transcript of hearing & testimony case 07-20124-01 marietta parker us attorney yellow house store...

8/14/2019 Transcript of Hearing & Testimony Case 07-20124-01 marietta parker US attorney Yellow house store owners

1/257


2/257

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

iI N D E X

Page

DEFENDANT'S WITNESSES:

WITNESSES

Mickey Rantz:

Direct Examination by Ms. Parker 18

Cross-Examination by Mr. Duma 39

Cross-Examination by Ms. Pilate 42

Redirect Examination by Ms. Parker 76

Examination by The Court 78


Recross-Examination by Ms. Pilate 84

Mike McAtee:





Walter Robert Schaefer:


Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 150 Filed 11/03/2008 Page 2 of 257


3/257

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


iiCross-Examination by Mr. Duma 193

Cross-Examination by Mr. Pilate 201

Matthew D. Sarna:




Recross-Examination by Ms. Pilate 214

David Nitz:




EXHIBITS

OFFERED RECEIVED

Government's Exhibit No. 1A 8 8

Government's Exhibit No. 1B 8 8



Government's Exhibit No. 2C 8 8



4/257

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


iiiGovernment's Exhibit No. 2D 8 8

Government's Exhibit No. 3 8 8










Government's Exhibit No. 8D 8 8

Government's Exhibit No. 8E 8 8

Government's Exhibit No. 8F 8 8

Government's Exhibit No. 8G 8 8

Government's Exhibit No. 8H 8 8




Government's Exhibit No. 9D 8 8

Government's Exhibit No. 9E 8 8

Government's Exhibit No. 9F 8 8

Government's Exhibit No. 9G 8 8

Government's Exhibit No. 9H 8 8

Government's Exhibit No. 9I 8 8



5/257

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


ivGovernment's Exhibit No. 9J 8 8

Government's Exhibit No. 9K 8 8

Government's Exhibit No. 9L 220 220










Defendant's Exhibit No. 1 127 127



6/257

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


2

THE COURT: At this time the Court calls

the criminal case styled United States of America,

plaintiff, versus Guy Madison neighbors and Carrie

Marie Neighbors, defendants, Case Number

07-20124-01 and 2 respectively, both bearing the

suffix CM.

The appearances, please.

MS. PARKER: Yes. Good afternoon, Your

Honor. Marietta Parker, Assistant United States

Attorney and Terra Morehead, also Assistant United

States Attorney, appear on behalf of the

government.

MR. DUMA: May it please the Court, Carrie

Neighbors personally and by her attorney, John

Duma.

MS. PILATE: Good afternoon, Your Honor,

Guy Neighbors is present personally at counsel

table with counsel, Cheryl Pilate.

THE COURT: Very well. Would both

defendants please stand so you can be sworn in.

(Whereupon, the defendants were duly

sworn.)

THE COURT: Very well. The record should

reflect that we convene today to conduct an

arraignment for the defendants with respect to the



7/257

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


3

Second Superseding Indictment that's been returned

by the grand jury and also to take up the

government's May 1, 2008 motion to revoke the

defendants' bond, which is in the file as document

number 65.

Miss Parker, if you would, please,

summarize for the defendants' benefit, as well as

mine, the material changes that are presented by

the Second Superseding Indictment.

MS. PARKER: Yes, Your Honor. There are

two material changes. There were a number -- a

half dozen or so -- typographical errors, but the

material changes are that former Count 17, which

related to money laundering was deleted and former

Count 20 was also deleted. So in effect, the

Indictment has been shorted. Other than that there

has been no material change in the charges.

THE COURT: Thank you, Miss Parker.

MS. PARKER: Oh, I'm sorry. In paragraph

44, which is a forfeiture paragraph, we did delete

any reference to the residence that had been

contained in 44 as a forfeitable asset under that

theory.

THE COURT: Very well. Mr. Duma, have you

had sufficient time to review the Superseding



8/257

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


4

Indictment, the second one, with Ms. Neighbors?

MR. DUMA: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: And is she prepared to proceed

with arraignment and waive formal reading of the

charges?


THE COURT: Ms. Pilate, with respect to

your representation of Mr. Neighbors, would the

same apply?

MS. PILATE: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Very well. Would the

defendants please stand.

Folks, mindful that the charges in the

Second Superseding Indictment have been trimmed

down a little bit from what was in the earlier

Superseding Indictment and further mindful that the

charges applicable to those -- excuse me, the

penalties applicable to those charges have been

explained to you, I'm going to call upon you to

enter your plea at this time.

Ms. Neighbors, how do you plead with

respect to the charges against you?

DEFENDANT CARRIE NEIGHBORS: Not guilty.

THE COURT: And Mr. Neighbors, how do you

plead?



9/257

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


5

DEFENDANT GUY NEIGHBORS: Not guilty, Your

Honor.

THE COURT: Very well. Please be seated.

The Court notes and accepts the defendants'

not guilty pleas to all of the charges against them

in the Second Superseding Indictment. In light of

the way in which the case is simply been trimmed

down, I would not envision the need for any amended

scheduling order in the case but if any counsel

feels differently about that, speak now or forever

hold their peace. Maybe not forever, but at least

speak your peace.

MS. PILATE: Your Honor, I think I've

previously informed the Court and counsel in

chambers that due to the execution date on one of

my clients, my schedule is unpredictable and out of

my control. I will endeavor to communicate with

everyone on Monday and let them know if I'm able to

make the motion deadline or not. I apologize for

the difficulties that this may present for anyone

else, including the Court. But it is simply a

situation that, for obvious reasons, controls me

rather than me controlling it and I am doing my

very best to meet all of my responsibilities.

THE COURT: Just so I'm clear on this, the



10/257

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


6

motion deadlines that were in place before I

inherited this case, at least for today's purposes,

from Judge Waxse, have already run.

MS. PILATE: Your Honor, there is a pending

motion to extend pretrial motions.

MR. DUMA: Judge, I thought there -- I

thought there was a motion granted that gave us

until the 28th of July.

MS. PILATE: The motion was filed,

Miss Parker filed a response, I don't know if it's

been ruled.

