Selective Prosecution

Selective Prosecution

Criminal prosecution based on an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other

Abitrary classification.

Selective prosecution is the enforcement or prosecution of criminal laws against a particular class of persons and the simultaneous failure to administer criminal laws against others out-side the targeted class. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that selective prosecution exists where the enforcement or prosecution of a Criminal Law is “directed so exclusively against particular class of persons … with a mind so unequal and oppressive” that the administration of the criminal law amounts toa practical denial of Equal Protection of the law (United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 116 S. Ct. 1480, 134 L. Ed. 2d687 [1996], quoting yick wo v. hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 6 S. Ct. 1064, 30 L. Ed. 220 [1886]). Specifically, police and prosecutors may not base the decision to arrest a person for, or charge a person with, a criminal offense based on “an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification” (United States v. Armstrong, quoting Oyler v. Boles, 368 U.S.448, 82 S. Ct. 501, 7 L. Ed. 2d 446 [1962]).

Selective prosecution is a violation of the constitutional guarantee of equal protection for all persons under the law. On the federal level, the requirement of equal protection is contained in the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S.Constitution. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment extends the prohibition on selective prosecution to the states. The equal protection doctrine requires that persons in similar circumstances must receive similar treatment under the law.

Selective prosecution cases are notoriously difficult to prove. Courts presume that prosecutors have not violated equal protection requirements, and claimants bear the burden of proving otherwise. A person claiming selective prosecution must show that the prosecutorial policy had a discriminatory effect and that it was motivated by a discriminatory purpose. To demonstrate a discriminatory effect, a claimant must show that similarly situated individuals of a different class were not prosecuted. For example, a person claiming selective prosecution of white Protestants must produce evidence that shows that white Protestants were prosecuted for a particular crime and that persons outside this group could have been prosecuted but were not.

The prohibition of selective prosecution may be used to invalidate a law. In Yick Wo v. Hopkins, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a San Francisco ordinance that prohibited the operation of laundries in wooden buildings. San Francisco authorities had used the ordinance to prevent Chinese from operating a laundry business in a wooden building. Yet

the same authorities had granted permission to eighty individuals who were not Chinese to operate laundries in wooden buildings.Because the city enforced the ordinance only against Chinese-owned laundries, the Court ordered that Yick Wo, who had been imprisoned for violating the ordinance, be set free.

Are private property right Federally protected rights?

I have asked this question before and have gotten few responses. I can only take the silence of opinions as a “yes” private property rights are Federally protected. I have been advised to get a private attorney. I want to ask why would I need a private attorney when a violation of Federal law is to be investigated and prosecuted by the Federal authorities.

One other question I previously asked was, “does an AUSA have the authority to violate a civil court order with no type of court proceeding”? Again I have to assume that the silence of opinions would concur “no”. An AUSA does not have the right to use attorney discretion to violate a civil court order.

So I understand that the Federal authorities have knowingly made false statements to me. An investigation cannot be concluded using hearsay evidence, and private property cannot be taken without just compensation, as that is a violation of Federal law.

SA Calvin Shivers signed the letter stating that a prior investigation had determined no violation of Federal law has occurred, Shivers has not contacted me, he has avoided me. Why wouldn’t a Federal officer want the facts about any case before he would sign a letter based on hearsay. Have some dignity to you position officers. You are employeed to represent the citizens, not the blue wall of silence. Seems like a bunch of cowards if confronted individually. I have some facts that need to be reviewed and until I am confident the facts have been reviewed I will continue to defend my right to be protected from harm. There are many violations of Federal law that have occurred at the hands of my local government officials. The fact that hearsay was taken as evidence and that hearsay was given no less than from a law enforcement imposter is more reason to question the honesty of this law enforcement officer, I have already submitted clear evidence that this cop has a conflict of interest with the party that used chemical weapons to force me from my property.  They have taken everything I owned. My home, business, property and health. They have taken any quality of life I had planned for my golden years. There is no doubt that Federal laws have been violated. I do not expect anyone to offer an opinion as to why the Feds would not be the proper agency to prosecute, ssshhh don’t expose public corruption, it only a pr tactic on their website. This government would not exist and thrive without a supporting group of thieves protecting self serving colleagues. https://poisonedbymyneighborfromhell.com

Ignorance of the Law is no excuse. Intentional serious injury at the hands of my government officials. What is your intent?

Well I can testify that the chronic skin condition resulting from intentional exposure to glyphosate for an extended period of time is once again seriously severe. I have never been prescribed a higher dose of methotrexate and had the condition to become increasingly severe. I am at the point now that it is unbearable to wear shoes. This pain and severe itching is 24/7. To know that an FBI agent claims to have done and investigation and has found no violation of Federal law based of hearsay stated by the County sheriff to a third party is about to piss me off more than I have ever been pissed on. SA Thomas Reinwart has proven to be incompetent and not qualified to investigate my case. He does not have the knowledge that every reasonable American takes for granted. He does not know that private property rights are Federally protected. His ignorance has proven he had no business being involved in my case that encompassed in violations of Federal laws. His ignorance and incompetence is going to have significant effects to the outcome of this case. Who to whom it may concern that has a connection be it by a third party or via any damn way, needs to extend this message to a high authority. FBI Agent Calvin Shivers signed the most recent letter stating that they have determined no violation of Federal law has occurred, he has completely avoided any contact with me. Tell him he is participating in a crime that is causing serious physical injury to an American citizen. He is knowingly refusing to protect me from harm based on fabricated information. He being the most recent signator of a letter that further violates my individual rights. Has made the choice to protect the blue wall of silence. Do not send any law enforcement to my home, inquiring as to whether I have threatened anyone. Send them to those who have repeatedly attempted to murder me using chemical weapons. It’s in everyone’s best interest. Get these maniacs that have proven to be a danger to society off the streets before they do kill an innocent human being!

Dead End

This Agent does not recognize that using chemicals as a weapon unlawfully applied to my property is in violation of my Federally protected private property rights.

From: songboat [mailto:songboat@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2017 1:14 PM
To: Reinwart, Thomas J. (OM) (FBI) <Thomas.Reinwart@ic.fbi.gov>
Subject: Letter from J.C.Hacker

Thomas

I am attaching my most recent correspondence with I had with you. I received the letter from FBI JC Hacker yesterday. I searched for this individual and there is no person named JC Hacker listed as an FBI assistant director or anywhere else for that matter. Please explain, as there seems to be a conflict between the two letters.

Regarding the evidence I have sent you clearly shows that the continuing unlawful application of toxic chemicals to my property violates my Federal right to enjoy my property. The fact that the unlawful application of toxic chemicals to my property constitutes a criminal offense of trespassing. Denying my right to file a criminal complaint against this trespasser by the City of Montrose police dept, and the Lee County Attorney clearly violates my Federal right to equal protection of the law. The evidence I have sent you supports two or more people working together to violate my Federal rights to privacy and equal protection supports a conspiracy.

