Civil Complaint

18 U.S. Code CHAPTER 11B—CHEMICAL WEAPONS. FBI SA THOMAS REINWART DETERMINED NO VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW HAS OCCURRED

The fact that FBI Agent Reinwart, refused to review my evidence that supports without a doubt my allegations leaves his decision irrelevant. It does not take a graduate of the academy to know that an investigation requires reviewing evidence from both sides of a case. In an email he sent me he admits that he made his decision based on what I verbally told him and what the County Sheriff told a third party. I even submitted evidence that the Sheriff had a conflict of interest with the opposing party. He made his decision based on false statements given by the sheriff. I asked Reinwart to share with me the information the Sheriff had made in his statements. Reinwart refused. Reinwart was supposed to be investigation this case on my behalf. He could not share the false information given by the Sheriff because I have hard copy evidence that would prove the Sheriff was lying. The sheriff knows no facts about this case. Any information he has is based on lies made by the Conlee’s. I can prove multiple counts of perjury made by Conlee in the civil case. AUSA Kevin VanderSchel was lying when he advised me that he had the authority to violate a civil court order. When we have Federal authorities who have no regard to the oath they took to uphold the Constitution its time for the citizens to unite and remove them from their positions. Dirty Rotten Bastards. I have a purpose to speak to the Inspector General. To expose one corrupt government official is small potatoes. I have an entire group of self serving government impostors that need removed from their positions. Hearsay is not evidence. Dirty Rotten Bastards. Private property is never to be taken without just compensation. Reinwart did not possess the knowledge of  any Federal law, who is responsible for putting this incompetent individual in his position? He has shown me that he is not qualified to investigate any case regarding Federal law!

18 U.S. Code § 229.Prohibited activities

(a)Unlawful Conduct.—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).

(b)Exempted Agencies and .—

(1)In general.—

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.

(2)Exempted persons.—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.

(c)Jurisdiction.—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.

18 U.S. Code § 229A. Penalties

(a)Criminal Penalties.—

(1)In general.—

Any person who violates section 229 of this title shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years, or both.

(2)Death penalty.—

Any person who violates section 229 of this title and by whose action the death of another person is the result shall be punished by death or imprisoned for life.

(b)Civil Penalties.—

(1)In general.—

The Attorney General may bring a civil action in the appropriate United States district court against any person who violates section 229 of this title and, upon proof of such violation by a preponderance of the evidence, such person shall be subject to pay a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed $100,000 for each such violation.

(2)Relation to other proceedings.—

The imposition of a civil penalty under this subsection does not preclude any other criminal or civil statutory, common law, or administrative remedy, which is available by law to the United States or any other person.

(c)Reimbursement of Costs.—

The court shall order any person convicted of an offense under subsection (a) to reimburse the United States for any expenses incurred by the United States incident to the seizure, storage, handling, transportation, and destruction or other disposition of any property that was seized in connection with an investigation of the commission of the offense by that person. A person ordered to reimburse the United States for expenses under this subsection shall be jointly and severally liable for such expenses with each other person, if any, who is ordered under this subsection to reimburse the United States for the same expenses.

18 U.S. Code § 229B. Criminal forfeitures; destruction of weapons

(a)Property Subject to Criminal Forfeiture.—Any person convicted under section 229A (a) shall forfeit to the United States irrespective of any provision of State law—

(1)any property, real or personal, owned, possessed, or used by a person involved in the offense;

(2)any property constituting, or derived from, and proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, as the result of such violation; and

(3)any of the property used in any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission of, such violation.

The court, in imposing sentence on such person, shall order, in addition to any other sentence imposed pursuant to section 229A (a), that the person forfeit to the United States all property described in this subsection. In lieu of a fine otherwise authorized by section 229A (a), a defendant who derived profits or other proceeds from an offense may be fined not more than twice the gross profits or other proceeds.

(b)Procedures.—

(1)General.—Property subject to forfeiture under this section, any seizure and disposition thereof, and any administrative or judicial proceeding in relation thereto, shall be governed by subsections (b) through (p) of section 413 of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 853), except that any reference under those subsections to—

(A)this subchapter or subchapter II” shall be deemed to be a reference to section 229A (a); and

(B)subsection (a)” shall be deemed to be a reference to subsection (a) of this section.

