IN THE UNITED STATED DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

Guy Neighbors

Plaintiff

]
]

LAWRENCE POLICE DEPT, et al,

Defendants

Case # 15-4921

]
]

AMENDED CLAIM
Comes Now Plaintiff Guy Neighbors, to amend his Claim pursuant to F.R.C.P 15 (2).
Neighbors, claim is brought forward in Law, Equity, and Under the Uniform
Commercial Code. This 42 U.S. Code Sec. 1983 Civil Action Claim is for Depravation of Civil
Right.
42 U.S. Code 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of
Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to
the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in
an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer
for an act or omission taken in such officers judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree
was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to
the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia

I. Statement of Jurisdiction
Federal courts are authorized to hear cases brought under section 1983 pursuant to two statutory
provisions: 28 U.S.C.A. 1343(3) (1948) and 28 U.S.C.A. 1331 (1948). The former statute
permits federal district courts to hear cases involving the deprivation of civil rights, and the latter
statute permits federal courts to hear all cases involving a federal question or issue. Cases

brought under section 1983 may therefore be heard in federal courts by application of both
jurisdictional statutes.
II. Statement of Entitlement
The defendants violated Neighbors, rights guaranteed by the constitution at 18 U.S.C.S. 1983.
The defendants racially profiled Neighbors, during several traffic stops that were performed
without probable cause. The defendants acted with Deliberate Indifference to following the
Constitution or Federal Laws when they performed the traffic stops on Neighbors, without
probable cause. These un-lawful traffic stops were the result of the Un- Constitutional Policies,
Procedures, Ordinances, and Laws the City of Lawrence implemented.
The defendants acted with deliberate indifference to following the constitution, and federal laws.
Neighbors was damaged while the defendants were enforcing city policies while acting under
color of law, and the unconstitutional policies, procedures, ordinances, City Laws are the source
of this action. Neighbors has been damaged and is praying this court grant him just compensation
for his injuries, or what the court finds Just and fair.

III. Municipal Court Only Has Administrative Authority

Municipal Court has only administrative authority, it does not have Jurisdiction, and it is Not a
court of record, so there is no way anyone can appeal (another violation of rights) because there
is no record of the hearing and no documentation of what was said in trial. See The Attached
Exhibits below:
Exhibit A is the Party Case History sheet from Lawrence Municipal Court. This case history
report will document that the Judge Mr. Scott Miller, did in fact have Neighbors in his court,
many times. Neighbors filed at least 9 or 10 pleadings in that case, and it was dismissed.
Neighbors, at this point did not take action, it was not until the second unlawful traffic stop
performed by officer Wech, that Neighbors, was able to see the continued pattern discrimination
re-starting. There was never any evidence placed on the record in either trail.

Exhibit B is the Party Case History Sheet from Lawrence Municipal Court, this document
shows the case was disposed of and Neighbors was found to be guilty on 05-28-2015. The
document shows the violation date was 11-24-14.
Exhibit C is the Party Case History Sheet from The Lawrence Municipal Court, this document
will show a 3rd traffic ticket that was issued and disposed of after Neighbors, filed a Notice of
Removal to move the case to federal court due to the conflict of interest (Neighbors has civil
litigation against the traffic court Judge, Prosecutor, and the City of Lawrence). The case was
marked disposed of and the paperwork was marked Failure to Appear and Balance Due. See:
Exhibit C
The court mailed Neighbors, a letter with the case number on it and he filed a document in the
case to move it to federal court because of a lack of jurisdiction in Municipal Court. The case has
Not been disposed of simply moved to a different court for lack of jurisdiction. It would appear
the Lawrence Municipal Court is harassing Neighbors, again and is making a move to get
Neighbors drivers licenses revoked for failure to appear. See also Exhibit C
IV. Lawrence Kansas Police Department, the City of Lawrence, and Municipal
Courts Citation Process is Un-Constitutional:
Separation of powers is a political doctrine originating in the writings of Montesquieu in The
Spirit of the Laws where he urged for a constitutional government with three separate branches of
government. Each of the three branches would have defined abilities to check the powers of the
other branches. This idea was called separation of powers. This philosophy heavily influenced
the writing of the United States Constitution, according to which the Legislative, Executive,
and Judicial branches of the United States government are kept distinct in order to prevent abuse
of power.
When Lawrence Kansas Police officer issued Neighbors, a Summons that was NOT signed by
a Judicial officer of the court,( prior to the ticket being issued), it is a violation of the
Separation of Powers clause the of the Constitution, and therefore the defendants violated
Neighbors, Constitutional Rights for each of the 3 citations. Neighbors suffered damages.