THE COURT: Evidently not. At least I'm

looking at the ECF docket and it would indicate

that the motions deadline, at least it was last

calendared on ECF, would be February 15, 2008 and

the case is presently set for a motion hearing on

August 20th, 2008 and set for trial on September

22, so...

Very well. Well, subject to whatever

ruling might be made on the pending motion to

extend, I'm not going to enter an amended

scheduling order at this time.

Turning to the motion to revoke bond,

counsel, are there any evidentiary stipulations

that you wish to place on the record at this time?



11/257

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


7

MS. PARKER: Yes, Your Honor. I believe

that the parties have agreed to stipulate to the

foundation for the admissibility of the exhibits

which were contained -- attached to the

government's pleading in this case, the initial

pleading, which would be Exhibits 1A --

THE COURT: Excuse me. Hold on just a

second. Very well. Counsel, I'll just for the

record, because of the lack of (inaudible) request

for review or subsequent (inaudible), simply remind

everybody to speak clearly into the microphone at

the podium and also counsel. With that, go ahead.

MS. PARKER: Your Honor, I believe the

parties have agreed to the admissibility of

Exhibits 1A through 9K, which were attached to the

government's initial pleading in this case. And I

would tender those in the form of a binder and

(inaudible).

THE COURT: So I'm clear, am I correct that

the parties are stipulating not only to the

foundation and authenticity of these various

exhibits, but also their ultimate admissibility for

purposes of this hearing?

MS. PARKER: That's my understanding, yes.

THE COURT: Mr. Duma, does that square with



12/257

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


8

your understanding?


THE COURT: Miss Pilate?

MS. PILATE: Yes, Your Honor.

MS. PARKER: In addition I believe --

THE COURT: Excuse me, just a second.

MS. PARKER: I'm sorry.

THE COURT: For the record then, the Court

receives into evidence by stipulation of the

parties, solely for purposes of this hearing

Exhibits 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 3, 4, 5A, 5B, 5C,

6, 7, 8A, 8B, 8C, 8D, 8E, 8F, 8G, 8H, 9A, 9B, 9C,

9D, 9E, 9F, 9G, 9H, 9I, 9J, 9K, 10 --

MS. PARKER: No, Your Honor --

THE COURT: -- 11, 12 --

MS. PARKER: -- I'm sorry --

THE COURT: 13, 14 and 15.

MS. PARKER: No, after 9K the government

intends to lay a foundation for those. They should

not be included in the notebook that we've just

tendered to you.

THE COURT: Very well. But they are on the

exhibit sheet?

MS. PARKER: They are.

THE COURT: Everything that I mentioned



13/257

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


9

through 9K is in as part of the record for all

purposes.

MS. PARKER: And it is also my

understanding that the defendants have agreed to

the admission of Government's Exhibit Number 13,

which is a document that indicates or that shows

that telephone number (785) 840-5038 is a number

that is associated with Mrs. Carry Neighbors and

the Yellow House.

THE COURT: Again, that's by stipulation,

is that correct, Mr. Duma?

MR. DUMA: That's correct.

THE COURT: To the extent that this may

implicate your client, is there any objection,

Miss Pilate?

MS. PILATE: Your Honor, the only point I

wish to make is that we are stipulating to their

admissibility purely for the purposes of this

hearing. But I am not waiving any First Amendment

relevance. We will be making arguments essentially

saying all of this is irrelevant to the issue

before the Court based on the First Amendment

grounds. But other than that, there's no other

challenge for admissibility.

THE COURT: Very well. Thank you.



14/257

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


10

MS. PARKER: And just for the record, this

exhibit and that telephone number are being offered

on the issue of contact with a witness in the case.

THE COURT: And that's, again, Exhibit 13,

correct?

MS. PARKER: Yes.

THE COURT: With respect to the various

blog postings, are there any stipulations among the

three parties that would clarify which blog

postings were posted by which defendant?

MS. PARKER: Your Honor, we believe that if

the Court reviews the blogs, it will see that most

of the time Carrie Neighbors is associated with the

blog that's entitled Corruption In Justice and that

most of the time Mr. Neighbors posts on the Yellow

House blog spot. But also from the reading of the

blogs themselves, it indicates that from time to

time they interchange and either both post at the

same time on a particular blog or use each other's

blogs. But for the most part, based upon

photographs and the contents of the blogs, it would

appear Mrs. Neighbors is associated with Corruption

In Justice and Mr. Neighbors with the Yellow House

blog spot.

THE COURT: Is there any dispute as between



15/257

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


11

the two defendants as to whether the other has

access to both blogs for purposes of posting

material?

MR. DUMA: Your Honor, our stipulation that

these blogs that are (inaudible) representations as

blogs that have been sent from different sites. I

think most of the blogs that are relatively

self-explanatory as to who sent them. But my

client is not denying that the blogs were sent and

she has not been known that she has access to the

Corruption In Justice site, but she's not denying

that she has access to the Yellow House blog.

THE COURT: Well, let me ask the question a

better way. What I was driving at is if, for

instance, a blog indicates on its space that it was

posted by Ms. Neighbors or that it was posted by

Mr. Neighbors, anybody have any difficulty or

concern about my attributing those statements to

just that one person?

MR. DUMA: (Inaudible).

THE COURT: Miss Pilate, is that agreeable?

MS. PILATE: That is, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Ms. Parker?

MS. PARKER: No. But as I said, there are

some blogs where it's clear that both of them are



16/257

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


12

blogging. In that case we would request that the

Court consider attributing that blog to both.

THE COURT: I mean, are there blog entries

where both of them sign off?

MS. PARKER: There are blog entries

where -- and I think it's cited in our pleading.

And if I can get to that, there was a blog on the

Corruption In Justice site on April the 24th, which

is the subject of footnote number 4 of the

government's motion where -- and if it's all right

I'll read to the Court.

THE COURT: Go ahead.

MS. PARKER: The text of this blog

establishes that both defendants participated in

drafting the message. I'm on page 12 of the

government's initial pleading. The photo attached

to the posting is that of defendant Guy M.

