Fraud upon the court have enabled the Federal Assistant U.S. Attorney's expanded allegations of offenses lacking Federal Jurisdiction against the Plaintiff well beyond the face of the indictment, in violation of statute, misrepresented the constitution, and operated outside of legal authority. The transfer of the State investigation to a Federal Prosecution violates the Constitution and Supreme court rule. In an ongoing pattern of abuse, Conspiracy to violate due process of law has caused irreparable harm to the Plaintiffs life, reputation, liberty, business, right of due process, and operated outside of legal authority. Rights secured by the Constitution of the United States are carved in stone, and they are cumulative, they are not independent or elective unless someone knowingly chooses to forfeit one ofthe specified rights. Plaintiff has never forfeited her rights. If one of the constitutionally secured rights is bypassed, administrative offices, including the Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney, and courts of the United States lack or lose subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff hereby declares: Defendant's willful misconduct was motivated by actual malice toward the Plaintiff. that the controlling agency over Detective Mike Riner is Kansas University Public Safety Police Department, as a result of a conspiracy against rights, resulting in monetary, and punitive damages in an amount to be decided by a Jury, as well as request for compensatory general damages award to be decided by a Judge and Jury, payed to the Plaintiff Carrie Neighbors for her time, lost wages, violations of Constitutional rights, loss of liberty, defamation, false arrest, and ongoing pain and suffering, directly related to the incident beginning August 8th 2008, continuing to the present, detainment, and vindictive prosecution, continued deprivation of rights, enhancement of sentence, pending appeal, and continued stress of the pending Indictment too frivolous to be presented before a jury. Violations under color of law, and vindictive prosecution lacking Federal Authority for "Federal obstruction of Justice" in case 08-20105-cm. The Plaintiff hereby graciously extends an offer for the University Public Safety Police Department and Detective Michael Riner, in honor, to respond to complaint, notice of suit and attached affidavit within 30 days. This filing hereby constitutes a private contract set out in admiralty and Plaintiff hereby offers consideration in the form of forbearance of suit for a reasonable period of time, 30 days to respond, and offer an efficient collaborative resolution of $500,000.00 in settlement rather than continued litigation in this matter .

certificate of service

0

smitty 2 years, 2 months ago

cont...

A). Falsely arrest and incarcerate the Plaintiff in a case lacking Federal Jurisdiction.

B). Force the Plaintiff into a court order to shut down her internet sales, which resulted in huge losses ofprofits for her business.

C). Plaintiff was held in Federal Prison until she agreed under duress to sign an unconstitutional gag order to relinquish her 15t Amendment right to free speech, which prevented all parties from making public comments about the case. In violation ofthe court order Detective Riner continued to blog about the Plaintiff, defaming her and her business on the internet.

D). Prosecutors revoked Plaintiffs bond on September 28th, 2010 and she was sent to Federal prison on the premise that she violated the Obstruction Case gag order when she sent a request that the Postmaster General in Washington D.C. Review the Postal Inspectors violations oflaw and jurisdictional authority.

E). The Federal District court used the unconstitutional Obstruction case for a 2 point enhancement on the Plaintiffs sentence on January 12,2011. That ruling is currently under appeal.

0

smitty 2 years, 2 months ago

cont...

3). complaint filed for perjury: On September 16, 2008, a complaint detailing KU Detective Mike Riners federal perjury, ongoing unconscionable vendetta constituting theft, conspiracy, cover-up, and harassment ofthe plaintiff and her business, along with copies of Mike Riners defamatory blogs under the user name "MichaeLT" on the Lawrence Journal World web site was submitted by the Plaintiff to the University of Kansas Public Safety office. Captain Schuyler Bailey received the complaint on behalf of the Department. On October 8th, 2008, in a conflict of interest, and a conspiracy of cover-up due to the fact Marietta Parker was the Prosecuting attorney in the case, The University Police Director Ralph V. Oliver responded with a letter informing the Plaintiff that he had allegedly forwarded the complaints to the U.S. Attorney Marietta Parker. No disciplinary action was taken by the University or the Prosecutor in regards to the serious allegations against Detective Riner. With no accounting for the Plaintiffs complaints and requests for review, KU Detective Riner has escaped any accountability for his violations of both State and Federal law, he has been held "above the law" by his Controlling Agency as well as the Governments Prosecuting Attorney's in this matter. He was authorized by both the court and his controlling agency to violate the Plaintiffs Civil and Constitutional Rights, continue to commit abuse ofdiscretionary 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 Vindictive Federal Prosecutors in the interrelated case against the Plaintiff, as a staple witness to secure a frivolous Federal Indictment for "Obstruction ofJustice, as well as the Federal Prosecutors have continued to use his perjurious testimony before the Federal District court Judge and subsequent trial Jury. Detective Riners false allegations have damaged the plaintiff and enabled the Prosecution to vindictively:

0

smitty 2 years, 2 months ago

cont...

2). perjury by kansas university detective mike riner: On August 11 th, 2008 in Federal court for the District of Kansas, before the Honorable Judge O'Hara, K.U. Detective Mike Riner was called to the stand to testify about his state level investigation into the laptop allegedly stolen from Kansas University. He falsely testified that the plaintiff had not let him see the sellers form. However in failing to get the lie straight, in the "Application for arrest affidavit" by Postal Inspector David Nitz, it clearly states that Mr. Riner was shown the sellers form by Carrie Neighbors, bearing Robert Sample's name and information. Detective Riner also took notes from the sellers form on his yellow note pad, and used the information obtained from the form to arrest and further investigate the seller of the laptop; K.U. Employee Robert Sample. Mr. Sample stated to the police that Carrie Neighbors did not know the laptop was stolen. It was found during the investigation that Mr. Sample had stolen numerous items from his employer, and sold the items to the Jayhawk Pawn Shop. Plaintiff was selectively and discriminatory Federally prosecuted in connection to Mr. 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, 2008 that the Plaintiff had concealed the sellers form from him, when shown the sellers form on the witness stand, he again committed perjury and claimed he had never seen it. When the defense revealed the fact that his notes would contradict his testimony he testified he had "shredded" the notes. During the subsequent hearing on August 18tb, 2008, Assistant 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 hearing the Magistrate judge ruled that no bond violations had occurred and ordered that the Plaintiff be released from Federal custody and her bond reinstated. On August 19t 2008, at the direction of Kansas University's Public Safety Police Department for Detective Michael Riner's "fraud upon the court", the Government's Attorney's moved forward and obtained a Frivolous indictment before a Federal Grand Jury against the Plaintiff for "Federal Obstruction of Justice" [US. V Carrie Neighbors 08-201 OS-cm (2008)] .

0

smitty 2 years, 2 months ago

cont

2.) unlawful arrest and detention overview: Kansas University Detective Michael Riner served a search warrant on the Plaintiff's business; The Yellow House store, 1904 Massachusetts, Lawrence, Kansas 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 August 8,2008 for "Federal obstruction of Justice" in violation of Title 18, USC 1512(c)", in the University's state investigation ofa stolen laptop from the University of Kansas, sold to the Plaintiffs resale store, stolen by a University employee Robert Sample, that was being investigated by the University Police Detective Mike Riner. The investigation did not fall under federal statutes, codes, Acts, or regulations and did not involve any crime ofthe U.S. mail. "Under where the Federal Agents lack authority over jurisdiction, 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 stolen by the officers from the recorder and a blank "off brand tape" was put in its place. (The blank tape has been sealed in an evidence bag for future DNA fingerprint analysis, as it is not possible that the Plaintiff'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, no federal 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 had filled out. Detective Riner copied the information onto his yellow pad "field notes" then later asked for the actual form to take with him. Plaintiff informed KU Detective Riner that she allowed him to copy 3 the information from the form onto his field notes, however due to the corrupt investigation already in progress by the Lawrence Police Department, she would need her attorney present if she was to make any statements or turnover the sellers form as evidence. Plaintiff's attorney John Duma had already informed her he would not be available until Monday. Four hours later Detective Riner, several KU uniformed police officers, Lawrence Kansas Police officers that the Plaintiff had filed complaints against, including Micky Rantz and Jay Bialek and Postal Inspector David Nitz served the search warrant upon the business signed by a state Judge and Federal arrest warrant on the Plaintiff and her husband for "Federal obstruction of justice". If an agency isn't vested with authority by law, it lacks standing to bring a complaint, or make an arrest.