My request for a behavioral analysis is reasonable, who in sound mind continues a criminal act (trespassing in this case) knowing the person that owns the property the chemicals are being applied to believes the chemicals are causing severe health problems? Whose duty is it to protect those rights? Local law enforcement has the duty to protect the rights of the citizens from criminal acts perpetrated against them. In this case intentional acts perpetrated against me.

Who has the duty to assure compliance to State of Iowa building and drainage code? The appointed building administrator. In this case multiple counts of fraud have been committed not only the fraudulent building permits but also the document fraud and fabricated city ordinance perpetrated by the city clerk. Fraud also falling into the criminal offense category. The FBI holds public corruption as of highest priority, including conflict of interest. In this case a conflict of interest is relevant between every actor participating in the personal attack against me and my property.

Apparently you do not agree with my allegations, please explain what it is that I am not understanding as a violation of Federal law.

Regards,

Melody Boatner

 

Reply to me

Reinwart, Thomas J. (OM) (FBI) Thomas.Reinwart@ic.fbi.gov

There is not a conflict.  Thus far, there does not appear to be any Federal criminal law violations which have occurred.  Although there may be some local or state criminal and or civil law(s) which may have violated, we do not investigate those activities.  As previously stated in my email with you,

“You have previously written on numerous occasions explaining you have an abundance of evidence to support your claims of the criminal violations you have researched.  Please bring that information to explain and substantiate your allegations.”

Again, we will not provide any type of profiler or behavioral analysis for you.  This is not going to continue to be debated via email.  I am giving you the opportunity to provide any material you feel has not been provided/explained by you to us in the past to substantiate your allegations.

In Regards to Congressional inquiries into my case by Senator Charles Grassley

Date: 5/17/17 2:49 PM (GMT-06:00)

To: “Reinwart, Thomas J. (OM) (FBI)” <Thomas.Reinwart@ic.fbi.gov>, “Kaufmann, John (Grassley)” <John_Kaufmann@grassley.senate.gov>, National Crime Victim Law Institute <NCVLI@lclark.edu>, founders@equaljusticeunderlaw.org, investigative reporters and editors <mhorvit@ire.org>,and a few more.
Subject: In regards to two Congressional inquiries by Senator Grassley

I have repeatedly attempted to get an agent to physically review the evidence I have gathered during and extended period of time in which my civil rights were violated by my local government officials. To date no agent has reached out to me in an attempt to review my evidence. 

My contact with a Federal agent was on behalf of phone calls I made to my local division. One other agent who was not over the division covering my area did speak with me. This agent was referred to me by a local official who clearly has a conflict of interest with those who violated my civil rights. I am sure that his intent was to divert any serious investigation. I received two letters from Assistant Deputy Director J. C. Hacker stating the the Cedar Rapids, Iowa division found no violation of Federal law. I would like the opportunity to speak with Agent Hacker to inform him that there has never been a review of my evidence and would like an explanation as to how a decision could be made with no review of my evidence. My evidence is undeniable that Federal law has been violated. I have requested Agent Reinwart forward my emails to J. C. Hacker, however he does not seem interested in doing so. I am again requesting this email to be forwarded to Agent J.C. Hacker, recognizing the possibility that my allegation are correct and a conflict of interest caused the evidence initially given to the Agent from the Quad Cities to be tainted should be taken into consideration. I again want to stress this case is unprecedented and seemingly unbelievable, a review of the evidence will prove my allegation are justified.

I am writing this letter on behalf of the following excerpt from a FBI review which was presented to Senator Grassley.

Recognizing the FBI works closely with the local authorities with no review of my evidence justice cannot be served, the crimes committed against me were perpetrated by my local government officials. The FBI clearly has only heard one side of this case, apparently falsified, I have no clue what the agent from the Quad Cities was told. I do know what the evidence I have proves without a doubt.

sincerely,

Melody Boatner  

Author’s note: I have repeatedly been advised by Grassley staff to be patient, the FBI would contact me. That never happened. Negligence on the part of the FBI is unacceptable. Ten years I was patient. Ten years is an unreasonable amount of time to be patient when a citizen has been assaulted with chemicals and forced from their private property by local government officials. 

Eventually I did contact SA Thomas Reinwart. Not impressed with his enthusiasm. Not impressed with his investigative skills. Hearsay is what he used as evidence. He advised me that he came to my home for the purpose of reviewing the hard copy indisputable evidence. He never interviewed any of my witnesses, he never looked into financial records for bribes, he never interviewed my Drs. His opinion was based on what I verbally told him and what Sheriff Weber verbally told a third party. Had he reviewed the evidence he would have discovered whatever the Sheriff stated was false. How many cops tell the truth, 0. They are trained to lie. This sheriff was trained by a mentor that has repeatedly made false statements about me. I have requested evidence to support what he has said, but there is none.

An example of criminal acts investigated by the FBI. There has been no investigation into my allegations. They can’t because my evidence is indisputable.

This is not the case in Montrose, Lee County, Iowa when the corruption is committed against a single middle-aged female.

Does Iowa Attorney General have a Public Integrity Unit. No authority will respond to any of my questions.

Any officials who turns a blind eye is guilty of committing the crime themselves.

“Public safety officials who accept bribes and ignore their duties undermine safety for everyone,” said Schuette.  “Detroit needs more safety, not less, and that starts with public officials doing their job instead of lining their pockets.”

The case originated from an investigation by the FBI-Led Detroit Area Public Corruption Task Force in collaboration with the Michigan Attorney General’s Public Integrity Unit.

“When public officials abuse their positions of trust for personal gain, they will be held accountable for their criminal acts,” said Paul M. Abbate, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI Detroit Field Office. “The FBI and its law enforcement partners on the Detroit Area Public Corruption Task Force are fully committed to ensuring our citizens are served by the honest government they deserve.”

“Public corruption at any level will not be tolerated.  Public employees who are in charge of the community’s welfare must be held to a higher standard and when those employees jeopardize the safety of Detroiters for their own personal gain then they must suffer the consequences.  The bribery convictions of the city of Detroit Inspectors should be an example that crime in the city of Detroit does not pay,” said James E. Craig, Detroit Chief of Police.

Criminal cases remain pending against five current and former Detroit Building Safety Engineering and Environmental Department inspectors Schuette charged in August 2013 for allegedly accepting bribes in exchange for ignoring their duty to enforce city building, zoning, electrical, and plumbing codes. Schuette filed felony bribery charges against current and former inspectors Eric Miller, 50, of Detroit, John Jones, 54, of Detroit, Bob Watson, 52, of Dearborn, and Kenneth Russ, 53, of Detroit, and Moreno Taylor, 53, of Livonia.

crime (krim) n. ca.1920. An unethical or immoral act against one’s fellow man.

Author’s note:  There has never been a review of the evidence. Clearly the Mayor had a financial gain, there has never been an investigation into the financial records of the conspirators who clearly violated my Constitutional Rights on this maniac’s behalf. I have hard copy evidence that will prove every perp in this case has no credibility. They have all lied and knowingly made false statements, fraudulent ordinances and fabricated laws to bring frivolous criminal charges against me.  