Neighbors and the caption reads, quote, pictures --

picture show, the new hat my family sent me for

standing up for my rights and refusing the

so-called deal, unquote. That was Exhibit 7 at

page 1 and 2.

Later in the body of the message, the

author refers to, quote, my attorney Phil Gibson,

who was the attorney for Ms. Neighbors before he



17/257

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


13

was removed -- he resigned from the case. So in

that case, given the entries in the blog itself,

it's apparent that both were involved in the

drafting of that blog -- or that posting.

THE COURT: In terms of narrowing down

what's still in dispute in this case -- I'm not

going to require this, but can the government

isolate those statements in the various blog

postings which it believes constitutes either

criminal defamation or witness intimidation and not

say crime.

MS. PARKER: We had planned to do that as

each witness testifies, to go specifically to a

blog entry and have the witness quote it and then

testify about it. And as we do that -- I can stop

and do it now if the Court would like, but it may

be more meaningful if we do it as we go along.

THE COURT: It's your call. I'll let you

present your case. That's fine.

MS. PARKER: And the government would like

to start initially with what I hope is the easiest

part. And that is I would like to proffer to the

Court information about the allegations that have

been made against me. And specifically there is

one that is quoted in -- it's quoted on page 11 and



18/257

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


14

12 and it is found in Exhibit 6 and I believe it is

highlighted. I can read that for the Court if you

would like me to read it into the record.

THE COURT: Please.

MS. PARKER: All right. The -- on April

the 22nd, the defendants falsely asserted in their

internet Yellow House blog spot site that counsel

for the government had used racial epitaphs in her

office three times. The defendants next posed a

series of rhetorical questions, including could

these words be directed at me because I happen to

be a black man and a pain in her side because I

have been posting the laws she has broken trying to

get me in jail? Who could leave such a e-mail on

my blog site? Could it be someone who was sick of

watching her violate people's Civil Rights and

would like to see her in jail someplace where she

would not be able to continue making a mockery out

of the US justice system.

Then further down in the blog the defendant

goes on to -- what the government contends is make

clear his intent in these bloggings and that is the

prosecutors could make it easy on themselves and do

the right thing by dropping the charges because we

are never going to take a plea and give up, not in



19/257

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


15

a million years.

This, the government believes, is a

statement that relates to trying to influence an

officer. And I tender to the Court and proffer to

the Court the information that I have never used

the N-word as this defendant -- or these defendants

claim in their blog site. That is a total fallacy.

And the rest of it speaks for itself. But I do

want to clarify the record on that false statement.

I would offer to the Court Government's

Exhibit Number 18, which is a blog that was posted

on January 26th of 2007 which claims that -- and

first of all, let me offer Exhibits 18 and 19.

Exhibit 18 is a blog which is entitled Is Marietta

Parker Selling Property From The Evidence Room To

Pawn Shops? Exhibit Number 19, is a blog on the

larryville.com blog site, which is entitled, US

Attorney, Marietta Parker, Uses Search Warrant

Unethically. I have provided copies of these to

the counsel for the defendants and I just located

these this morning, so I apologize for not having

these available earlier. I would offer

Government's Exhibits 18 and 19.

THE COURT: Any objection, Mr. Duma, to

either?



20/257

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


16

MR. DUMA: No objection.

THE COURT: Ms. Pilate?

MS. PILATE: No.

THE COURT: Very well. Exhibits 18 and 19

are admitted without objection.

MS. PARKER: And I would state for the

record the second page of Government's Exhibit 18

is put there only to show the photograph more

clearly of the individuals that are posted on that

blog site, which are these two defendants, Guy and

Carrie Neighbors.

But as I said, in that blog spot, there is

an allegation that the government has been

involved -- or that I personally have been involved

in selling items from the police property room.

And I offer to the Court the information that under

no circumstances have I ever done that or is there

any truth in that.

And the third e-mail -- I'm sorry, the

third blog (inaudible), which is the Larryville

posting that I -- that the counsel for the United

States has used search warrant unethically. And

the allegations in there are that I served a search

warrant to get information that would allow me to

hack into the defendants' blog site. That is a



21/257

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


17

fabrication. I have never obtained a search

warrant for any of the defendants' blog sites.

And the allegation that I have -- that

because certain icons appear on the attachments to

the government's exhibit which are different than

they apparently appear on the defendant's website,

that that's proof that I had hacked into their

website and made changes and deleted things.

The last page of Government's Exhibit 19 is

an e-mail from Ted Shelkey, S H E L K E Y, who is

the assistant director of security at the executive

office of the United States Attorney. When that

allegation was made, I immediately reported it

because it is an allegation of wrongdoing. The --

Mr. Shelkey and his department immediately

segregated my computer, did their own search and

the e-mail there is their reply, it came in just

earlier this week, indicating that there is

absolutely no ground for an allegation that the

government has -- has hacked into the defendants'

website or made any changes that those icons change

depending upon what computer is being used.

That is the proffer the government has on

the issues that have been alleged against the

United States. With the Court's permission, we



22/257

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


18

would call our first witness, would be Officer

Mickey Rantz.

(Whereupon, the witness is duly

sworn.)

MICKEY RANTZ,

called as a witness on behalf of the

Government, having been first duly sworn to tell

the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the

truth, testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MS. PARKER

Q. Would you state your full name and spell your last

name for the record, please?

A. My name is Mickey Rantz, R A N T Z.

Q. Where are you employed?

A. I'm an officer with the Lawrence, Kansas Police

Department.

Q. How long have you been so employed?

A. Since the fall of 2001.

Q. All right. And in the course of your employment,

have you been involved in an investigation of activities

at the Yellow House in both Lawrence and Topeka, Kansas?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. And are -- have you performed actual

investigative functions as a result?



23/257

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


19

A. Yes, I have.

Q. All right. And have you been told by me that you're

going to be a witness in this case?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. Now, in the course of your work on this

case, have you been following certain blog sites that have

been posted, either the Yellow House blog site -- I'm

sorry, Yellow House blog spot or Corruption In Justice or

the Larryville forum?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. And have you found allegations that were

posted against you on those blog sites?