(2)Temporary restraining orders.—

(A)In general.—

For the purposes of forfeiture proceedings under this section, a temporary restraining order may be entered upon application of the United States without notice or opportunity for a hearing when an information or indictment has not yet been filed with respect to the property, if, in addition to the circumstances described in section 413(e)(2) of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 853(e)(2)), the United States demonstrates that there is probable cause to believe that the property with respect to which the order is sought would, in the event of conviction, be subject to forfeiture under this section and exigent circumstances exist that place the life or health of any person in danger.

(B)Warrant of seizure.—

If the court enters a temporary restraining order under this paragraph, it shall also issue a warrant authorizing the seizure of such property.

(C)Applicable procedures.—

The procedures and time limits applicable to temporary restraining orders under section 413(e)(2) and (3) of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 853(e)(2) and (3)) shall apply to temporary restraining orders under this paragraph.

(c)Affirmative Defense.—It is an affirmative defense against a forfeiture under subsection (b) that the property—

(1)is for a purpose not prohibited under the Chemical Weapons Convention; and

(2)is of a type and quantity that under the circumstances is consistent with that purpose.

(d)Destruction or Other Disposition.—

The Attorney General shall provide for the destruction or other appropriate disposition of any chemical weapon seized and forfeited pursuant to this section.

(e)Assistance.—

The Attorney General may request the head of any agency of the United States to assist in the handling, storage, transportation, or destruction of property seized under this section.

(f)Owner Liability.—

The owner or possessor of any property seized under this section shall be liable to the United States for any expenses incurred incident to the seizure, including any expenses relating to the handling, storage, transportation, and destruction or other disposition of the seized property.

18 U.S. Code § 229C. Individual self-defense devices

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prohibit any individual self-defense device, including those using a pepper spray or chemical mace.

18 U.S. Code § 229D. Injunctions

The United States may obtain in a civil action an injunction against—

(1)the conduct prohibited under section 229 or 229C of this title; or

(2)the preparation or solicitation to engage in conduct prohibited under section 229 or 229D[1] of this title.

18 U.S. Code § 229E. Requests for military assistance to enforce prohibition in certain emergencies

The Attorney General may request the Secretary of Defense to provide assistance under section 382 of title 10[1]in support of Department of Justice activities relating to the enforcement of section 229 of this title in an emergency situation involving a chemical weapon. The authority to make such a request may be exercised by another official of the Department of Justice in accordance with section 382(f)(2) of title 10.[1] 

18 U.S. Code § 229F. Definitions

In this chapter:

(1)Chemical weapon.—The term “chemical weapon” means the following, together or separately:

(A)A toxic chemical and its precursors, except where intended for a purpose not prohibited under this chapter as long as the type and quantity is consistent with such a purpose.

(B)A munition or device, specifically designed to cause death or other harm through toxic properties of those toxic chemicals specified in subparagraph (A), which would be released as a result of the employment of such munition or device.

(C)Any equipment specifically designed for use directly in connection with the employment of munitions or devices specified in subparagraph (B).

(2)Chemical weapons ; convention.—

The terms “Chemical Weapons Convention” and “Convention” mean the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction, opened for signature on January 13, 1993.

(3)Key component of a binary or multicomponent chemical system.—

The term “key component of a binary or multicomponent chemical system” means the precursor which plays the most important role in determining the toxic properties of the final product and reacts rapidly with other chemicals in the binary or multicomponent system.

(4)National of the united states.—

The term “national of the United States” has the same meaning given such term in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22)).

(5)Person.—

The term “person”, except as otherwise provided, means any individual, corporation, partnership, firm, association, trust, estate, public or private institution, any State or any political subdivision thereof, or any political entity within a State, any foreign government or nation or any agency, instrumentality or political subdivision of any such government or nation, or other entity located in the United States.

(6)Precursor.—

(A)In general.—

The term “precursor” means any chemical reactant which takes part at any stage in the production by whatever method of a toxic chemical. The term includes any key component of a binary or multicomponent chemical system.

(B)List of precursors.—

Precursors which have been identified for the application of verification measures under Article VI of the Convention are listed in schedules contained in the Annex on Chemicals of the Chemical Weapons Convention.