This is a personal request for Calvin Shivers, FBI Deputy Assistant Director, criminal investigations division

To anyone who has contact or the ability to get FBI Deputy Assistant Director Calvin Shivers a message from me to him.

Officer Calvin Shivers,

I received a letter signed by you yesterday in the mail. It was a response from an inquiry on my behalf from Congressman Dave Loebsack. This content of the letter you sent dated 3-2-2019 is irrelevant. I stressed to the Congressman that I was requesting an independent investigation, or from an unbiased Federal authority. The information you are referring to is based on hearsay evidence. That hearsay evidence was tainted from the facts regarding my complaint by Lee County Sheriff Weber. I have hard copy evidence that supports this is a fact.

Any information given to you has no evidence that supports it to be factual, if it does I have indisputable evidence to prove what you have been given is fabricated.

I have utilized several resources to attempt to reach you. I am confident that at least one of those attempts have been successful in reaching you. I am publically requesting that you contact me personally. The evidence I have supports in the least obvious incompetent investigation into my complaint. Unless hearsay is now an acceptable source of evidence, it is not submissible in a court of law. Every reasonable citizen has that knowledge. The agent investigating my case clearly does not have that knowledge. The agent investigating my case did not have the knowledge that private property rights are Federally protected rights. The agent investigating my case wasted taxpayer money for travel expenses to come to my home specifically to review the hard copy evidence I have in my possession. Upon arrival 14 months after I first contacted him, he advised me that he had no intention of reviewing the hard copy evidence that I had laid out in a manner that it could easily be reviewed. The only logical reason he would refuse to review valid evidence in my opinion is that he knew my evidence supported my allegations. By refusing to review that evidence he could stand proud behind the blue wall of silence and protect those who actions have intentionally caused me serious physical and financial damages. They have committed serious criminal offenses against me. In violation of a civil court order these corrupt officials are not going to resist being held accountable for their crimes. SA Thomas Reinwart had clearly made up his mind to support the corrupt local officials before he ever entered my home.

There is no way that I am going to drop my complaint at least until I know for a fact that a competent investigator has reviewed the hard copy documented evidence that is indisputable. I expect my rights to be recognized as every other citizen takes their rights for granted. I certainly do not expect this degree of local corruption to be hidden and supported by any Federal authority.

The FBI makes it quite difficult for any one on one conversations with a competent official. I have repeatedly tried to file a formal complaint against this particular agent and have yet to discover what the process for filing a complaint is.

Officer Shivers, I am requesting that you telephone me, email me and would prefer a meeting between the two of us. As I tried to explain to the SA this case is to complex to verbally tell the facts to anyone. That’s the option he allowed me to have. He asked that I verbally tell him what Federal violations of the law occurred in a physical attack committed against me for over 5 years. He gave me 2 1/2 hours to tell him a story that took me six years to put in chronological order filling for large 3 ring binders. The entire time I was attempting to explain what had occurred he was steady checking his watch, apparently he was to tight on a time schedule to hear anything I was trying to explain to him. When he left I believe he had three notes written on his notepad.

Now I will travel to your location if need be. I have more information to submit to you however doing so in a public setting could put my life in danger, and I don’t think anyone wants anything bad to happen to me, do you?  I have given you my email and phone number though the linkedin message. I do not care when you contact me, day or night. It takes a special kind of officer to cross the blue line of silence, but somebody with honor and integrity will do it and be honored for upholding his or her oath.

Request to the general public to pass this message on to Deputy Assistant Director Calvin Shivers asking him to contact me asap. URGENT!

In response to AUSA VanderSchel’s opinion that my evidence is assumptive.

AUSA VanderSchel,

In regards to you email stating that my evidence is assumptive. What in this linked file do you find assumptive? You must be assuming the information given to you by SA Reinwart is evidence. He refused to review the hard copy evidence, The purpose for him to come to my home on tax payers money was to review the hard copy evidence I have in my posession. There is no other person who has this hard copy evidence.

 When he arrived he advised that he did not intend to review any evidence, he asked that I just tell him the story and he would take notes. After 2 1/2 hours of him, steady checking his watch and me, trying to verbally explain a story that has nothing similar with compliance to any State or Federal laws regarding private property rights. I believe he had a total of three notes written on his notepad.  The point is that you have been given assumptive information in spite of the indisputable evidence I had prepared for SA Reinwart to review. Have you ever prosecuted a case of public corruption?

 I recently read that the FBI places high scoring academy graduates in areas that have the highest rates of crime, the lowest scoring graduates in the lowest crime areas around the Nation. I am curious if that is the process the DOJ uses in placing AUSA’s? Reinwart repeatedly stated that no Federal law has been violated. I advised him that private property rights are Federally protected rights. He had no change of expression. Perhaps he really does not know that private property rights are Federally protected rights. I can tell you that had he have reviewed the evidence, he or you would have determined that the following violations of Federal law have also occurred and hard copy evidence supports these allegations. The citizens know all too well about the blue wall of silence. In this case the perpetrators are not your “run of the mill” self serving government officials. These perps could have cared less whether it would cost me my life to achieved their goal of acquiring my private property. There is a “special kind of corruption” in the character of these government officials.

You stated that you have the authority to violate a civil court order, with no type of process. You need to submit evidence supporting that is a fact to me, I do not believe you are telling the truth. I believe you are abusing your authority with intent to violate my Federally protected civil rights. If you have no documented evidence supporting your statement then I would have to presume you are conspiring with SA Reinwart to deprive me of my Constitutional Rights under color of law. I do not take anyone’s word to be evidence of any fact. Not Reinwarts, not yours and certainly not Sheriff Weber’s. I know for a fact that his hands are dirty in this case. He in fact has received stolen property that belongs to me. I have no way to prove that but I do have correspondence with him in which he does implicate himself in criminal violations of the law. You suggested that since I had no information on my web page from recent dates the statute of limitations has expired. AUSA VanderSchel, I know that this group of government officials has been willing to sacrifice my life for the purpose of Mark Conlee acquiring my property. Do you really think it would be in my best interest to post evidence of the Sheriff violating State and Federal laws in acts committed against me on a public web site?  Would you mind sharing with me what level of your graduating class you rated. It would be my opinion that you would have been one of the lower level graduating students. You are not considering what is in my, a citizens, best interest are you AUSA VanderSchel. I am requesting evidence from you that supports your claim that you have the legal authority to violate a civil court order.  I do not believe you can use attorney discretion to violate an order made by any judge as you assured me you intended to do.

In speaking with Reinwart about public corruption, he advised that a bribe is taken in a case of public corruption. I argue that the law does not specify that has to be a factor. I also question how can Reinwart assume a bribe has not been taken in this case since he has not reviewed any financial records. There most likely has been favors at least given and taken in this case. There is no question that Mayor Dinwiddie did receive a financial gain being the seller of the property to Conlee. So right there is without a doubt a conflict of interest. That is a fact. That fact supports a public corruption complaint.

Reinwart told me three different versions of how he submitted my complaint to you. Three different versions causes me question his credibility. I have advised you that the information he has given you is based on hearsay. You should be questioning his credibility at this point, don’t you think?