A. Yes, I have.

Q. All right. And how long has this been going on, to

the best of your knowledge?

A. Uh, I believe '06 is when they started.

Q. 2006?

A. 2006, yes.

Q. All right. And we're going to confine ourselves now

to just certain ones. And I'd like to direct your

attention first to Exhibit 1B and ask you if you have

reviewed that and are there -- is there an allegation in

here about wrongdoing on your part?

A. Yes.

Q. And would you call the Court's attention to where



24/257

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


20

that is?

A. Right next to the pictures of the patrol car, number

1 it says, "Videos of Lawrence, Kansas Police Department

allegations of corruption, Mickey Rantz accused of

stealing this guy's $3,000." And then later it goes on to

37 guns -- or 39 guns that I stole from the same

individual.

Q. And have you reviewed a videotape that was posted

elsewhere or here?

A. Yes, I have.

Q. Did you recognize the person who was on that video?

A. I did not until I talked to some additional officers

to identify who he was.

Q. And have you identified the speaker --

A. Yes.

Q. -- who was making the allegation?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. And who was that?

A. It's Jeremy Boyd.

Q. Jeremy Boyd. And do you know Jeremy Boyd?

A. Not personally, no.

Q. Have you ever been in contact with Jeremy Boyd?

A. In the -- October of 2007, I was the back officer on

a traffic stop where he was arrested for driving while

suspended, but during the contact there was no



25/257

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


21

conversation with him and nothing occurred between him and

I. I was simply the back officer.

Q. And that was when?

A. October of 2007.

Q. So in July -- on July 29th of 2007, when this blog

was posted, you had not had any contact with Jeremy Boyd?

A. That is correct.

Q. All right. Have you -- how have you verified

about -- so that you can testify about the contact you've

had with Mr. Boyd?

A. Well, there seems to be some confusion. We also

have an Officer Mickey Ramsey at our police department as

well as me, Office Mickey Rantz. And in some of the blogs

it even refers to Mickey Rantz, a.k.a. Mickey Ramsey.

Just so happens on the October 21st, 2007 arrest of Jeremy

Boyd, Mickey Ramsey is the primary officer that stopped

him for a traffic violation and then I showed up as the

back officer. Through Mickey Ramsey, who has arrested the

subject two or three times, that's how I was able to

confirm who Jeremy Boyd even was.

Q. And did you interview Officer Ramsey to see if he

ever stole $3,000 from Jeremy Boyd?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And what was the result?

A. I asked him about the allegations that were made in



26/257

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


22

the blog sites and he adamantly denied anything like that.

Q. Did he say whether or not he ever even recovered any

cash from Mr. Boyd?

A. He said he had never recovered any cash and he had

never recovered any guns.

Q. Moving on to Exhibits 2A and 2C. Let's just --

MS. PARKER: Well, Your Honor, all of the

evidence as Mr. -- I'm sorry, as Officer Rantz has

testified to, goes to the issue of witness

intimidation.

Q. (By Ms. Parker) I'll direct your attention to

Exhibits 2A.

A. Yes.

Q. Are you familiar with that?

A. Yes, I am.

Q. All right. And is there an allegation of

wrongdoing -- a false allegation of wrongdoing made

against you?

A. Yes.

Q. What is that?

A. This is from the Corruption In Justice Department

blog spot site, it says -- caption on the article says,

"Lawrence Police Officer Mickey Rantz Plants Evidence in

Yellow House Case Trash."

Q. And that's on the second page of Exhibit 2A?



27/257

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


23

A. That is correct.

Q. All right.

A. Actually -- yes, page 2.

Q. All right. And then there is information contained

in that blog is more detailed or is there?

A. Yes.

Q. What does that say?

A. It says, "On February 25th, 2008 it was presented to

the federal judge in federal court that Lawrence police

officer Mickey Rantz had clearly filed a false statement

and committed the crime of planting evidence in the

defendants' trash. The report claiming to have found

contraband evidence in the Neighbors' trash pull that was

clearly nonexistent, fabricated and if the described

evidence does truly exist, then clearly it was planted and

would not have any fingerprints or DNA connected to the

defendants."

Q. And was a similar allegation made in Exhibit 2C?

A. Yes.

Q. What was that?

A. It says -- this would be on page 2 of 4, "On

February 25th, 2008, it was presented to the federal judge

in federal court that Lawrence, Kansas police officer

Mickey Rantz had clearly filed a false statement,

commission the crime of planting evidence in the



28/257

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


24

defendants' trash. The Court -- "

Q. Let me stop you here.

A. Yes.

Q. You say 204?

A. 2 of 4.

Q. 2 of 4.

A. Page 2 of 4.

Q. Okay. And where in the body of that?

A. It would be under -- the first page has a picture of

Officer Bileck and myself. And under the caption,

Saturday, March 15, 2008 Lawrence, Kansas police officer

Mickey Rantz and John Bileck plant evidence in the Yellow

House investigation should be fired and prosecuted."

Q. And do you know what their -- these two blogs are

referring to, what recovery?

A. I have no idea. There were seven trash pulls during

the investigation that were done on the house and there

were a total of 15 trash pulls that were done on the

business during the course of the investigation.

Q. In the course of the investigation in those trash

pulls, did you ever recover any evidence of drug dealing

or drug use?

A. Yes.

Q. What was that?

A. There were three what I would call marijuana roach



29/257

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


25

cigarettes that have been now sent to the lab for DEA

analysis.

Q. And have you since seen blogs that claim that those

were planted?

A. I have not seen specifically that the marijuana was

planted, they just say that we planted them.

Q. And did you plant any evidence in this case?

A. No.

Q. So is that statement a fabrication?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. Moving, then, to -- it's still saying on

Exhibit 2C, are there allegations that you obtained search

warrants with forged signatures?

A. Yes, about --

Q. What is that allegation?

A. The bottom one-fourth of the page, it goes into what

rights were violated in regards to the defendants. The

sentence starts off, "Use of excessive force and

misconduct, including kidnapping, false arrest, torture,

jailed for eight hours with no food, searches with ten

warrants with Judge Six's name forged on them."