0

smitty 2 years, 2 months ago

cont...

It is necessary for a department or agency ofthe Federal Government to prove standing. Ifan agency isn't vested with authority by law, it lacks standing to bring a complaint. So the court also lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

1.) lack of jurisdiction Search warrant signed by a State Judge executed on August 8th, 2008, accusing the Plaintiff of "Federal Obstruction of Justice" by Detective Michael Riner with the Kansas University Police Department, and executed with assistance from Lawrence Kansas Police department and the Postal Inspector lacked jurisdictional authority 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 in the same cause on August 8th 2008 by Postal Inspector David Nitz, based upon Kansas University Detective Mike Riner's theft investigation which violated the jurisdictional authority of Post office statutes, constituted malicious conspiracy under Color ofLaw, resulting in the arrest of the plaintiff, in violation of the Plaintiff's fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment rights of due process, without an official compliant that any trespass of laws had been committed involving the U.S. Mails. The arrest and Frivolous Federal Indictment solely based upon a state investigation by the University Of Kansas police involving an alleged stolen laptop sold to the Plaintiffs business the Yellow House Store, continues to cause extreme duress and pain to Plaintiff for an ongoing period of more than 3 years.

0

smitty 2 years, 2 months ago

here's the entire civil suit...

carrie neighbors Plaintiff in the district courtof douglas coun1y~~j~~~ Civil Court Department [Lawrence Kansas] carrie neighbors Plaintiff university of kansas office of public safety kansas university police department defendant michael riner defendant complaint Demand for Jury Trial or Declaratory Judgment complaint

Jurisdiction ofthis court: At all times herein mentioned, defendant, The Corporation ofThe University ofKansas Office Of Public Safety and any controlling John Doe's presently not known by Plaintiff was the controlling agent, servant, and employee of each remaining defendant and was at all times herein mentioned acting within the course, scope, and authority of said agency service and employment, located in Douglas County, State of Kansas, duly bound under and by virtue ofthe laws ofthe State of Kansas. Comes Now Plaintiff Carrie Neighbors by special appearance, hereby brings forth notice of suit that the above entitled defendants have knowingly and willfully conspired under color of law to violate plaintiffs right of due process, acting outside of their Jurisdiction, and in an abuse of discretionary authority to Conspire to bring forth a Federal Indictment of "Federal Obstruction Of Justice" an alleged crime solely based on a State investigation involving Kansas University that should have been tried by the State where no crime would have been found to be committed, "Federal intervention depends upon proofthat there is both a present and immediate threat to a federal right and no opportunity to protect it in the state court prosecution." [Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971)] wherefore violating Plaintiff Carrie Neighbors due process of law, Constitutional and Civil rights, and denial of equal access to justice in case 08-20105-CM-JPO filed in Kansas Federal District Court. Requests by Plaintiff for review of violations of law, disciplinary action, and investigation in the violations of rules and regulations have been submitted predicated on the following issues by plaintiff to The Kansas University Public Safety office (KU Police). The Department representative Captain Schuyler Bailey received the complaint. The foregoing named defendant's in this cause have knowingly and willfully conspired to violate Carrie Neighbors Due process of law, harassed her and conspired to provide the court with noncredible perjured testimony by K.U. Detective Michael Riner in an abuse of Authoritative discretion to falsely arrest, falsely imprison, torture, discriminate, control and selectively prosecute, as well as fraudulently, and Vindictively Federally indict the plaintiff in violation of the Constitution and Jurisdictional Supreme Court Rule. In support of said allegations Plaintiff states as follows:

0

smitty 2 years, 2 months ago

click the link to view the entire civil suit ....it keeps getting buried.....posted on the story about C Neighbors appeal. In the civil suit Carrie Neighbors refers to the appeals case still pending so apparently the civil suit was written and filed prior to the appellants court ruling. The way the civil suit reads, the federal attorney majorly assisted in covering Mike Riners actions ....as did many local LE agents named and unnamed.