(7)Purposes not prohibited by this chapter.—The term “purposes not prohibited by this chapter” means the following:

(A)Peaceful purposes.—

Any peaceful purpose related to an industrial, agricultural, research, medical, or pharmaceutical activity or other activity.

(B)Protective purposes.—

Any purpose directly related to protection against toxic chemicals and to protection against chemical weapons.

(C)Unrelated military purposes.—

Any military purpose of the United States that is not connected with the use of a chemical weapon or that is not dependent on the use of the toxic or poisonous properties of the chemical weapon to cause death or other harm.

(D)Law enforcement purposes.—

Any law enforcement purpose, including any domestic riot control purpose and including imposition of capital punishment.

(8)Toxic chemical.—

(A)In general.—

The term “toxic chemical” means any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals. The term includes all such chemicals, regardless of their origin or of their method of production, and regardless of whether they are produced in facilities, in munitions or elsewhere.

(B)List of toxic chemicals.—

Toxic chemicals which have been identified for the application of verification measures under Article VI of the Convention are listed in schedules contained in the Annex on Chemicals of the Chemical Weapons Convention.

(9)United states.—The term “United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States and includes all places under the jurisdiction or control of the United States, including—

(A)any of the places within the provisions of paragraph (41) [1] of section 40102 of title 49, United States Code;

(B)any civil aircraft of the United States or public aircraft, as such terms are defined in paragraphs (17) and (37),1 respectively, of section 40102 of title 49, United States Code; and

(C)any vessel of the United States, as such term is defined in section 70502(b) of title 46, United States Code.

 

More bullshit, I just want my evidence reviewed by a competent investigator. Not one who does not know that private property rights are Federally protected and that hearsay is not evidence. dirty rotten bastards.

 

Virus-free. www.avg.com

On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 2:34 PM OIG <OIG@gao.gov> wrote:

GAO’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) has received your correspondence to our hotline. GAO OIG independently conducts audits and other reviews of GAO’s programs and internal operations. GAO OIG also investigates allegations of potential fraud, waste, mismanagement, and violations of rules and laws related to GAO programs and operations.

GAO OIG has no jurisdiction over the matters that you have raised and regrets that our office cannot be of further assistance to you.

From: songboat [mailto:songboat@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2019 8:39 PM
To: Kaufmann, John (Grassley); Carton, Katie; DOJPlainWriting@usdoj.gov; POGO Report Corruption; Case Intake; cigie.information@cigie.govdhs-oig.officepublicaffairs@oig.dhs.govjwertz@publicintegrity.orgleonardsipes@gmail.com;michael.naig@iowaagriculture.gov; OIG; OIG_Hotline@epa.gov; Tunis, Catherine; USAIAS.CitizenReport@usdoj.gov; National Crime Victim Law Institute; ynot@injusticeline.com
Subject: legal abuse, reasonable person, snap.

Congressman Dave Loebsack this case falls under selected investigations.

The FBI’s activities are closely and regularly scrutinized by a variety of entities. Congress—through several oversight committees in the Senate and House—reviews the FBI’s budget appropriations, programs, and selected investigations. The results of FBI investigations are often reviewed by the judicial system during court proceedings. Within the U.S. Department of Justice, the FBI is responsible to the attorney general, and it reports its findings to U.S. Attorneys across the country. The FBI’s intelligence activities are overseen by the Director of National Intelligence.

My Comment Submitted on Regulations.gov (ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0361-2340). The use of chemicals applied to another person’s property is a fucking criminal offense! Who wants to prove otherwise? You who know and ignore are as guilty of this as those who participated!

I have been legally abused by all my government officials. This should have never gotten past one time of having chemicals applied to my property. I should have been allowed to have a criminal trespassing complaint filed against this neighbor when he first did this. I want my day in court and I want the Federal civil rights division to represent me.