Q. And are you the officer who obtained the state

search warrants in this case?

A. I am the affiant on those search warrants.

Q. And what did you do with those search warrants after



30/257

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


26

you had prepared the affidavit?

A. I took them to Judge Stephen Six in his office, he

reviewed the warrants and subsequently sworn me in and

signed them.

Q. And did you take all ten warrants at the same time?

A. Well, there are not ten warrants, first of all.

Q. I'm sorry.

A. There were bank records -- I think the initial one

was five warrants, two for the business, then you had eBay

records, Pay Pal records and Sunflower broadband and then

some bank records. So it would have been initially. And

then the only other warrant that I applied for was a

piggyback warrant subsequent to that after finding a

marijuana grow in the Neighbors' residence. And then

there was a federal search warrant later on --

Q. But Judge Six wouldn't have signed that?

A. He did not sign that.

Q. All right.

A. No. It would have just been the initial seven.

Q. You personally presented those search warrants to

Judge Six, correct?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And did he sign them in your presence?

A. Yes, he did.

Q. Did you forge any of his signatures on there?



31/257

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


27

A. No, I did not.

Q. Have you spoken with Judge Six since those -- since

these allegations have come up?

A. Yes, I have.

Q. All right. Would you tell the Court about the

discussion you had with Judge Six?

A. It was actually made aware to Judge Six that this

allegation was out there.

Q. Did you tell him?

A. No.

Q. All right.

A. He just made mention that, I see that your

defendants in the federal case are claiming that these

search warrants were forged.

Q. All right. And is that -- how did -- was he still

Judge Six when you had this conversation with him?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. He's now what?

A. He's now the Kansas State Attorney General.

Q. All right. And did he say anything else when you

and he were having this discussion about the allegations

made about his signature?

A. No. I believe it was just more in passing, as I

recall. I think I was actually in there having another

search warrant signed unrelated to this case.



32/257

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


28

Q. He did not indicate to you that -- that his

signature had been forged those --

A. No.

Q. -- affidavits, did he -- or the search warrants?

A. No.

Q. Again, on Exhibit 2C, does the -- is there an

allegation in there that the inventory list for those

search warrants was switched?

A. Yes.

Q. Was it?

A. No.

Q. Tell the Court about the search -- the list of items

seized that's left at the residence as opposed to the list

that is actually compiled as the evidence is logged into

evidence room.

A. Yes. In our search warrant affidavit attachment and

search warrant, then we have an inventory list that's all

part of one departmental search warrant packet. When we

leave the list from the search warrant packet it has very

generic detail, as in 11 guns seized or marijuana plants

seized or stolen property -- certain stolen property

seized. Then when we actually have to log all that stuff

in accountability-wise, there's an actual evidence custody

sheet that has a detailed description, serial numbers for

each item that is then logged into the evidence -- into



33/257

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


29

our evidence room.

Q. Is leaving a broadly worded inventory at the scene

in accordance with Lawrence Police Department practices

and procedures?

A. Yes.

Q. And it's also in accordance with the practices and

procedures to prepare a more detailed, more specific list

of the items that were sealed that is actually then

provided to anyone who needs to see what was recovered?

A. Yes. There's a very detailed one for the report and

then a very kind of generic one that's left at the scene.

Q. Were you also in Exhibit 2C accused a thief -- of

theft of evidence from -- regarding some items taken from

the --

A. Yes.

Q. -- residence and the business? Would you point the

Court to that allegation.

A. Continuing on with the same paragraph -- or the same

section following the ten search warrants it goes, "And

receipts for same inventory switched and forged several

times. Chain of custody violations, theft of evidence

from the evidence room, missing laptops."

Q. And how is it that you allege that that's an

allegation against you personally?

A. Because we have gone through every single piece of



34/257

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


30

evidence that's logged in for this case and had

accountability, either it being in our evidence custody

room or showing it's signed back over to the Neighbors.

Q. And I understand that every piece that has been

seized has been accounted for, but why is it that you

believe that allegation is against you personally?

A. Because as the affiant of the search warrant naming

those, I then become responsible for the search warrant.

Q. And is there also an allegation in Exhibit 8F in the

same vein?

A. Yes.

Q. And where is that? Well, let me ask you this. Let

me point you to the bottom of page 2 of that exhibit.

A. Of which exhibit?

Q. I'm sorry, 8F. Got it?

A. Yes. Bottom of page 2?

Q. Bottom of page 2.

A. Yes.

Q. Where it says, "Could it be that Parker and Morehead

were also responsible for 90% of the evidence missing that

was collected from the Neighbors' home and business"?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you believe that's an allegation against you?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Why is that?



35/257

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


31

A. Because, again, as being the affiant and being

responsible for the search warrants, I also become

responsible for the evidence that was seized.

Q. Is 90% of the evidence missing?

A. Absolutely not.

Q. And have you personally been involved in a review of

all of the items and the inventory list and assured

yourself that every piece of evidence that was listed on

the longer list of evidence is accounted for?

A. Yes.

Q. Are there claims in Exhibit 2C that you altered

undercover videos?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. Where is that in that exhibit?

A. On page 3 of 4, third line down, right in the middle

of it says, "Altered Videos." The altered videos would --

the only videos that I know of short of surveillance

videos are the undercover videos where, during my

undercover operation with Ms. Neighbors, I wore a body

camera to record what was going on.

Q. Turning to Exhibit 8B, as in boy, is there a

reference there to -- anywhere in that exhibit to internal

affairs complaints being filed?

A. Yes.

Q. And where is that?



36/257

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


32

A. It starts off, "The question of prosecutor's ethics

during ongoing investigation that began December 2005 and

has continued through 2007 when Lawrence, Kansas citizens

Guy and Carrie Neighbors submitted complaints to Lawrence

Police Department's internal affairs sergeant, Dan Ward,

for investigation instead of forwarding these complaints

to the FBI in Topeka, Kansas or the KBI for unbiased

investigation by an outside agency, these complaints were

forwarded to the prosecuting US Attorney, Marietta Parker,

for evaluation and ultimate decision-making."