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2012/jan/26/judges-reject-appeal-former-yellow-house-owner/#c1959086

0

irvan moore 2 years, 2 months ago

i think it's better to have a cop and not need one than to need a cop and not have one. it's kind of a thankless job, most of us appreciate you

0

Chris Ogle 2 years, 2 months ago

After reading these comments, I wonder why anyone would want to be a cop.

0

smitty 2 years, 2 months ago

Where did the c-roaches go? Someone must have turned on the lights

0

smitty 2 years, 2 months ago

Bialek and Rantz were heavily involved along with "other yet un-named LE agents" .

3). COMPLAINT FILED FOR PERJURY: On September 16, 2008, a complaint detailing KU Detective Mike Riners federal perjury, ongoing unconscionable vendetta constituting theft, conspiracy, cover-up, and harassment ofthe plaintiff and her business, along with copies of Mike Riners defamatory blogs under the user name "MichaelJ" on the Lawrence Journal World web site was submitted by the Plaintiff to the University of Kansas Public Safety office. Captain Schuyler Bailey received the complaint on behalf of the Department.

On October 8, 2008, in a conflict of interest, and

a conspiracy of cover-up due to the fact Marietta Parker was the Prosecuting attorney in the case,

The University Police Director Ralph V. Oliver responded with a letter informing the Plaintiff that he had allegedly forwarded the complaints to the U.S. Attorney Marietta Parker.

No disciplinary action was taken by the University or the Prosecutor in regards to the serious allegations against Detective Riner.

With no accounting for the Plaintiffs complaints and requests for review,

KU Detective Riner has escaped any accountability for his violations of both State and Federal law,

he has been held "above the law" by his Controlling Agency as well as the Governments Prosecuting Attorney's in this matter.

He was authorized by both the court and his controlling agency to violate the Plaintiffs Civil and Constitutional Rights, 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 Vindictive Federal Prosecutors in the interrelated case against the Plaintiff, as a staple witness to secure a frivolous Federal Indictment for "Obstruction ofJustice, as well as the Federal Prosecutors have continued to use his perjurious testimony before the Federal District court Judge and subsequent trial Jury.

0

kernal 2 years, 2 months ago

I love it when people post links to sites that have the same stories over and over again that have little, if anything, to do with facts.

0

Random56 2 years, 2 months ago

Crooked cops? Where in the article does it say they were "crooked". Some peolpe watch too many movies. Maybe you should stick to riddles, rather than facts.

0

smitty 2 years, 2 months ago

3). COMPLAINT FILED FOR PERJURY:

On September 16, 2008, a complaint detailing

KU Detective Mike Riners federal perjury, ongoing unconscionable vendetta constituting theft, conspiracy, cover-up, and harassment of the plaintiff and her business, along with copies of

Mike Riners defamatory blogs under the user name "MichaelJ" on the Lawrence Journal World web site was submitted by the Plaintiff to the University of Kansas Public Safety office. Captain Schuyler Bailey received the complaint on behalf of the Department.

On October 81n, 2008, in a conflict of interest, and a conspiracy of cover-up due to the fact Marietta Parker was the Prosecuting attorney in the case, The University Police Director Ralph V. Oliver responded with a letter informing the Plaintiff that he had allegedly forwarded the complaints to the U.S. Attorney Marietta Parker. No disciplinary action was taken by the University or the Prosecutor in regards to the serious allegations against Detective Riner. With no accounting for the Plaintiffs complaints and requests for review, KU Detective Riner has escaped any accountability for his violations of both State and Federal law, he has been held "above the law" by his Controlling Agency as well as the Governments Prosecuting Attorney's in this matter. He was authorized by both the court and his controlling agency to violate the Plaintiffs Civil and Constitutional Rights, continue to commit abuse ofdiscretionary 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 Vindictive Federal Prosecutors in the interrelated case against the Plaintiff, as a staple witness to secure a frivolous Federal Indictment for "Obstruction ofJustice, as well as the Federal Prosecutors have continued to use his perjurious testimony before the Federal District court Judge and subsequent trial Jury.

0

theriddler 2 years, 2 months ago

Big surprise. There are a lot of crooked cops in this town.

0

acg 2 years, 2 months ago

I think they were all just joking, except Smitty, who has a Boehner for Carrie Neighbors. Lighten up, no one is saying they don't appreciate what cops do.

