Advertisement

Archive for Wednesday, February 15, 2012

Owner of former Yellow House Store files lawsuit against KU Police Department, detective

February 15, 2012

Advertisement

Carrie Neighbors, an owner of the former Yellow House Store in Lawrence serving an eight-year federal prison sentence for convictions in a wire fraud and conspiracy case, has filed a lawsuit in Douglas County District Court against the Kansas University Police Department and a detective, Michael Riner.

The suit, which Neighbors filed without an attorney, alleges there was no jurisdiction for federal obstruction charges to be filed against Neighbors in connection with an investigation into a laptop stolen from the KU campus, and she also accuses Riner of falsely testifying in the case.

Neighbors was convicted in a stolen goods case, and she and her husband, Guy Neighbors, have accused prosecutors and police of corruption.

“We will vigorously defend this case in court,” said Jill Jess, a KU spokeswoman. “But it’s important to note that a federal jury convicted this plaintiff of 12 counts of wire fraud, three counts of money laundering and one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, mail fraud and money laundering. The Court of Appeals just last month affirmed that conviction.”

Comments

UNIKU 2 years ago

Suit tossed --- as expected.....move along tired doggie...

0

smitty 2 years, 2 months ago

This is a copy of a motion that the Neighbors filed during the process of the federal proceedings. There should be no surprises for anyone mentioned in this motion....the Neighbors have been open about every step they intend to take.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/9643796/FORM-A-Notice-of-Motion-for-Guy-and-Carrie-neighbors

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS(Kansas City Docket)Guy Neighbors and Carrie NeighborsPlaintiff(s)

V.US Assistant Attorney Marietta Parker US Assistant Attorney Terra Morehead Lawrence Kansas Police Officer Jay Bialek Lawrence Kansas Polic e Officer Micky Rantz Lawrence Kansas Police Chief Ronald Olin Postal Inspector David E. Nitz Internal Revenue Service Agent Robert Jackson Kansas University Detective Michael Riner Kansas City FBI Special Agent Walter Bob Robert (Shaefer) Schaefer Lawrence Police Officer Sean Brown City of Lawrence Kansas Lawrence Kansas Police officer Tarik Khatib Lawrence Kansas Police officer Lance Flachsbarth Defendants)


PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, That the undersigned will bring a motion for relief as a cause of
action for said plaintiffs whose civil rights have been violated by state actors. 42U.S.C. §1983.Plaintiffs motion will seek remedy for violations of the Fourteenth Amendment Constitutional right of Due Process of law,equal protection, property, liberty,freedom rights.• Title 18 U.S.C. § 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law.•Title 18 U.S.C. § 241. Conspiracy against rights of citizens

• Title 18 U.S.C. § 1512. Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant──
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1361. Action to compel an officer of the United States to perform his duty. ......

.

0

Paula Kissinger 2 years, 2 months ago

"Personally I have witnessed the KU cops engage in some far less than above board, professional, and honest actions. Conflict-of-interest sucks in law enforcement. These yahoos seem to be totally in the pocket of local movers and shakers, not a group to come out smelling like roses. They strike me as crooked."

Please...do share your observations...

0

goodcountrypeople 2 years, 2 months ago

Personally I have witnessed the KU cops engage in some far less than above board, professional, and honest actions. Conflict-of-interest sucks in law enforcement. These yahoos seem to be totally in the pocket of local movers and shakers, not a group to come out smelling like roses. They strike me as crooked.

0

goodcountrypeople 2 years, 2 months ago

Personally I have witnessed the KU cops engage in some far less than above board, professional, and honest actions. Conflict-of-interest sucks in law enforcement. These yahoos seem to be totally in the pocket of local movers and shakers, not a group to come out smelling like roses. They strike me as crooked.

0

goodcountrypeople 2 years, 2 months ago

Personally I have witnessed the KU cops engage in some far less than above board, professional, and honest actions. Conflict-of-interest sucks in law enforcement. These yahoos seem to be totally in the pocket of local movers and shakers, not a group to come out smelling like roses. They strike me as crooked.

0

blue73harley 2 years, 2 months ago

Would somebody please find smitty a job? Or maybe just a box of crayons?

0

Cant_have_it_both_ways 2 years, 2 months ago

Another reason for a looser pay court system.

0

somedude20 2 years, 2 months ago

I wonder what a Honey Badger looks like naked (no fur)

Does the ice cream snickers bar really satisfy as much as the candy bar?

Do you think Christina Hendricks will ever do a nude scene.