Q. Now, are you aware that there have been

allegations -- formal complaints lodged against you and

other investigators in this case?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know how many?

A. According by their accounts, 29. According to

Captain Zarnowiec, 22.

Q. Can you spell Zarnowiec?

A. It's Z A R N O W I E C.

Q. All right. And he's informed you that there have

been 22 formal complaints filed against you personally?

A. And -- complaints involving the Yellow House

investigation.

Q. All right. Many of them involving specific

allegations against you?



37/257

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


33

A. Yes.

Q. All right. And have you been privy to any of those?

A. I was -- the actual complaint or the investigation

itself?

Q. Either one.

A. I have not been privy to the complaints, I was

interviewed, had initial statement taken from me by

Sergeant Danny Ward when he was the internal affairs

sergeant, but because it's an ongoing investigation my

initial statement was taken and I don't know what is

happened in regards to the rest of the internal affairs

investigations.

Q. Has the fact that there are 22 allegations made in

the course of this investigation, some of them against

you, had any effect on you?

A. Oh, yes.

Q. All right. And has it had a professional effect?

A. Yes.

Q. What was that?

A. Well, credibility is our primary thing the officer

has to have. Not only in filling out these affidavits --

search warrant affidavits, but probable cause arrest

affidavits and just complaining reports and coming in and

testifying, whether it be in state or federal court. When

these internal affairs complaints are out there, officers



38/257

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


34

know that I'm being brought into internal affairs as a

result of this investigation, which was a long -- which

has spanned almost three years now. They don't know,

having not seen this huge case file that goes with this,

whether or not there's any validity to it or not. All

they have is me saying I didn't do anything wrong and this

is completely frivolous. So yes, it -- and as far as my

job with supervisors and other officer co-workers,

definitely it's created stress.

Q. All right. Any personal stress?

A. Mostly as a result of my wife coming upon the blogs

from the two different websites and seeing what is being

put on the internet in regards to me stealing evidence and

falsifying reports. Mostly because I think she sees that

within her profession there's a lot of people that know

what I do and I think just other people seeing that and

not knowing whether or not it's true, I think -- I know

it's created stress with her, which then ultimately gets

passed on to me.

Q. How about the false allegations that relate to your

credibility? Does that have any affect at all on your

ability to do your job now or in the future?

A. Yes, both now and in the future.

Q. What's that?

A. Because with those things being out on the internet



39/257

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


35

and not having any way to answer to them, it's not like I

can now create a website that says, I am completely

innocent of all these accusations or have my own press

release to defend this stuff. I basically have to wait

till the trial is finished. Have I talked to an attorney

about a civil lawsuit? Most definitely. But I don't want

to put any kind of civil lawsuit out there that is going

to hamper what has taken three years for us to

investigate.

Q. How important is your credibility in your job?

A. It is everything. Without it, there's no way you

can do the job.

Q. Do you feel -- is it your opinion that these false

postings will have had or will have had an effect, could

have an effect on your credibility?

A. Yes.

Q. Why?

A. Because I have a feeling as this thing continues on

and I have to testify in state court and federal court

there are -- there are going to be defendants and defense

counsel that bring it up and want to know if it's true.

Q. Turning to Exhibit 2D, is there a statement in there

which is a posting on -- it's an e-mail from Guy N or Guy

Smiley at Hotmail, do you see that?

A. Yes.



40/257

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


36

Q. All right. And do you know who Guy Smiley is?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Who is that?

A. That is -- Guy Smiley is the e-mail address to Guy

Neighbors.

Q. And you know that from documents that were obtained

in the course of this investigation?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. And is there anything in that e-mail

dated March the 7th of 2007 that caused you any concern

personally?

A. Yes. About half-way through the second page, he's

been referring to Officer Bileck and myself throughout the

e-mail. Then it gets to about half-way through the second

page and it says and I quote, "I say to these dirty

officers should be worried about pissing me off. They

should not have messed with my wife. I have made my peace

with God. My family knows I love them all and I am not

afraid of dying or going to jail."

Q. And what is it about that that concerns you?

A. Well, my initial reading of, I believe he was

prepared for some kind of life or death confrontation with

law enforcement or Officer Bileck or myself.

Q. But that has not happened --

A. No.



41/257

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


37

Q. -- with you? You have not been confronted at all

by --

A. That is correct.

Q. -- by the defendant? All right. Finally, going to

Exhibit 5A, is there an allegation in there that you and

Officer Bileck posted as FBI agents?

A. Yes.

Q. What is that allegation?

A. This actually started off during the course of the

investigation, the allegation that Officer Bileck and I

were posing as FBI agents as we confronted witnesses.

This specific e-mail says, "We have others who have stated

the police have posed as FBI agents."

Q. All right. But in other blogs there have been

specific that you and Officer Rantz have posed as FBI

agents?

A. Myself and Officer Bileck.

Q. I'm Officer Bileck. You are Officer Rantz.

A. Yes.

Q. Is that true?

A. Absolutely not.

Q. Do you know if an FBI investigation was conducted

into the allegations that you and Officer Bileck posed as

FBI agents?

A. Yes.



42/257

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


38

Q. And who did that?

A. Agent Bob Shaffer(ph) with the FBI.

Q. All right. And were you interviewed by him?

A. It was actually him and the detective sergeant, Mike

Patrick.

Q. So you know from your own personal knowledge that

there was an investigation?

A. Yes. In fact, the lady who was alleging this, we

had made a recorded interview with her and turned that

recording over to Sergeant Mike Patrick and the FBI.

Q. All right. And in that recording -- in that

interview with her, did you make clear, you and

Officer Bileck, the nature of your employment?

A. Yes. In fact, we even gave business cards with

Lawrence Police Department.

Q. Is there any other allegation that has been made

against you that you consider to be particularly damaging

or detrimental to you or your career?