V. REMEDY AND RECOURSE

Every system of civilized law must have two characteristics: Remedy and Recourse. Remedy is a
way to get out from under that law, and you recover your loss. The Common Law, the Law
Merchants, and even the Uniform Commercial Code all have remedy and recourse. The Remedy
and Recourse are found in the UCC. They are found right in the first volume, at 1-308 (old 1207) and 1-103.
VI. REMEDY
The making of a valid Reservation of Rights preserves whatever rights the person then possesses,
prevents the loss of such rights by application of concepts of waiver or estoppel. (UCC 1-308
(old 1-207).7).
Neighbors, made his reservation of rights under the jurisdiction in which he was charged when
he signed his drivers licenses under his picture Without Prejudice U.C.C. 1-308 his reservation
of rights was secured on Jan. 11th 2013, and there for the defendants have trespassed up on
Neighbors.
The Sufficiency of the Reservation - Any expression indicating an intention to reserve rights, is
sufficient, such as "WITHOUT PREJUDICE." (UCC 1-308 (old 1-207).4). If Neighbors, had not
reserve his rights under 1-308 (old 1-207).7, he would be compelled to accept the benefit, and
are therefore obligated to obey every statute , ordinance and regulation of the government, at all
levels of government - federal, state and local.
VII. Recourse
The Recourse appears in the Uniform Commercial Code at 1-103.6, which says: The Code is
complimentary to the Common Law, which remains in force , except where displaced by the
code. A statute should be construed in harmony with the Common Law, unless there is a clear
legislative intent to abrogate the Common Law.
When Neighbors, used "Without Prejudice" UCC 1-308 in connection with his signature, he said:
"I reserved my right not to be compelled to perform under any contract, commercial
agreement or bankruptcy that I did not enter knowingly , voluntarily , and intentionally . And
4

furthermore, I do not and will not accept the liability of the compelled benefit of any
unrevealed contract or commercial agreement or bankruptcy."
See: Exhibit E a copy of Neighbors Drivers licenses, where he signed under his picture
reserving his rights under the Uniform Commercial Code.
VIII. Common Law Claim Elements:
1. Controversy ( The listed defendants)
2. Specific Claim (violation of 18 u.s.c.s 1983)
3. Specific Remedy Sought by Claimant ( 350,000.00)
4. Claim Must be Sworn To ( Affidavit of Verification attached), and I will verify in open court
that all herein be true.

IX. Demand for Judgment:

Plaintiff brings this action in Law, Equity and The U.C.C. he, is demanding judgment for
350,000.00 for the damages suffered, and or what the court deems just and fair.
X. Statement of the Claim Fact
1. Plaintiff contends that he was stopped for a seat belt violation by Officer Robinson of the
Lawrence Police Department on April 28, 2013, and was issued citation number A023469.
2. Plaintiff states that he was stopped for another seat belt violation on November 24, 2014 by
Officer Wech, of the Lawrence Police Department and was issued citation number A121247.
3. Plaintiff was issues a 3rd citation in Oct. of 2015, and the offer to contract was canceled using
the U.C.C. and the truth in lending laws, which state that any contractual offer can be cancelled
by following a specific process within 3 day of receiving the offer. But Municipal court is
treating the cancellation as if it was a failure to appear.
5

4. Plaintiff states the police car dash cam video shows that the officer could not see who was
driving the vehicle or if the driver had his seat belt.
5. Plaintiff states that Officer Wech knew the vehicle was driven by the same black man the
police department had been harassing for the last 9 yrs. and that continued harassment was the
bases of the unlawful traffic stop.
6. Officer Wech, issued citation number A023469 to plaintiff noting his certification that he has
reasonable grounds to believe and does believe that plaintiff violated three sections of the
Ordinances of the City of Lawrence, (Reasonable Grounds).
7. There is no evidence on the record to support any of the traffic stops mentioned in this action.
8. Neighbors, has a perfect driving record for the last 22-yrs. or more.
9. Neighbors filed a motion rescinding his signatures from the documents the clerk made him
sign in order for the judge to look at this case to determine if the case would be able to proceed
without payment of filing fees. Neighbors, refused the Contractual Agreement to be held to the
same standard as an alleged attorney.
10. Neighbors was forced into a criminal trial without a Jury, and found guilty by Judge Scott
Miller.
11. The seat belt ordinance is not any law the plaintiff is subject to following, as it has no
Enacting Clause a necessary element to be a law. Without an enacting clause the law is not in
existence. The missing enacting clause removes the courts subject matter jurisdiction.