As humans evolve, will we stop pooping?

All of these questions are way more important than any smut that has been printed on this page

0

Paula Kissinger 2 years, 2 months ago

Ms. Neighbors should pay attention to what happens when someone fraudently accuses a KUPD officer of such things. This spring, ret. det. sgt. Riner and I will be attending a parole hearing for an individual who has been incarcerated for the past 31...that's right...31 years in a state penal facility. That individual, of the same IQ as Ms. Neighbors apparently, sued us for $56 million for such claims and recovered nothing. Ms. Neighbors just needs to find a new hobby that she can enjoy during her stay in penal incarceration for that is going to be her future for a good long time due to decent law enforcement officers doing their job...just their job.

0

fudgystuff 2 years, 2 months ago

exactly......Smitty is a relative of Neighbors, she'll post on here til she dies..No one is interested anymore. Neighbors is where she needs to be and this lawsuit will be thrown out by the judge.

0

MarcoPogo 2 years, 2 months ago

I'm sorry, I missed all the earlier stuff about the case. Smitty, could you re-post that info so we can know what's going on?

0

Richard Payton 2 years, 2 months ago

Since, Smitty thinks all officers are on the take then why hasn't this guy been hit with a taser gun? Would appreciate if Smitty's tripe would be placed in a smaller font such as 6 point size.

0

UNIKU 2 years, 2 months ago

“But it’s important to note that a federal jury convicted this plaintiff of 12 counts of wire fraud, three counts of money laundering and one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, mail fraud and money laundering. The Court of Appeals just last month affirmed that conviction.”

'nuf said

0

Alceste 2 years, 2 months ago

Big deal, "Jill Jess, a KU spokeswoman": Richard M. Nixon was pardoned by President Gerald Ford which underscores just how really whack the "legal system" is. shrug

“We will vigorously defend this case in court,” said Jill Jess, a KU spokeswoman. “But it’s important to note that a federal jury convicted this plaintiff of 12 counts of wire fraud, three counts of money laundering and one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, mail fraud and money laundering. The Court of Appeals just last month affirmed that conviction.”

0

smitty 2 years, 2 months ago

matahari says…Ha, she's and everready bunny!

After this civil suit was filed, it became apparent to me that C Neighbors is filing all these motions and suits due to the way the legal system works over the challenge/objection issues ........where the defense attorneys were not objecting over possible appeals issues...... thus leveraging for a guilty and irreversible conviction.......because the attorney did not do the job. This suit claims other collusion was involved with a circle of participants from the local to the federal levels, too.

Energize bunny indeed.

0

autie 2 years, 2 months ago

Really. Really? I'm guessing at this point nobody cares but smitty. The whole thing is a frivilous waste of time and money. Throw it out judge.

0

LadyJ 2 years, 2 months ago

Alex, how about a collapsing all comments so smitty's (and merrill's) comments would automatically be shrunk to about 6 or 8 lines. Just a thought.

0

skinny 2 years, 2 months ago

Who wants to bet this case will be throw out within thirty days? There is a reason why this woman is sitting in jail!!

I wonder if Smitty and Merrill are one and the same???

Here come those black helicopters again! WOW!

0

been_there 2 years, 2 months ago

When Carrie loses her lawsuit, doesn't KU then get to sue her to recover legal fees?

0

been_there 2 years, 2 months ago

It's like that song that use to play at the end of that kids show with lambchop and Shari Lewis. This is a song that never ends, It just goes on and on my friends, Some people started singing it not knowing what it was And they'll continue singing it forever just because,

0

RoeDapple 2 years, 2 months ago

Alex, it's time to through out the trash.

0

Flap Doodle 2 years, 2 months ago

We'll be seeing all these posts again and again and again. Nobody is going to read all that, but it floats smitty's boat in some odd way.

0

denak 2 years, 2 months ago

Was it really necessary to post the whole complaint? Wouldn't a link been more efficient? I don't know anyone who is going to read the whole thing in that format. After a few posts, one's eyes start to blur.

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

cont

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

somebodynew 2 years, 2 months ago

Well Ron, we will probably be reading about this in the 25 and 40 years ago, while still reading about new filings in the regular paper. Somethings just never go away.

0

matahari 2 years, 2 months ago

Ha, she's and everyready bunny!

0

Ron Holzwarth 2 years, 2 months ago

How many more years will it be until we can read about the Yellow House Store in the 25 years ago, 40 years ago, and 100 years ago column?

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.