My local government officials assisted one of their own in applying glyphosate to my side of our 300′ common boundary. This behavior continued for over five years. I verbally requested this neighbor to stop because I felt it was causing a rash on my shins. He refused to stop. I requested the City police chief to file a trespassing complaint against this neighbor. He refused advising that he did not want to make this neighbor mad. I requested the County Attorney to file a trespassing complaint against this neighbor he advised that he did not file neighbor against neighbor complaints. His double standard is indisputable because I was criminally charged multiple time by the State based on fabricated laws. I was criminally charged by the city multiple time by the city based on fabricated ordinances. While I was trying to defend my person and my property the “rash” had progressed into a full body severe skin condition. I hired an attorney to sue the City for my damages. The city is liable because they issued fraudulent building permits to this neighbor. The building administrator refused his duty to address my complaints in regard to the nuisance drainage causing adverse effects to my property and significant loss of value. The fact that the Mayor sold this legally nonconforming lot to this neighbor provides an existing conflict of interest. The building administrator refusing to address my concerns was replaced by the Lee County Detective and brother of this neighbor. He had no jurisdiction or authority to act as a building administrator. A field investigation was done by the proper authority. The investigator advised me when he saw my skin condition that he knew what was causing it. I did not inquire because I had already use the process of elimination and determine the glyphosate had to be the cause of my condition. My attorney failed to file the complaint against the city, he failed to inform me that he did not file the complaint. This neighbor filed a frivolous complaint against me alleging “loss of enjoyment to his property”, he had no concern that he had been applying chemicals to my property knowing it was causing me health problems. The judge in the civil case cited my right to use my property as I wished. That order was violated without hesitation. The County Attorney and the Detective had a special relationship for 17 years working hand in hand creating a conflict of interest. I contacted US Senator Charles Grassley, he advised me that he would request and inquiry of my case to the FBI. Grassley advised me that the FBI would contact me. I waited for five years. No FBI contacted me. By this time my condition had progress to the degree that I felt my life was in danger. I contacted Senator Grassley again and he requested a second inquiry into my case, he advised me again that the FBI would contact me. He advised me to be patient, it takes time. I felt that ten years of waiting for intervention, suffering severely everyday was not acceptable. I had no protection of the law, this neighbor had a motive to eliminate me from my property and a County Deputy that have ultimate respect for stop at my house advising me that this neighbor had no intention of stopping with the chemicals until he acquired my property.  I fled against my will and best interest. I have followed all the standard procedures to remedy this situation. The government has not, they have fully partnered with this neighbor/council member in violation my rights. I am requesting a legitimate review of the evidence I have collected throughout this taking of my private property by using chemicals as a weapon to cause my person and my property harm.

A legitimate investigation would have determined it was not the city that applied the chemicals to the city easement. It was in fact my neighbor/city council member who took it upon himself to act as a city street department employee. This report was done after three years of the chemical being applied to my 300′ common boundary with this “above the law” neighbor/ council member. The city is liable because they issued fraudulent building permits. But the personal financial gain of the Mayor from selling this otherwise worthless non conforming property was more important that protecting the rights of this resident.

9-18-2006 findings of fact pg 6

9-18-2006 findings of fact pg 6

 

Civil court ordering my right to use my property as I wished. AUSA Kevin VanderSchel recently advised me that he had the authority to disregard this order. I believe he is lying. Show me the evidence that he can violate my rights and a civil court order.

5-5-2005 council meeting Dinwiddie implicates himself, State Rep Phil Wise assisted Boatner

Mayor Dinwiddie states City liability ends when building permits are signed by builder and Building Adm. I then presented the building permit that is signed by Building Administrator Holland but not signed by owner/developer Mark Conlee

The mayor implicates himself in conspiracy against my rights

original Building permit on file that Robert Dodds wrote letter to Mayor about.jpg

Above statement did not apply as soon as he got the words out of his mouth I submitted this building permit, “unsigned by the builder”.

Poisoned by my neighbor from hell #8 (9).jpg

Chemicals applied to my side of the common boundary. County attorney reviewed this photo and advised me that ” Conlee said he only applied it to the base of his side of the fence” Conlee is obviously a liar. “Hearsay” was used over hard copy evidence in every violation against me in this case. When I have the hard copy evidence to prove my credibility. SA Thomas Reinwart used hearsay in his incompetent investigation. Sheriff Weber recently made false statements to the FBI. Why is that not investigated?

An investigation would discover that Craig Junkins did not apply the chemicals to the city easement on my private property it was applied by neighbor/ council member Conlee. He has no authority to act as a street dept employee.

warning to City of Montrose unlawful application of toxic chemicals

warning to City of Montrose unlawful application of toxic chemicals

warning to City poison

warning to City poison

None of these laws were followed.