Here are more but not limited to violations of Federal law that has been committed by these corrupt public officials.

Public corruption and civil rights

Corruption

In general terms, corruption cases arise when a local, state, or federal public official receives things of value in exchange for performing, or failing to perform, official acts contemplated by the authority of their position. The public grants authority to officials and, in return, is entitled to receive honest services from all who serve in the government. The prosecutors and professional staff in PCCRS prosecute officials – such as politicians, law enforcement officers, government executives, and correctional officers — who violate the public trust for the sake of self-enrichment.

Civil Rights

PCCRS also prosecutes individuals, whether they be private citizens or public officials, who criminally violate the constitutional rights of individuals. The use of excessive force by law enforcement under the color of law is an example of how public officials can violate an individual’s civil rights. Private individuals who commit violent crimes motivated by bias – commonly known as hate crimes — also violate federal civil rights laws. Hate crime laws recognize and defend the rights of all individuals, regardless of their race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.

18 U.S.C. § 229 – U.S. Code – Unannotated Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 229. Prohibited activities

Unlawful conduct. (a) –Except as provided in subsection (b), it shall be unlawful for any person knowingly–

(1) to develop, produce, otherwise acquire, transfer directly or indirectly, receive, stockpile, retain, own, possess, or use, or threaten to use, any chemical weapon;  or (2) to assist or induce, in any way, any person to violate paragraph (1), or to attempt or conspire to violate paragraph (1).

Exempted agencies and persons. (b) 

In general. (1) –Subsection (a) does not apply to the retention, ownership, possession, transfer, or receipt of a chemical weapon by a department, agency, or other entity of the United States, or by a person described in paragraph (2), pending destruction of the weapon.

Exempted persons. (2) –A person referred to in paragraph (1) is–

(A) any person, including a member of the Armed Forces of the United States, who is authorized by law or by an appropriate officer of the United States to retain, own, possess, transfer, or receive the chemical weapon;  or

(B) in an emergency situation, any otherwise non-culpable person if the person is attempting to destroy or seize the weapon.

Jurisdiction. (c) –Conduct prohibited by subsection (a) is within the jurisdiction of the United States if the prohibited conduct–

(1) takes place in the United States;

(2) takes place outside of the United States and is committed by a national of the United States;

(3) is committed against a national of the United States while the national is outside the United States;  or

(4) is committed against any property that is owned, leased, or used by the United States or by any department or agency of the United States, whether the property is within or outside the United States.

Chemical Weapons

This crime is punishable by any term of years in prison. If the crime results in death, the punishment is death or life imprisonment. Property owned or used by the person is subject to forfeiture. Any property derived from and proceeds obtained from the offense and property used to commit or facilitate the offense is also subject to forfeiture. The statute also imposes an additional fine of up to twice the gross profit or proceeds from the offense (18 U.S.C. 229, et seq.).

A chemical weapon is:

  1. a toxic chemical and its precursors (chemical reactants that take part in producing a toxic chemical) unless intended for a purpose that is not prohibited and the type and quantity is consistent with that purpose,
  2. a munition or device designed to cause death or harm through toxic chemicals that would be released by the device, or
  3. equipment designed for use directly in connection with using such a munition or device.

A toxic chemical is a chemical that can cause death, temporary incapacitation, or permanent harm to people or animals.

The law specifies that it does not apply to self-defense devices such as pepper spray or chemical mace. It also does not prevent uses related to (1) industrial, agricultural, research, medical, or pharmaceutical activity; (2) protection against chemical weapons; (3) unrelated military purposes; and (4) law enforcement purposes such as riot control and imposing the death penalty.

 

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 – Conspiracy Against Rights This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).

It further makes it unlawful for two or more persons to go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another with the intent to prevent or hinder his/her free exercise or enjoyment of any rights so secured.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to ten years, or both; and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years, or for life, or may be sentenced to death.

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 – Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law

This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.

This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.

Acts under “color of any law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under “color of any law,” the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Title 42, U.S.C., Section 3631 – Criminal Interference with Right to Fair Housing

This statute makes it unlawful for any individual(s), by the use of force or threatened use of force, to injure, intimidate, or interfere with (or attempt to injure, intimidate, or interfere with), any person’s housing rights because of that person’s race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin. Among those housing rights enumerated in the statute are:

  • The sale, purchase, or renting of a dwelling;
  • the occupation of a dwelling;
  • the financing of a dwelling;

contracting or negotiating for any of the rights enumerated above;

applying for or participating in any service, organization, or facility relating to the sale or rental of dwellings.

This statute also makes it unlawful by the use of force or threatened use of force, to injure, intimidate, or interfere with any person who is assisting an individual or class of persons in the exercise of their housing rights.

Punishment varies from a fine of up to $1,000 or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results, shall be fined up to $10,000 or imprisoned up to ten years, or both, and if death results, shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life.

 ARTICLE XIV.

“Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The reasonable enjoyment of one’s real estate is certainly a vested right, which cannot be interfered with or limited arbitrarily. The constitutional guaranty of protection for all private property extends equally to the enjoyment and the possession of lands. An arbitrary interference by the government, or by its authority, with the reasonable enjoyment of private lands is a taking of private [728] property without due process of law, which is inhibited by the constitutions. But it is not every use which comes within this constitutional protection. One has a vested right to only a reasonable use of one’s lands. It is not difficult to find the rule which determines the limitations upon the lawful ways or manner of using lands. It is the rule, which furnishes the solution of every problem in the law of police power, and which is comprehended in the legal maxim, sic utere tuo, ut alienum non lædas. One can lawfully make use of his property only in such a manner as that he will not injure another. Any use of one’s lands to the hurt or annoyance of another is a nuisance, and may be prohibited. At common law that is a nuisance, which causes personal discomfort or injury to health to an unusual degree. As it has been expressed in a preceding section,1 the right of personal security against acts, which will cause injury to health or great bodily discomfort, cannot be made absolute in organized society. It must yield to the reasonable demands of trade, commerce and other great interests of society. While the State cannot arbitrarily violate the right of personal security to health by the unlimited authorization of acts which do harm to health, or render one’s residence less comfortable, there is involved in this matter the consideration of what constitutes a reasonable use of one’s property. At common law this is strictly a judicial question of fact, the answer to which varies according to the circumstances of each case. One is expected to endure a reasonable amount of discomfort and annoyance for the public good, which is furthered by the permission of trades and manufactures, the prosecution of which necessarily involves a certain amount of annoyance or injury to the inhabitants of the neighborhood. In all such cases, it is a question of equity, on whom is it reasonable to impose the burden of the inevitable loss, resulting from this clashing [729] of interests; and independently of statute it is strictly a judicial question, and all the circumstances of the case must be taken into consideration.

respectfully,

Melody Boatner

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B1Pxuwsos4l_U2J6YU1RSDdobVE

Statute of Limitations

For those of you that suggest the statute of limitations has expired in regards to my case.