12. It is a common practice of the Lawrence Police Officers to violate citizens of Lawrence
Kansas constitutional rights on a regular basis when they issue summons to citizens that have not
been signed by a Judicial officer of the court, prior to the summons being issues.
XI. Plain Statement of Facts That Make Up The Claim:
1. The defendants acted with Deliberate Indifference to following the Constitution when
they violated Neighbors, constitutional rights by stopping him several times without Probable
Cause.
2. The documents attached will prove the defendants had a criminal trial for Neighbors, and
found him Guilty.
3. To date there is no evidence on the record to show Probable Cause for the traffic stops.
4. Neighbors, will prove the City of Lawrence traffic/municipal court, citation process and
procedures, are un-constitutional.
5. Neighbors, was seriously damaged.
6. Neighbors challenged Municipal courts jurisdiction and that challenge was never stated on the
record in the case.
7. Proceedings continued without Jurisdiction ever being placed on the record.
8. The defendants Violated Neighbors, right while enforcing un-constitutional policies and
procedures as directed by their supervisors and or City of Lawrence, laws, ordinances, policies
and or procedures, ect..
9. Lawrence, police officer Mr. Wech, was informed that he was violating the plaintiffs rights,
and his response was to take it up with the court, because he was just doing his job.
7

10. The city ordinances are Not Laws, as they lacked Enacting Clauses, without the enacting
clauses the court has no subject matter jurisdiction what so ever.
11. The citations issues in this cause of action were flawed. Kansas State law requires a
description of the alleged violation on the face of the citation. The citation filed in court in this
case did Not have a description written on the face of the citation.
12. Exhibit E is a copy of Neighbors, drivers licenses, and if you will look under the
picture, one will see Neighbors, reserving his rights under the U.C.C. 1-308. Neighbors
pointed these issues out to the officer during the unlawful traffic stop, and the officer stated
the subject needed to be mentioned to the judge, because he was just doing his job.
XII. City of Lawrence Kansas Liability
Neighbors, will prove that an actions pursuant to official municipal policy caused his
injuries). The Supreme Court has emphasized that [w]here a plaintiff claims that the
municipality . . . has caused an employee to [violate plaintiffs constitutional rights], rigorous
standards of culpability and causation must be applied to ensure that the municipality is not held
liable solely for the actions of its employee. Brown, 520 U.S. at 405.
Lawrence Kansas, government-official (defendants), through the official own individual actions,
have violated the Constitution. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1948 (2009); see also Starr
v.Baca, No. 09-55233, --- F.3d ---, 2011 WL 2988827, at *2-*3 (9th Cir. July 25, 2011). The
constitutional deprivation the plaintiff suffered was the product of a policy or custom of the local
governmental unit, because municipal liability must rest on the actions of the municipality, and
not the actions of the employees of the municipality. See Brown, 520 U.S. at 403; City of Canton,
489 U.S. at 385; Monell, 436 U.S. at 690-91; Fogel, 531 F.3d at 834; Webb, 330 F.3d at 1164;
Gibson, 290 F.3d at 1187; Hopper, 241 F.3d at 1082; Blair v. City of Pomona, 223 F.3d 1074,

1079 (9th Cir. 2000); Oviatt v. Pearce, 954 F.2d 1470, 1473-74 (9th Cir. 1992). See also Connick
v. Thompson, 131 S. Ct. 1350, 1359 (2011) 4,
XIII. Policies
Official municipal policy includes the decisions of a governments lawmakers, the acts of its
policymaking officials, and practices as persistent and widespread as to practically have the force
of law. Connick v. Thompson, 131 S. Ct. 1350, 1359 (2011).
IXV. Municipal Custom
Neighbors, will establish municipal liability upon a showing that there is a permanent and wellsettled practice by the municipality which gave rise to the alleged constitutional violation. See
City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112, 127 (1988); Navarro v. Block, 72 F.3d 712, 714-15
(9th Cir. 1996); Thompson v. City of Los Angeles, 885 F.2d 1439, 1444 (9th Cir. 1989), overruled
on other grounds by Bull v. City & County of San Francisco, 595 F.3d 964 (9th Cir. 2010). Once
the Neighbors, has demonstrated that a custom exist, the plaintiff need not also demonstrate that
official policy-makers had actual knowledge of the practice at issue. Navarro, 72 F.3d at 71415; Thompson, 885 F.2d at 1444.
XV. Pleading Standard
There is no heightened pleading standard with respect to the policy or custom requirement of
demonstrating municipal liability. See Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence &
Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 167-68 (1993); see also Empress LLC v. City of San Francisco,
419 F.3d 1052, 1055 (9th Cir. 2005); Galbraith v. County of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d 1119, 1124
(9th Cir. 2002); Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 679-80 (9th Cir. 2001); Evans v.
McKay, 869 F.2d 1341, 1349 (9th Cir. 1989).
XVI. Acting under Color of State Law
The question of whether a person who has allegedly caused a constitutional injury was acting
under color of state law is a factual determination. See Brunette v. Humane Socy of Ventura
County, 294 F.3d 1205, 1209 (9th Cir. 2002); Gritchen v. Collier, 254 F.3d 807, 813 (9th Cir.
2001); Lopez v. Dept of Health Servs., 939 F.2d 881, 883 (9th Cir. 1991) (per curiam); Howerton
v. Gabica, 708 F.2d 380, 383 (9th Cir. 1983).
9