8-16-2006-ros

 

EPA field investigation

poisoned-by-my-neighbor-from-hell-8-7

 

“rash on legs” at this point I realized this was not a normal “rash”

image

This was well into the progression of the severe skin disorder. The chemicals applied to my property never stopped.

image

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

more photos of my skin. Would you tolerate a trespasser using chemicals on your property. What would you do to resolve the situation?

null

 

These are some but not all of the Federal violations of law that have been committed against me. 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.

 

ARTICLE XIV.

“Section 1All 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

 

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.

Now based on what a reasonable person would do, how long do you think a reasonable person will tolerated being raped of their rights by their government? How long would it take a reasonable person to snap? How patient would a reasonable person tolerate being legally abused? This is total bullshit. I am sick of being the only person involved who has followed the letter of the law. 

My response.

Well then you tell me who can. Because this is terrorism. You tell me who to contact regarding an incompetent investigation by a FBI agent. You tell me who to contact regarding an AUSA who violates a civil court order and lies about his authority.
Tell me what it is that you do investigate. Give me a case in which you have acted on behalf of a citizen. If you can’t then I want to know what it is that we the people pay you to do, specifically. Because according to what I have read you investigate the Federal authorities who have the duty to investigate public corruption.
You tell me who prosecutes violations of the Federal Constitution.
You tell me who has the duty to protect my Federal Constitutional Rights to private property.
You tell me the name and give me a telephone number to the proper authority.
That you can do if you are receiving a pay check from the citizens taxes.
I don’t want to hear anymore about no authority I want a competent investigation into my evidence.
I am not going to be the only victim of this legal abuse.
You have not answered any of my questions. I want answers.
Who has the duty to protect the citizens Constitutional Rights.
Don’t blow smoke up my ass. Give me the answer.
Who is it that wrote this email? I want your name.
I want to know who I am being bullied by.
Did you read my complaint? Have you heard about glyphosate in the news lately.
My complaint was well before any of this new information has surfaced.
We both know that nobody has the right to do anything to another persons property.
We both know that private property rights are Federally protected.
I want to know who it is that protects my rights. I want a name.
Had I have invoked my second amendment right and solved this problem when it started where would I be today?
The Government would have stepped in if that would have happened you know that is a fact.
What is it that you don’t understand about my given rights?
Same old bullshit another day of suffering. I am going to go Rambo. Yeah I am a victim of domestic terrorism!

Exposing public corrupt personnel at all levels.

 This may be against my best interest but at this point what do I have to lose. I am publishing the email of the FBI SA who refused to review my hard copy evidence. Did not look into the financial record of the accused to see if perhaps a bribe has been paid. He accepted hearsay to be evidence. My case did not even get issued a case number. He did not recognize that private property rights are Federally protected rights. He continued to claim that no Federal law has been broken when anyone who has taken the time to review the evidence agrees with me that Federal laws have been violated on more than one occasion. tjreinwart@fbi.gov. He goes by the first name of Thomas.

The AUSA immediately advised me that he would not prosecute giving me three different reasons at three different times. The first three reasons I submitted evidence that he was incorrect as to what the evidence proved he was basing his decision on. Knowing he has been given false information or information based on hearsay by the above named FBI agent. The most recent decision not to prosecute was because he has the authority. I sent him guidelines suggested by the Attorney General but to no avail. The letter states that I am not supposed to contact this AUSA again. They will not put any more resources into my insignificant case. I explained that a civil court order early on in my favor was violated by the local government officials and he callously does not care. Kevin.VanderSchel@doj.gov. he of course goes by the name of Kevin.