Amendment 5
– Protection of Rights to Life, Liberty, and Property

No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

I see no reference to a statute of limitations in private property taken without just compensation. In fact it is NEVER to be taken without just compensation. Any untimeliness in my case is due to the negligence of the government officials who have been involved in my case. That is aside from the time in which I was blind and unable to defend myself. The entire amendment had been violated in my case. No justice, no accountability to date. I will not be the only victim in this case, I promise these rights do and will apply to me as they do to every other citizen. https://poisonedbymyneighborfromhell.com

Does an AUSA have the authority to use attorney discretion to violate a civil court ruling made by a Judge?

Nobody has contacted me from the FBI yet. I called the Washington DC headquarters and every time they hang up on me. I don’t even get to voice my issue. Federal official requested two inquiries, advised me that the FBI would contact me. Ten years later they still hadn’t contacted me. I reached out to the local division, but not before the Local official had contact an agent buddy of his, Local official has a direct conflict of interest with the opposing party. Whatever the local official did tell his friend was false, I know that is a fact because he knows no facts about this case. I asked the agent that was pretending to be investigating my complaint to share the information the third party was told by local official. The agent refused. He advised me that based on the hearsay local official  had given the third party and what I had told him. He made his decision not to investigate. I have the hard copy evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt my allegations cannot be denied. My point is TEN years after Federal official requested an inquiry. I don’t have ten more years to wait for these criminal actors to have justice served on them. You understand the seriousness of the degree of the crimes committed against me don’t you? I am serious. The only thing a honest law enforcement officer has to do is to actually take the time to review my hard copy evidence. It’s not that much to ask. These locals had no regard for my life, had I not have fled I would have been murdered by the intentional poisoning. Give me that name and contact information for an agent not associated with this locals who have been biased do to false statements made by the local official. I am not going to be the only victim of this brutal chemical attack. I am telling you, the evidence clearly shows what I have been claiming for the past ten years. Being patient as advised by Federal official never did a thing for me. I do not know the process of requesting an inquiry, but I am sure you submit the Federal official’s request to someone who has a name. Is that right? I want that person’s name. If you do not submit the request for an inquiry you need to change up the standard procedure for this case with special circumstances and direct it to the highest authority. The EPA has law enforcement officers of their own. I want to talk to a specific person. For me to call the Washington DC division without an extension to a specific person makes me feel discriminated against. Federal official told me years ago that the Federal official had a contact in the FBI, now the assistant tells me Federal official can’t contact anyone in the FBI because its against the law. What has happened to me is against the Federal law, what the hell? He has been talking out both sides of him mouth representing Federal official. He will not allow me to speak with Federal official, so I really don’t know if Federal official knows anything about what I have been advised he has been doing on my behalf. One of the Local officials wrote a letter on my behalf to this incompetent FBI agent. The Local official told me that he could not believe that nobody has contacted him from the FBI. He stated that if I had a Federal official on my side more than nothing should have happened already. Let me make sure you understand exactly what happened to me with the FBI and AUSA.  Supporting the criminals in this case they have also conspired against my Civil, human and Constitutional Rights. No government official can legally turn a blind eye to corrupt acts committed by government officials. If they do they are not only co conspirators against my rights but also violating the rules of ethics for Government service. I have been a victim of physical abuse by a local resident since I could walk. I had escaped that abuser.  I acquired my home, business and property. Then, I am physically abused by my local government officials by the intentional use of chemicals as a weapon, no question that the chemicals were applied to my property with intent to cause me serious harm or death. The evidence could not be more solid in supporting that to be a fact. I need someone to enforce to law, to protect me from harm. Right now the only person with influence to do that is you.

I want to know if an AUSA has the authority to violate a civil court order without some type of court procedure. I have a hard time believing this AUSA. He told me that he could completely disregard a civil court order because he has attorney discretion. It is not reasonable that he can violate a court order made by any Judge. Can you find that information out for me. My question is “Does an AUSA have the authority to use attorney discretion to violate a civil court ruling made by a Judge”? The logical answer to that question is no, why would the citizens waste the time and their money to proceed with a civil court trial? Kevin VanderSchel of the Des Moines, Ia US Attorney’s for the Southern District of Iowa is a XXXXXX. He needs to be removed from his position immediately. How many others has he violated before me? I find very few cases in which he is the prosecutor. I find no cases of public corruption filed in the State of Iowa. That in itself is quite telling about the thin blue line. There are more corrupt officials in Lee County that I can write about, I don’t expect Lee County is  the only county with corrupt officials. They quite possibly could be the only county who have used chemical weapons to commit acts of terror against a citizen. I can find no record of chemical weapons used by government officials against a citizen in the USA. Can anyone cite me a precedent case with this issue? Do you share information with

Federal official? I really do not believe Federal official knew anything about my case. However his assistant was acting on his behalf so I don’t know what would be the result of a situation with such serious offenses as have been committed against me. I would at least like to speak with someone justifying the local officials case.  So I could prove whatever evidence they have is fraudulent. Everyone of the named individuals wholly participated in crimes against humanity, and violation of human rights. There is no justification for using chemical weapons EVER!

severe skin disorder caused by illegal application of toxic chemicals to my property by Mark Conlee

3-9-2010-skin-condition-progressing

null

According to AUSA my evidence is assumptive.

image

Note the P.S. in this letter, not negotiable because if I did not take the amount offered he had already taken control of my property. What the hell would I do with $17,000?  These documents could be no better proof that Conlee wanted my property. Understand that he sued me for loss of enjoyment of his property, then he offered me these two out of court settlements before the trial started. My property was not for sale. It was never to be taken by violating my rights to use it as I wished. These are Federal criminal offenses.

null

AUSA stated my evidence was assumptive, yet he is aware that SA Thomas Reinwart made his decision not to investigate my allegations based on what XXXXXXXXXX told a third party and what I had the chance to verbally tell Reinwart, given 2 1/2 hours to tell him. The hard copy evidence was right there on the table for him to review, he refused to review the evidence. I know AUSA VanderSchel reads my posts. Or he did because he was using my site to determine my case by what I had posted. I do not think it would be in my best interest to post all the evidence that has recently been given to me. Tell me now, VanderSchel, who is using assumptive evidence? Hell yes I am pissed off at the incompetence that has been shown in this case since 2005. I have committed no crime, everyone involved in this has committed criminal offenses. Is that, MY only option to have justice served.  Law enforcement has a duty to keep me from harm.  I am going to bitch till the cows come home. If this does not embarrass the government I want you to know that I am embarrassed for you.

Any reasonable person would at least offer me enough to get a comparable property. One that I could operate my business from. I have about $30,000 in receipts of the money I invested in this property. Conlee paid Mayor Dinwiddie $27,000 for the worthless lot he bought from him. It was legally undevelopable. He set a farm on an 70′ wide lot. These structures were illegal when he built them and they are still illegal. I have the original building permits.  

null

 Here is the original fraudulent permit issued for Conlee’s new home.

celeste-cirinna-city-of-montrose-exec-manager-pg-5

 

Here is the fraudulent, fraudulent permit that was altered to show a fee had been paid after Conlee was elected to city council. City clerk, building administrator and Conlee conspired to commit a double fraud? That should pay treble damages in my opinion. This act of fraud was completely unnecessary, the permit is still not signed by the builder. That signature alleviates the city’s liability just like the Mayor said right before I presented it to the city council. These people should be in prison for acts of ignorance unbecoming of a government official.