A. No. It's just that we -- basically what has

happened as a result of these allegations, a number of

people that have contacted me, everywhere from city

commissioners to city attorneys, to judges, to the FBI, to

the KBI, to the ATF, all have had -- either scanned

through the blog site or actually had complaints sent to

them alleging wrongdoing on my part. I basically have to,



43/257

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


39

every time that's brought up, defend myself saying, no,

this is absolutely false. But short of things being taken

off the internet and all of it retracted, there's no way

for me to take a public stand to basically voice what's

really going on.

MS. PARKER: I don't believe I have any

additional questions of this witness. Thank you,

Your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Duma, you may

cross-examine.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. DUMA:

Q. Officer Rantz, I would assume that in your law

enforcement career this is not the first time that someone

has made an allegation about your professional conduct as

a police officer. Would you agree with that?

A. Never to this extent.

Q. I was going to get to that next.

A. Yes.

Q. But there have been other times where someone maybe

accused of a crime has accused you of doing something that

was outside of the scope of what you're supposed to do as

a police officer, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. And some of that comes just by the



44/257

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


40

nature of the job that you're doing, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Because you're involved in investigating people and

they're going to be accused of committing crimes, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And sometimes they say those things just as a way to

get under your skin, correct?

A. Uh, I guess that could be correct. I don't know

what their motive is.

Q. But you've dealt with it in the past?

A. I have dealt with allegations, just not to this

extent.

Q. All right. Now, how often do you get on this blog

site -- and let me just talk about Yellow House -- to

check it out?

A. Oh, usually when it's brought to my attention.

Mostly because I know right now there's no way for me to

address it and stop it. And all it does is frustrate me

to read what they're putting out there and know that it's

not true. So usually when co-workers and supervisors are

up in arms with something that's going on and bring it to

my attention or the US Attorney's Office is bringing it to

my attention this is going on, that's when I will get on

there and look at it.

Q. All right. So typically would you agree with me



45/257

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


41

that it's somebody either in your department or somebody

from the US Attorney's Office that brings it to your

attention that there might be another new allegation

that's on up on this Yellow House blog site?

A. Yes. Or Officer Bileck who is still assigned to the

case full-time. Somebody associated with the case.

Q. Now, I would assume that your wife has gotten onto

the blog site and read it?

A. She did, yes.

Q. And that caused her grief or stress?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. And I assume you said, you know, honey,

these are just people that are way out of line, don't get

on the blog site?

A. That is correct.

Q. And really, if the US Attorney's Office and the

people in your department didn't get on the blog site,

then you wouldn't have any knowledge about what's

occurring on that blog site, would you? That be a fair

statement?

A. Except for other people outside of the investigation

that have seen it.

Q. And all you have to do is tell them everything that

is on there is just not true, these are people charged

with crimes, you probably say something like they're just



46/257

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


42

outrageously frivolous and -- and you know me and I'm --

and that's pretty much the end of it, would you agree with

that?

A. I do tell them that, among other things, yes.

Q. Okay. Would you say that the blogs that have been

placed out there and the things that you've read have

strengthened your resolve in investigating this case or

lessened your resolve in investigating this case?

A. I think it's strengthened it.

MR. DUMA: No further questions. Thank

you.

THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Duma,

Ms. Pilate.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MS. PILATE:

Q. Good afternoon, Officer. I think you testified

early on about inventory receipts and you stated there was

a generic receipt that would leave -- that would be left

behind with the occupants of the dwelling, correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. And you keep copies of those generic receipts?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. And you have copies of all those generic receipts in

this case?

A. They're in the case book, yes.



47/257

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


43

Q. And those are available for inspection?

A. Yes.

Q. I think you also stated you've been called into

internal affairs, is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Upon how many occasions have you been called into

internal affairs for an interview?

A. I've been pulled in once on this case to give my

initial statement and told that at the conclusion of this

case that I would be called in to answer for each one of

the complaints.

Q. Okay. And when you say an initial statement, does

that mean you were broadly interviewed about the overall

allegations in this case and gave a limited response that

would be followed by a more detailed response later?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

A. In essence, just denied the allegations.

Q. And that statement was tape-recorded, is that

correct?

A. I don't know.

Q. Was it documented in some way?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And is that statement available for

inspection?



48/257

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


44

A. You would have to talk with internal affairs on

that.

Q. And were you represented in the course of giving

that statement?

A. With the attorney? No.

Q. Were you represented by another officer who went

with you?

A. No.

Q. So you attended that interview yourself?

A. That is correct.

Q. And you were interviewed by one officer or two?

A. One.

Q. Okay. And who was that, please?

A. Sergeant Dan Ward, who's now Captain Dan Ward.

Q. Okay. And when did this interview take place?

A. I believe it might have been the fall of '06.

Q. Okay. And the sum and substance of your response at

that time was what?

A. I just denied the allegations.

Q. Okay. And what were the allegations facing you at

that time?

A. I don't -- as I recall, it might have been the FBI

allegation, I'm not -- there's been so many allegations

launched at this point, I'm not even sure which one I

answered.



49/257

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


45

Q. So it was just one allegation you were responding to

rather than the broad allegations made over a number of

complaints?

A. I don't really recall what -- what the specific

question was that he asked.

Q. It was one question or more than one question?

A. I don't recall. I was in there for a while, so --

but I don't remember exactly what he asked because in my

mind I didn't do anything wrong and I told them that. And

I told them more than happy to look at the case file and

all the recordings that went with it, but that I hadn't

done anything wrong.

Q. So this interview occurred in the fall of '06 with a

Sergeant Dan Ward who was assigned to internal affairs, is

that correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. And does your department call it internal affairs?

A. Yes, they do.

Q. And does he function free of the administrative

apparatus that governs the rest of the department?

A. Yes, he does.

Q. And you recall that that interview lasted, quote,

quite some time, is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. But you don't recall if it covered one allegation or



50/257

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


46

several allegations?

A. No, I don't.

Q. And is the reason you don't recall that because you

knew you didn't do anything wrong and you decided to put

it out of your mind?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. So you weren't particularly concerned about

it after you left?