There is no record of any citizen being forced to flee from their private property due to unlawful application of toxic chemicals being applied, ongoing for over 5 years. NONE. It seems to me that anyone who would continue an act that he knows is causing anyone else physical harm has some mental health issues. I know I would not do anything to anyone else’s property because it is illegal and immoral. It seems the Federal authorities feel that they can join in this figurative gang rape. I feel they need to be held accountable as well as the locals. There is nothing I have posted that is based on hearsay or based on fabricated information. There is much evidence that I have not posted. If these individuals are satisfied that they have upheld their duty and the oath they took to uphold the Constitution of the United States then they should be proud of their job performance in my unnumbered case. They never showed any real intent to defend my rights given by Federal law. They should be proud of their actions in this case that has multiple violations of Federal law. Anyone who reads my information and feels my Federally protected rights have been violated I urge you to email these individuals and let them know that private property rights are Federally protected rights and any other opinions you may have that Federal law has in fact been violated. Terrorism is not a violation of Federal law I have been told. Only supporters of terrorism are violating Federal law, so clearly the local officials who would not stop this neighbor from applying the chemicals to my property are supporters of terrorism. Yes herbicides and pesticides are considered chemical weapons. I have done all the research to know that violations of Federal law have occurred.

If something happens to me it is well documented as to who may be involved. Just saying. Glyphosate is harmful to human beings (me) when not applied as directed on the label. This is what is wrong with our Government today. Covering up and supporting corruption is not what the FBI has the duty to do. I want to know why I am exempt from the same rights that every other citizen takes for granted, as I was when I fled from my home, business and property. There is no justifiable reason any US citizen should have to suffer what I have suffered at the hands of these public servants. 

About US Senator Chuck Grassley

Notice the date I first contacted him. He failed to come through with his promises that he could have the Feds investigated.

Office of Professional Responsibility reply to my complaint.

I do not understand my government. My complaint is about Dept. Of Justice authorities. Specifically about Assistant US Attorney for the Southern District of Iowa Kevin VanderSchel.

  1. He lied to me when he told me that he has the authority to violate a civil court order with no type of court process.
  2. He advised me that no matter what the evidence proved he would use attorney discretion and not prosecute corrupt State and local officials.
    1. The corrupt State and local officials have no authority to violate my State and Federal Constitutional rights anymore that VanderSchel has.
  3. VanderSchel was getting his evidence from my WordPress site as if what was written there is factual and in real time.
    1. I can state that it is factual but certainly not all the relevant evidence is included on that website.

How can they not give me information to contact the signatory of this letter and advise me not to contact this office anymore. This office is paid for by taxpayers. Its not their office to dominate. They work for the people.

 

                                                       U.S. Department of Justice 

                                               Office of Professional Responsibility 

                              950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Room 3266 Washington, DC 20530 

Sent via e-mail

Melody K. Boatner

songboat@gmail.com 

Dear Ms. Boatner: 

This is in response to your correspondence to the Office of the Inspector General, which was forwarded to the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) for review and response. In your correspondence, you complained about an Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of Iowa and a Federal Bureau of Investigation agent. 

OPR has jurisdiction to investigate allegations of misconduct involving Department of Justice (DOJ) attorneys that relate to the exercise of their authority to investigate, litigate or provide legal advice, as well as allegations of misconduct by law enforcement personnel when they are related to allegations of attorney misconduct within the jurisdiction of OPR. It is, however, the policy of this Office to refrain from investigating issues or allegations that could have been or still may be addressed in the course of litigation, unless a court has made a specific finding of misconduct by a DOJ attorney or law enforcement agent. Based on our review of your correspondence, we have determined that your allegations fall into this category. Accordingly, we concluded that no action by this Office is warranted. You may wish to consult private counsel or contact the nearest Legal Aid Society to determine what additional legal avenues, if any, may be available to you. 

We regret that we are unable to be of further assistance to you in this matter. 

Sincerely, 

Jacqueline Robertson

Program Analyst 

May 6, 2020 

The 28th Amendment

I do not remember where I got this from and I haven’t fact checked it.