These are the US law in which they should be prosecuted.

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 – Conspiracy Against Rights This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same). It further makes it unlawful for two or more persons to go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another with the intent to prevent or hinder his/her free exercise or enjoyment of any rights so secured. Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to ten years, or both; and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years, or for life, or may be sentenced to death.

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 – Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law 

This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S. This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race. Acts under “color of any law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under “color of any law,” the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs. Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Title 42, U.S.C., Section 3631 – Criminal Interference with Right to Fair Housing

This statute makes it unlawful for any individual(s), by the use of force or threatened use of force, to injure, intimidate, or interfere with (or attempt to injure, intimidate, or interfere with), any person’s housing rights because of that person’s race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin. Among those housing rights enumerated in the statute are:

  • The sale, purchase, or renting of a dwelling;
  • the occupation of a dwelling;
  • the financing of a dwelling;

contracting or negotiating for any of the rights enumerated above; applying for or participating in any service, organization, or facility relating to the sale or rental of dwellings. This statute also makes it unlawful by the use of force or threatened use of force, to injure, intimidate, or interfere with any person who is assisting an individual or class of persons in the exercise of their housing rights. Punishment varies from a fine of up to $1,000 or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results, shall be fined up to $10,000 or imprisoned up to ten years, or both, and if death results, shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life.

 ARTICLE XIV.

“Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The reasonable enjoyment of one’s real estate is certainly a vested right, which cannot be interfered with or limited arbitrarily. The constitutional guaranty of protection for all private property extends equally to the enjoyment and the possession of lands. An arbitrary interference by the government, or by its authority, with the reasonable enjoyment of private lands is a taking of private [728] property without due process of law, which is inhibited by the constitutions. But it is not every use which comes within this constitutional protection. One has a vested right to only a reasonable use of one’s lands. It is not difficult to find the rule which determines the limitations upon the lawful ways or manner of using lands. It is the rule, which furnishes the solution of every problem in the law of police power, and which is comprehended in the legal maxim, sic utere tuo, ut alienum non lædas. One can lawfully make use of his property only in such a manner as that he will not injure another. Any use of one’s lands to the hurt or annoyance of another is a nuisance, and may be prohibited. At common law that is a nuisance, which causes personal discomfort or injury to health to an unusual degree. As it has been expressed in a preceding section,1 the right of personal security against acts, which will cause injury to health or great bodily discomfort, cannot be made absolute in organized society. It must yield to the reasonable demands of trade, commerce and other great interests of society. While the State cannot arbitrarily violate the right of personal security to health by the unlimited authorization of acts which do harm to health, or render one’s residence less comfortable, there is involved in this matter the consideration of what constitutes a reasonable use of one’s property. At common law this is strictly a judicial question of fact, the answer to which varies according to the circumstances of each case. One is expected to endure a reasonable amount of discomfort and annoyance for the public good, which is furthered by the permission of trades and manufactures, the prosecution of which necessarily involves a certain amount of annoyance or injury to the inhabitants of the neighborhood. In all such cases, it is a question of equity, on whom is it reasonable to impose the burden of the inevitable loss, resulting from this clashing [729] of interests; and independently of statute it is strictly a judicial question, and all the circumstances of the case must be taken into consideration.

Non-Jurisdictional

What does non-jurisdictional mean in regards to a civil rights complaint?

I really have to repost this letter, how many criminals admit to intentionally causing someone harm.

Really you people who have not read this letter I received from the AUSA read it. The prosecutor’s job is to take the hard copy evidence (not hearsay) and use it to convict the criminals. Using hearsay is not evidence!!! There has never been an authority that has taken the time to review my evidence. He may be assuming my evidence is assumptive, because the SA refused to review my hard copy evidence. This guy needs to resign if he does not know that private property rights are Federally protected. Here are the Federal crimes that my evidence supports beyond a reasonable doubt. These Federal imposters are protecting some of the most hardened organization of crime I have heard of. They nearly killed me. This guy really thinks I should have evidence posted that will implicate the highest ranking law enforcement of the county. Yeah that would be real smart on my part.

10-3-2018 Kevin VanderSchel pg 2

This is a guy who has the duty to prosecute public corruption, he shows himself to be a participant. Regardless of any issues he intends to participate in the violation of my rights.

Proof that this violation of Federal law cannot be disputed, the evidence proves this did happen. There is no assumption of any kind. The neighbor admitted to it in a civil court trial. I asked this AUSA if he had the authority to violate a civil court order, he said he did. I do not believe that for a minute. If that were the case why would people bother with having a civil court trial? Liars and thieves are the only thing I recognize from these government officials. I want to see hard copy evidence that he has the right to violate a civil court order. I will not take hearsay to be a fact. I am not suppose to contact his office anymore, He can kiss my butt. He works for me and he will pay the price for lying and conspiring to violate my Federal rights. He won’t take me up on my challenge to fist fight. He must be a puss.

18 U.S.C. § 229 – U.S. Code – Unannotated Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 229. Prohibited activities

Unlawful conduct. (a) –Except as provided in subsection (b), it shall be unlawful for any person knowingly–

(1) to develop, produce, otherwise acquire, transfer directly or indirectly, receive, stockpile, retain, own, possess, or use, or threaten to use, any chemical weapon;  or (2) to assist or induce, in any way, any person to violate paragraph (1), or to attempt or conspire to violate paragraph (1). 

Exempted agencies and persons. (b) 

In general. (1) –Subsection (a) does not apply to the retention, ownership, possession, transfer, or receipt of a chemical weapon by a department, agency, or other entity of the United States, or by a person described in paragraph (2), pending destruction of the weapon.

Exempted persons. (2) –A person referred to in paragraph (1) is–

(A) any person, including a member of the Armed Forces of the United States, who is authorized by law or by an appropriate officer of the United States to retain, own, possess, transfer, or receive the chemical weapon;  or 

(B) in an emergency situation, any otherwise nonculpable person if the person is attempting to destroy or seize the weapon. 

Jurisdiction. (c) –Conduct prohibited by subsection (a) is within the jurisdiction of the United States if the prohibited conduct–

(1) takes place in the United States; 

(2) takes place outside of the United States and is committed by a national of the United States; 

(3) is committed against a national of the United States while the national is outside the United States;  or 

(4) is committed against any property that is owned, leased, or used by the United States or by any department or agency of the United States, whether the property is within or outside the United States. 

Chemical Weapons

This crime is punishable by any term of years in prison. If the crime results in death, the punishment is death or life imprisonment. Property owned or used by the person is subject to forfeiture. Any property derived from and proceeds obtained from the offense and property used to commit or facilitate the offense is also subject to forfeiture. The statute also imposes an additional fine of up to twice the gross profit or proceeds from the offense (18 U.S.C. 229, et seq.).

