Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 164 Filed 04/27/2009 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 07-CR-20124-CM

GUY NEIGHBORS,
Defendant.

MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT

Cheryl Pilate, counsel for Guy Neighbors in the above-captioned case as well as Case No.

08-20105, hereby moves this Honorable Court for an order allowing her to withdraw as counsel

for Mr. Neighbors. In support of this motion, counsel states as follows:

1. Cheryl Pilate was appointed as counsel for Mr. Neighbors in November 2007. Since

that time, she has done everything possible to effectively represent Mr. Neighbors in this case

and in Case No. 08-20105. Counsel has met and consulted numerous times with Defendant and

made discovery available for inspection at counsel’s law office. Counsel has conducted

investigation, reviewed discovery, prepared outlines for motions and worked closely with Mr.

Duma and the investigators appointed to work on behalf of Mr. Neighbors and Ms. Neighbors.

2. Despite counsel’s best efforts, issues continue to arise in the case which severely

impair counsel’s effectiveness.

3. In July 2008, the government filed a motion to revoke the pretrial release of both

defendants. The hearing involved the presentation of extensive testimony as well as exhibits, and

consumed several days of the magistrate judge’s time. At the end of the hearing, Defendant was

ordered to cease and desist from writing on the Internet about the case or making any derogatory

1
 Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 164 Filed 04/27/2009 Page 2 of 4

comments regarding any witnesses, parties or attorneys involved in the action. See Doc. #118.

4. At the time of the hearing and after, counsel repeatedly advised her client to cease

making any kind of postings about the case on the Internet and to cease from making derogatory

comments about anyone connected with the case. The defendant was further advised to refrain

from taking unilateral action on the case without the advice and assistance of counsel.

5. Despite counsel’s best efforts, Internet postings have apparently continued. At this

point, counsel questions whether she can effectively represent the client.

6. The defendant has been examined and been found to be competent to assist counsel in

this matter. However, the defendant’s actions have impaired, not assisted, counsel’s work.

7. Just recently, counsel received another email from prosecutor Marietta Parker

regarding Internet postings by Mr. Neighbors.

8. In addition to the problems caused by the Internet issue, counsel’s work has been

needlessly burdened by special restrictions placed on the production of discovery. There are

literally thousands of pages of discovery and dozens of tapes, photographs and other evidence in

this case. Despite the extremely large volume of the materials to be reviewed, the prosecutors

have taken the position that a substantial portion of the written discovery cannot be provided to

defense counsel in the form of photocopies. At this point, counsel are restricted to examining the

11 looseleaf volumes of material in the prosecutor’s office. Counsel believes this restriction

unnecessarily burdens and impairs her work. Further, the restriction is completely unnecessary

because copies have been provided of hundreds of pages other reports with no problem, and there

is no possibility that the client will obtain copies of any discovery from counsel for possible use

on the Internet. Counsel has adhered to the requirement that all discovery shall be examined in

2
 Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 164 Filed 04/27/2009 Page 3 of 4

her office, and in her presence or the presence of her staff. This rule prevents any material from

leaving counsel’s office for potential posting on the Internet.

9. Given the persistent difficulties in this case and the burdens imposed by the

prosecutors with regard to the 11 volumes of discovery, counsel questions whether she can be

effective in this case, which involves meeting the constitutional and ethical obligations imposed

upon her.

10. For all of the reasons stated above, counsel seeks a hearing in which her request to

withdraw may be addressed.

WHEREFORE, for all of the above-stated reasons, Cheryl Pilate requests that this Court

hold a hearing for the purpose of considering her motion to withdraw in the above-captioned

case. She further requests that she be permitted to withdraw from the representation of

Defendant.

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Cheryl A. Pilate

Cheryl A. Pilate, KS No. 14601
MORGAN PILATE LLC
142 N. Cherry
Olathe, KS 66061
Telephone: 913-829-6336
Facsimile: 913-829-6446
Attorney for Guy Neighbors

3
 Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 164 Filed 04/27/2009 Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Cheryl A. Pilate, do certify that a true and accurate copy of the above and foregoing
motion was served electronically on the Clerk of the Court and the government pursuant to the
ECF system on this 27th day of April, 2009, and, further, that a copy of this Motion was mailed,
via first-class mail to the following non-CM/ECF participant: Guy Neighbors

/s/ Cheryl A. Pilate