A defendant has acted under color of state law where he or she has exercised power possessed
by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the
authority of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 49 (1988) (quoting United States v. Classic,
313 U.S. 299, 326 (1941)); see also Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 317-18 (1981);
Anderson v. Warner, 451 F.3d 1063, 1068 (9th Cir. 2006); McDade v. West, 223 F.3d 1135, 113940 (9th Cir. 2000); Johnson v. Knowles, 113 F.3d 1114, 1117 (9th Cir. 1997); Vang v. Xiong, 944
F.2d 476, 479 (9th Cir. 1991); see also Florer v. Congregation Pidyon Shevuyim, N.A., 639 F.3d
916, 922 (9th Cir. 2011).
Actions taken pursuant to a municipal ordinance are made under color of state law. See
Coral Constr. Co. v. King County, 941 F.2d 910, 926 (9th Cir. 1991).
Even if the deprivation represents an abuse of authority or lies outside the authority of the
official, if the official is acting within the scope of his or her employment, the person is still
acting under color of state law. See Anderson, 451 F.3d at 1068-69; McDade, 223 F.3d at 1140;
Shah v. County of Los Angeles, 797 F.2d 743, 746 (9th Cir. 1986). However, [i]f a government
officer does not act within [the] scope of employment or under the color of state law, then that
government officer acts as a private citizen. See Van Ort v. Estate of Stanewich, 92 F.3d 831,
835 (9th Cir. 1996) (finding no action under color of state law where a police officer returned to
a home where a search had taken place the day before, forced his way in, and tortured the two
people residing in the home); see also Gritchen, 254 F.3d at 812-13; Huffman v. County of Los
Angeles, 147 F.3d 1054, 1058 (9th Cir. 1998); Johnson, 113 F.3d at 1117-18.
XVII. Affirmative Cause Link
Plaintiff has established an affirmative causal link between the municipal policy or practice and
the alleged constitutional violation. See City of Canton, Ohio v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 385, 39192 (1989); Van Ort v. Estate of Stanewich, 92 F.3d 831, 835 (9th Cir. 1996); Oviatt v. Pearce, 954
F.2d 1470, 1473-74 (9th Cir. 1992).

10

Pray For Relief

Our legal system and statutes are filled with ambiguous, deceptive, and contradictory terms and
definitions. The fact the court request that one sign a contract agreeing to be held to the standard
of a licensed attorney would appear the court is holding the private citizen to a much higher
standard in order to access and win in court.
The standard to prove damages is set much higher in proportion with the standards to issue a
citation, or summons.
The defendants, in their combined motion to dismiss, states: Officer Wech, issues citation
#A023469 to plaintiff, noting his Certification that he has Reasonable Grounds to
believe, and does believe that the plaintiff violated three sections of the city ordinances.
Defendants fail to state what those reasonable grounds were, and plaintiff is incorrect in his
statement. Officer Wech, only issues a citation for one violation. Officer Robinson, issued a
citation with several violations.
This case is simple; officers stopped Neighbors, on 3 different occasions based on Reasonable
Grounds that he was violating something that is not a real law. It would appear the bar for
remedy is set much higher that the bar for officers conduct under color of law.
The exhibits attached to the claim are going to be used to show a pattern of Abuse to the jury.
Neighbors, is only claiming damage for the unlawful traffic stops.
Neighbors, Prays this court will rule in his favor and provide him Remedy for the damages that
he has suffered.

_____________________
Guy Neighbors 11/30/2015

11

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the ___ day of Nov. 2015, the foregoing document was filed
in person with the clerk of the court In Topeka Ks. by the Plaintiff, to be emailed and mailed out
to the party below:

____________________________
Guy Neighbors, 11/30/2015

Craig Blumreich
5601 SW Barrington Ct. South
P.O. Box 4306
Topeka Kansas, 66604

12

VERIFICATION:
I Guy Neighbors, declare under penalty of perjury in accordance with the Laws of the
United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct and complete to the best of my
knowledge and belief.
____________________________

on this __________th Day, of _______________ 2015

Guy Neighbors

On this ______day of____________, 2015 before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in
and for State of KS, personally appeared the above-signed, known to me to be the one whose
name is signed on this instrument, and has acknowledged to me that s/he has executed the same.

Signed:_________________________________________
Printed Name:____________________________________
Date:___________________________________________
My Commission Expires:____________________________

13