A chemical weapon is:

1. a toxic chemical and its precursors (chemical reactants that take part in producing a toxic chemical) unless intended for a purpose that is not prohibited and the type and quantity is consistent with that purpose,

2. a munition or device designed to cause death or harm through toxic chemicals that would be released by the device, or

3. equipment designed for use directly in connection with using such a munition or device.

A toxic chemical is a chemical that can cause death, temporary incapacitation, or permanent harm to people or animals.

The law specifies that it does not apply to self-defense devices such as pepper spray or chemical mace. It also does not prevent uses related to (1) industrial, agricultural, research, medical, or pharmaceutical activity; (2) protection against chemical weapons; (3) unrelated military purposes; and (4) law enforcement purposes such as riot control and imposing the death penalty.

18 U.S.C. § 229 – U.S. Code: the violation of Federal law that should ensure justice is finally served

Letter sent to the City of Montrose by the State of Iowa agency in charge of Environmental violations. The City followed no laws that are in place to protect all living things from toxic chemicals. This letter was sent to the Street Dept Director at the time. There had never been any chemicals applied anywhere in town except the cemetery by city employees. These chemicals were applied precisely on the city’s easement on my property. Not an inch past my boundary or an inch short of my boundary.  Only after Mark Conlee was elected to city council were chemicals applied to the easement.

warning to City of Montrose unlawful application of toxic chemicals


warning to City poison

warning to City poison


Conlee had applied chemicals to my side of our 300′ common boundary the year prior to this. He continued to apply chemicals to my side of the boundary this year and for three years after that. Five years straight I was intentionally exposed to chemicals. I complained to the city. I complained to County attorney Mike Short. Short advised me that Mark  Conlee “said”, “he only applied it to the bottom of his side of the fence. Both the city and county attorney had the same reason not to file a criminal complaint against Conlee. They didn’t believe neighbors filing complaints against neighbors was a good thing to do. I was criminally charged by the City and the State on complaints based on “Mark Conlee said” all charges against me were dismissed.  Doesn’t the county attorney know that hearsay is not evidence? Mark Conlee “said” many false statements throughout this attack against my person and my property.

Intentional glyphosate poisoning

chemicals applied to my side of the 300′ common boundary

18 U.S.C. § 229 – U.S. Code – Unannotated Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 229. Prohibited activities 

Unlawful conduct. (a) –Except as provided in subsection (b), it shall be unlawful for any person knowingly–

(1) to develop, produce, otherwise acquire, transfer directly or indirectly, receive, stockpile, retain, own, possess, or use, or threaten to use, any chemical weapon;  or (2) to assist or induce, in any way, any person to violate paragraph (1), or to attempt or conspire to violate paragraph (1).

Exempted agencies and persons. (b) —

In general. (1) –Subsection (a) does not apply to the retention, ownership, possession, transfer, or receipt of a chemical weapon by a department, agency, or other entity of the United States, or by a person described in paragraph (2), pending destruction of the weapon.

Exempted persons. (2) –A person referred to in paragraph (1) is–

(A) any person, including a member of the Armed Forces of the United States, who is authorized by law or by an appropriate officer of the United States to retain, own, possess, transfer, or receive the chemical weapon;  or

(B) in an emergency situation, any otherwise non-culpable person if the person is attempting to destroy or seize the weapon.

Jurisdiction. (c) –Conduct prohibited by subsection (a) is within the jurisdiction of the United States if the prohibited conduct–

(1) takes place in the United States;

(2) takes place outside of the United States and is committed by a national of the United States;

(3) is committed against a national of the United States while the national is outside the United States;  or

(4) is committed against any property that is owned, leased, or used by the United States or by any department or agency of the United States, whether the property is within or outside the United States.

Chemical Weapons

This crime is punishable by any term of years in prison. If the crime results in death, the punishment is death or life imprisonment. Property owned or used by the person is subject to forfeiture. Any property derived from and proceeds obtained from the offense and property used to commit or facilitate the offense is also subject to forfeiture. The statute also imposes an additional fine of up to twice the gross profit or proceeds from the offense (18 U.S.C. 229, et seq.).

A chemical weapon is:

  1. a toxic chemical and its precursors (chemical reactants that take part in producing a toxic chemical) unless intended for a purpose that is not prohibited and the type and quantity is consistent with that purpose,
  2. a munition or device designed to cause death or harm through toxic chemicals that would be released by the device, or
  3. equipment designed for use directly in connection with using such a munition or device.

A toxic chemical is a chemical that can cause death, temporary incapacitation, or permanent harm to people or animals.

The law specifies that it does not apply to self-defense devices such as pepper spray or chemical mace. It also does not prevent uses related to (1) industrial, agricultural, research, medical, or pharmaceutical activity; (2) protection against chemical weapons; (3) unrelated military purposes; and (4) law enforcement purposes such as riot control and imposing the death penalty.

Iowa Code Sec. 237. Section 729.5, Code 2013, is amended to read as follows: 729.5 Violation of individual rights — penalty. 1. A person, who acts alone, or who conspires with another person or persons, to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate or interfere with any citizen in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to that person by the constitution or laws of the state of Iowa or by the constitution or laws of the United States, and assembles with one or more persons for the purpose of teaching or being instructed in any technique or means capable of causing property damage, bodily injury or death when the person or persons intend to employ those Fri Nov 08 16:03:04 2013 59/65 CH. 90 60 techniques or means in furtherance of the conspiracy, is on conviction, guilty of a class “D” felony. 2. A person intimidates or interferes with another person if the act of the person results in any of the following: a. Physical injury to the other person. b. Physical damage to or destruction of the other person’s property. c. Communication in a manner, or action in a manner, intended to result in either of the following: (1) To place the other person in fear of physical contact which will be injurious, insulting, or offensive, coupled with the apparent ability to execute the act. (2) To place the other person in fear of harm to the other person’s property, or harm to the person or property of a third person. 2. 3. This section does not make unlawful the teaching of any technique in self-defense. 3. 4. This section does not make unlawful any activity of any of the following officials or persons: a. Law enforcement officials of this or any other jurisdiction while engaged in the lawful performance of their official duties. b. Federal officials required to carry firearms while engaged in the lawful performance of their official duties. c. Members of the armed forces of the United States or the national guard while engaged in the lawful performance of their official duties. d. Any conservation commission, law enforcement agency, or any agency licensed to provide security services, or any hunting club, gun club, shooting range, or other organization or entity whose primary purpose is to teach the safe handling or use of firearms, archery equipment, or other weapons or techniques employed in connection with lawful sporting or other lawful activity

What statute was violated?

In my case eminent domain was not used to take my private property. The way this happened was my neighbor took control of my property from me. He unlawfully applied glyphosate to my property. The evidence suggests that this was his intent. I verbally told him no to do anything to my property the day that I saw the chemicals had been applied, he could have care less about what I told him. I requested an incident report that I had told him not to do anything to my property. By intent the Police chief waited 16 months before he gave me that first report. It was completely inadequate as to the facts of the incident. I gave that one back and told him to give me one that explains what when and why I requested one, he gave me a report that was substandard according to the accurate information. If did not make a difference if I ever got one because my attorney did not submit any evidence that would allow the judge to recognize the degree of inhuman treatment. So if control of my property was taken the only statue I can come up with is conspiracy against rights, deprivation of rights under color of law, and assault with intent causing serious injury. I believe the statute of limitations does not apply in cases of torture and serious injury to a person. It isn’t going to in this case. There is no precedence to make it simpler for a pro se case.