A. I was concerned that somebody could come in and just

make the allegations and that I was going to have to

answer for them at some point with each of these 20 some

allegations or complaints that they've come in and filed.

But no, I was not worried at all about having done

anything wrong.

Q. Okay. But you were not concerned enough that you

made any mental note to yourself about what you'd just

been interviewed about?

A. No.

Q. Okay. And so that's just kind of gone from your

recollection, would that be safe to say?

A. Yeah. I don't remember what the specific questions

were.

Q. And you didn't talk to anybody about it afterwards?

A. I just -- I just remember telling maybe Mike McAtee,

who's the LPOA president that I'd been called into



51/257

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


47

internal affairs on it.

Q. And Detective McAtee?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. He is a union representative?

A. He is our Lawrence Police Officer Association

representative.

Q. Is he the president of the union?

A. He is the president.

Q. And you had a right to have him with you at the time

of the interview?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. But you chose not to?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Because you weren't particularly concerned

about it, were you?

A. Because I knew I didn't do anything wrong.

Q. So you weren't --

A. I just knew there were allegations.

Q. -- you weren't excessively worried about it?

A. I just knew there were allegations I hadn't done

anything wrong.

Q. So that means you weren't worried, correct?

A. I can't say I wasn't worried because there's still

allegations that I'm going to have to clear up and they

were still going to be in the IA file.



52/257

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


48

Q. Okay. But you trust the investigative apparatus of

the department to function as it should, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you had every confidence that upon an

investigation being conducted by Sergeant Dan Ward that

you would be cleared of any wrongdoing, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. So it's kind of a no sweat deal, wasn't it?

A. I don't know if IA is never -- ever no sweat deal,

but it wasn't anything that -- I didn't do anything wrong,

so I wasn't worried about it.

Q. So unpleasant, maybe --

A. Yes.

Q. -- to go in to answer questions, but not something

you gave a whole lot of thought to afterwards, correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. And you had the right to have someone with you, but

you chose not to have another officer with you, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Because you weren't really worried about it, were

you?

A. No, I knew I didn't do anything wrong.

Q. Let me ask you, you weren't really worried with it,

were you?

A. Uh, well, you say I wasn't worried about it, but I



53/257

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


49

can be worried about it and still not feel I did anything

wrong.

Q. Okay. And if you had been concerned to the point of

wanting to have someone with you, that would have been a

right available to you, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you chose not to have someone with you?

A. That is correct.

Q. Because you had confidence that the investigative

apparatus of internal affairs would function as it was --

as it is supposed to and you'd be cleared of any

wrongdoing?

A. Yes.

THE COURT: Ms. Pilate, let's move along,

that's the third time you've asked that question.

MS. PILATE: Okay, sir.

Q. (By Ms. Pilate) Now, I think you said also with

Mr. Duma that you had had some familiarity with other

internal affairs complaints or, in fact, been complained

about before?

A. That is correct.

Q. But, quote, not to this extent, right?

A. That is correct.

Q. And on how many other occasions have you given an

interview to internal affairs?



54/257

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


50

A. I believe only once.

Q. Okay. And when was that?

A. '04, '05. Must have been '04, fall of '04, spring

of '05.

Q. And what was the allegation in that instance?

MS. PARKER: Objection, Your Honor, that's

irrelevant to these proceedings.

THE COURT: What is the relevance,

Ms. Pilate?

MS. PILATE: I don't believe so, Your

Honor. One of the things that may be at issue here

is what my clients' good faith beliefs were,

they've been told a number of things by people in

the community who've had experiences with these

officers, whether these reports to my clients

are -- or my client is correct or not is another

matter. We're talking about good faith belief and

whether or not other complaints have been made on

Officer Rantz and have been, therefore, something

that filtered through the community that

Mr. Neighbors or Ms. Neighbors would have become

aware of and therefore rendering their statements

on their blogs as something done in good faith I

think is very much at issue here.

MS. PARKER: Your Honor --



55/257

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


51

THE COURT: Well, are you representing this

as an officer Of the court, though, Ms. Pilate,

that that was in part the basis of your client's

postings with respect to this matter? Or are you

just trying to get information? Because if it's

the latter, the objection is sustained. If

it's the former --

MS. PILATE: No.

THE COURT: -- I'll allow you to go.

MS. PILATE: Your Honor, I am not trying to

just get information. My client has repeatedly

represented to me that numerous individuals who --

some of whom show up on these videos, some of whom

have had conversations with Mr. Neighbors or

perhaps with Ms. Neighbors, have told them about

allegations made by other people.

I also have an independent good faith basis

for asking these questions because I will

personally represent I've been informed by sources

that I regard as credible that there may have been

other complaints. I mean, there are people who

have been active in the law enforcement community

and in the defense community in Lawrence who have

contacted me and suggested certain questions that

maybe ought to be asked.



56/257

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


52

And I'm not saying that I have

independently investigated those. That's not been

my job here. I've been more concerned about

whether Mr. Neighbors has had a good faith basis

for these writings. And I will represent to this

Court I have had contact with a number of counsel,

as well as a member of, shall we say, former law

enforcement -- two former members of law

enforcement, who've suggested to me that probing

these areas is not something that would be

frivolous. I don't know the specifics about

Mr. Rantz -- Officer Rantz, excuse me, but I --

think these questions are very much in line.

There's a motion to revoke bond because

Mr. Neighbors has written things on his blog that

this officer is testifying upset him or caused him

concern and caused him stress and affected his

credibility and his reputation. And so I think I'm

entitled to find out if perhaps other things

affected his reputation or other things he may

have -- when he's talking about his credibility, I

think I'm entitled to probe whether there are other

things that may have impacted that credibility.

Surely this is not the only complaint that's ever

been made on Officer Rantz.



57/257

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


53

And I have no desire, Your Honor, none, and

I think the Court is well aware of my position, to

question these officers about this matter. But the

government has opened this up and since they've

opened it up, I believe I have a right to

cross-examine on all of this and, frankly, we could

be here for days if I were to do that because I

have som

transcript of hearing & testimony case 07-20124-01 marietta parker us attorney yellow house store...

Documents