0

smitty 2 years, 2 months ago

cont..

Detective Riner, several KU uniformed police officers, Lawrence Kansas Police officers that the Plaintiff had filed complaints against, including Micky Rantz and Jay Bialek and Postal Inspector David Nitz

served the search warrant upon the business signed by a state Judge and Federal arrest warrant on the Plaintiff and her husband for "Federal obstruction of justice". If an agency isn't vested with authority by law, it lacks standing to bring a complaint, or make an arrest.

0

smitty 2 years, 2 months ago

For what ever reason there has not been any news of this civil law suit filed the same week as Carrie Neighbors appeal denial. Both Bialek and Rantz are named in this suit against MIke Riner(MichaealJ) and KU.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOUGLAS COUNTY~~J~~~ Civil Court Department . [Lawrence Kansas] CARRIE NEIGHBORS Plaintiff UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS OFFICE OF PUBLIC SAFETY KANSAS UNIVERSITY POLICE DEPARTMENT defendant MICHAEL RINER defendant

Kansas University Detective Michael Riner served a search warrant on the Plaintiff's business; The Yellow House store, 1904 Massachusetts, Lawrence, Kansas 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 August 8,2008 for "Federal obstruction of Justice" in violation of Title 18, USC 1512(c)", in the University's state investigation ofa stolen laptop from the University of Kansas, sold to the Plaintiffs resale store, stolen by a University employee Robert Sample, that was being investigated by the University Police Detective Mike Riner. The investigation did not fall under federal statutes, codes, Acts, or regulations and did not involve any crime ofthe U.S. mail. "Under where the Federal Agents lack authority over jurisdiction, 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 stolen by the officers from the recorder and a blank "off brand tape" was put in its place. (The blank tape has been sealed in an evidence bag for future DNA fingerprint analysis, as it is not possible that the Plaintiff'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, no federal 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 had filled out. Detective Riner copied the information onto his yellow pad "field notes" then later asked for the actual form to take with him. Plaintiff informed KU Detective Riner that she allowed him to copy the information from the form onto his field notes, however due to the

corrupt investigation already in progress by the Lawrence Police Department,

she would need her attorney present if she was to make any statements or turnover the sellers form as evidence. Plaintiff's attorney John Duma had already informed her he would not be available until Monday. Four hours later

0

Beth Ennis 2 years, 2 months ago

wow, everyone here must have taken a negative pill this morning. Seriously? Have you ever been a cop or worked for a PD? I have, twice. They do things that you couldn't pay me enough money for. I'm sure there are some corrupt officers out there. They draw from an imperfect society, hence, they will have imperfect employees. However, I'm sure that the majority of the employees are very good people. This could be a lot of different things and everyone's speculation on it is only spreading rumors. I realize a lot of this was tongue in cheek, and I did get a chuckle out of some of these posts. I'm just amazed that everyone's comments are so negative (the ones not tongue in cheek)

0

toe 2 years, 2 months ago

Our police force has grown too large and too expensive.

0

Norma Jeane Baker 2 years, 2 months ago

Rumor has it they may have been somehow involved in JFK's assassination, and the subsequent cover up by the LPD.

0

garyr 2 years, 2 months ago

I heard the suspension was in regards to the recently released pictures of an emaciated Macaulay Culkin.

0

Flap Doodle 2 years, 2 months ago

The role of the LPD in the Permian Extinction has never been fully investigated.

0

somedude20 2 years, 2 months ago

I wonder if these "suspended police department employees" had anything to do with the mysterious death of Whitney Houston? I have some intell that might link them to death of Bea Arthur

0

FalseHopeNoChange 2 years, 2 months ago

I hope this doesn't thwart the efforts for Department Armored Personnel Carriers, Tommy Guns or I.E.Ds

0

g_rock 2 years, 2 months ago

They were in cahoots with Smitty? iknewit.

0

RoeDapple 2 years, 2 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

observant 2 years, 2 months ago

Where's smitty with all the details about how this proves It's all Olin's fault? And the fact that the entire LPD is totally corrupt.

0

Norma Jeane Baker 2 years, 2 months ago

I'm sure smitty will let us know what's up.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.