 

The Power of a Federal Prosecutor

Looking for expert answers to this question. If a State district judge makes a ruling in a civil case. Does a Federal Attorney have the right to violate or ignore that district courts ruling without having to appeal or have some type of court hearing to overturn the previous ruling of the District court?

It does not seem reasonable to me that if a District court order has no relevance from the day the case is decided, what is the purpose of even have a District court trial? Just for the attorneys to make money? I am not buying that. I know the attorneys are there to make money but I do believe that a court order is intended to be complied to until an different determines it is not. I do not believe that AUSA Kevin VanderSchel in his position as Assistant Prosecuting Attorney for the Southern District of Iowa has any power to simply ignore a court order as he advised me he did. I think he is knowingly making false statements. Someone show me a document that gives that power to an attorney. I do not have any reason to believe one word that comes from the mouth of any government official. Hearsay is not evidence, even the common citizen knows that.

You can Sue for Civil rights violations!

Federal or State violations of civil rights or constitutional rights

What would you do?

Let me ask you, what would you do if someone was intentionally doing something on your private property that was causing you or your family to suffer severely. Even after you asked this person to stop, they continued to use your private property in a way that caused harm to you or your family?

About AUSA Kevin VanderSchel First Assistant Attorney for the Southern District of Iowa.

This guy takes the cake. Like if its not on this website it there must not be evidence, pretty assumptive of the AUSA for the Southern District of Iowa. Chemical warfare has nearly cost me my life and he thinks its a good idea to put all my evidence out here for the public to view, even the deranged people who used chemical warfare to eliminate me from my property. What is it that he is calling assumptive? All the evidence I have posted is hard copy original documents. If he cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that chemical weapons were used to eliminate me from my private property when even a civil court order or no law enforcement would stop him from applying chemicals to MY property, he should really find a new job. This case is cut and dry. Any reasonable person who would read the evidence I have posted has no doubt this was an intentional act. This evidence is based on facts, SA Reinwart wanted to used hearsay evidence, when the hard copy evidence is right in front of him. He wasted tax payer money to travel clear to the tip of Iowa to refuse to review hard copy evidence and ask for hearsay. When a person knows he is causing another person physical harm and doesn’t stop what he is doing to cause it, its pretty obvious why he is doing it. There is nothing that I have posted that does not have hard copy evidence to support. Reinwart did not follow procedure for investigation and you have not followed procedure for prosecuting criminals. VanderSchel you are assuming that reasonable people do not know it is illegal to do anything to another person property, not to mention unheard of act of chemical warfare as stated by the EPA field investigator. That is a F(&99+ fact. And I have to mention that you advised me that you would not be the person prosecuting this case anyway so why do you think you have any input about this case at all? You are assuming you have some kind of authority over a case that you are not the prosecutor of. That show a defect in your personality any reasonable person can determine that to be a fact also. An attorney of minimum experience could win this case. The evidence is solid as a rock. Not the hearsay, the hard copy evidence. Hearsay does not stand up in court, don’t you know that?

10-3-2018 pg 2 Kevin VanderSchel

10-3-2018 pg 2 Kevin VanderSchel

About Kevin VanderSchel AUSA for the Southern District of Iowa.

Here is an example of how well FBI SA and the AUSA reviewed my evidence. In this letter the AUSA claims that most of the activity occurred 2003-2005. It is well documented that 2003-2005 is when the City allowed for the non compliant to State building code structures built on Mark Conlee’s nonconforming lot to be built. If they would have actually reviewed my evidence, instead of asking that I tell them this complex story they would have discovered the chemical warfare started in 2005-2010, during that time I was unable to get any protection of the law, there was a civil trial that the court ruled in my favor, however Conlee would not comply with that court order and the chemical attack continued on a weekly basis. There is nothing in this letter that is based on the facts the evidence supports. VanderSchel has advised that he has reviewed my website. He could not have mistaken the timeline if he actually had reviewed it. VanderSchel the chemical poisoning began in 2005. Are you being intentionally negligent? I also advised you that when I was forced to flee from my property because I could get no law enforcement to stop this man from applying the toxic chemicals to my property, the full body skin condition was so severe it was unbearable to wear clothes, I was blind, and I was homeless for the following 4 years. So that takes us up to 2014 before I was able to make contact with anyone who has the duty to protect my Constitutional Rights. SA Reinwart does not know that private property rights are Federally protected rights. He does not seem to know about any Federal laws except hate crimes. He did not review my evidence, He did not interview any of my witnesses, he did not interview my Drs., he did not interview the perps or he could have easily charged them with lying to the Feds. You tell me Mr. VanderSchel just what did SA Reinwart do to investigate my allegation. You claim that the statute of limitations had expired between 2013 and 2016, am I responsible to make Reinwart investigate in a timely fashion? I couldn’t even get him to review the hard copy evidence which was the purpose for him to come to my home 16 months after I contacted him. I had previously contacted a female agent from the Hiawatha division and was waiting some time for her to respond as she advised she would, finally I telephoned the number I had previously contacted her with, Reinwart answered and advise that she had been transferred. Is it my responsibility to call and check if an agent has been transferred? I have not read that as a standard procedure for complainants. Not to mention my emails to the Omaha division, and telephone calls to the Washington DC headquarters. I have gone above and beyond reasonable efforts to contact an FBI agent. Senator Grassley advised me in 2009 that an agent would be contacting me. I waited 10 years then I got impatient. Its not as if I have physically recovered from the chemicals illegally applied to my property without any protection of the law and my private property rights for those significant 5 long years.

Letter from Kevin VanderSchel claiming statute of limitations has expired.

Question for legal scholars or others not scholars

I was speaking with the AUSA. He seemed quite sarcastic in all his statements. One statement in particular I really question. I asked him if you had the authority not to honor the ruling made in the civil court trial. He advised that he could completely ignore that order. I think in order for anyone to violate a court order they would have to appeal that decision. Who can answer that question? If that were the case why even bother with a civil court trial? I think the AUSA is full of himself and lying more often that he has told me the truth. Then he advised me that he would not be the prosecutor if I could ever get a prosecutor to file a complaint on my behalf. My question to that is why is he even involving himself in this case when he has no authority to prosecute? He wouldn’t give me the contact info for the correct prosecutor, not that the correct prosecutor has not been completely convinced of the lies that this sarcastic prosecutor has been willing to accept as fact. Who do these people think they are that they can violate my Federally protected rights any more that the locals already have. Terrorist acts using chemical weapons is a serious criminal offense. I think they have to prosecute crimes that are this serious. Crimes that chemical weapons have been used for force me from my property? According to the incompetent FBI agent is not a violation of Federal law. Where did he get his education?