Please read 28th amendment Please Read, and forward. This will only take 1 minute to read! 28th Amendment, 35 States and Counting. It will take you less than a minute to read this. If you agree, please pass it on. It’s an idea whose time has come to deal with this self-serving situation: OUR PRESENT SITUATION ! Children of Congress members do not have to pay back their college student loans. Staffers of Congress family members are also exempt from having to pay back student loans. Members of Congress can retire at full pay after only one term. Members of Congress have exempted themselves from many of the laws they have passed, under which ordinary citizens must live. For example, they are exempt from any fear of prosecution for sexual harassment. And as the latest example, they have exempted themselves from Healthcare Reform, in all of its aspects. We must not tolerate an elite class of such people, elected as public servants and then putting themselves above the law. I truly don’t care if they are Democrat, Republican, Independent, or whatever. The self-serving must stop. Governors of 35 states have filed suit against the Federal Government for imposing unlawful burdens upon their states.It only takes 38 (of the 50) States to convene a Constitutional Convention. IF??? Each person that receives this will forward it on to 20 people, in three days most people in The United States of America will have the message. Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution: “Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the Citizens of the United States …” You are one of my 20. 6:26 PM President Trump is asking everyone to forward this email to a minimum of 20 people, and to ask each of those to do likewise. In three days, most people in the United States will have the message. This is an idea that should be passed around, regardless of political party. The TRUMP Rules: Congressional Reform Act of 2017 1. No Tenure / No Pension. A Congressman/woman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they’re out of office. And, no more perks go with them. 2. Congress (past, present, & future) participates in Social Security. All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people. It may not be used for any other purpose. 3. Congress must purchase their own retirement plan, just as ALL Americans do. 4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%. 5. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people. 6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people (i.e. NO MORE INSIDER TRADING!!!). 7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen/women are void. The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen/women. Congress made all these contracts by and for themselves. Serving in Congress is an honor and privilege NOT a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators should serve their term(s), then go home and go back to work … not get all kinds of freebies.

City of Montrose, Iowa Cops respond to Conlee complaint that I have picture of him posted on a tree on my private property.

Its not illegal to have a sheet of paper hanging on my tree. I could not enjoy my property for over 5 years. I paid taxes on it. He was a stalker. He was consumed by trying to get me convicted of a crime. He is the one who terrorized me.

I found this photo online and hung it on a tree in my yard. The next thing I know the Police Chief Brent Shipman is knocking on my door. He explained that Mark Conlee had called in a complaint that I had a picture of him hanging on a tree. Lol  Great use of City resources.

A shrub "mooning" the neighbor. | Funny pictures, Annoying ...

 

Random Facts about the attack

You may have been manipulated into believing that I was involved with illegal drug activity by the opposing party of government officials. I witnessed Lee County Sheriff’s officer Bob Conlee make a false statement associating me with a known pot grower. The evidence supports that an incident of mistaken identity may have caused an embarrassing moment for officer Conlee involving me in the past. He took that information out of context. He makeup his own compilation of events stating his version to the public on the police radio.  It was a fluke that I witnessed him make the false statement about me that evening. The timing of this false statement made about me by Officer Conlee was at the same time the attack against my person and my property began.

I want to make a PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT at this time. Any of you who are not aware that all Law enforcement officers lie, are in a delusional state of denial. It’s that simple. The days that an officer finds honor in honesty have been long gone.  It is a job requirement to lie in order to protect the thin blue line. 

You may have  been manipulated into believing that I am “crazy” by the opposing party of government officials. I have hard copy evidence that supports my sound mind. I did have an extended period of my life that I was tortured physically and mentally by my government using chemicals as a weapon in a brutal assault against me. During this time the Ft. Madison ER was giving me massive amounts of  IV steroid injections. The purpose was to offer me some relief from the excruciating pain of my skin being raw from the chemical exposure. The evidence proves that I was evaluated and it was determined my hallucinations were caused by IV steroid overdose. I was in the ICU for three days. I can testify that it was a trip.

 You may have been manipulated into believing that  I am a “lazy” person who never takes care of my financial responsibilities or maintaining my home and property by the opposing party of government officials. That is simply not true. I downloaded a copy of my credit score when it was obvious I was not going to be able to make payments on unexpected back to back ER visits.My credit score was 760. These ER visits were an attempt to get some relief from the severe skin condition caused by the intentional application of chemicals to my private property. The chemical exposure rendered with no ability to function. I survived by the generosity of friends. The IV steroid injections caused me significantly more physical disabilities, they cause me to be blind. When I fled from my private property it was the only option I had to attempt to save my life. Being blind and homeless for the following 4 years should not have happened. This terrorist physically assaulted me for over 5 years. My conditions exacerbated within 3 weeks. It was unbearable to simply wear clothes. The local were aware of this and still chose to allow me to be tortured by the actions of this narcissist neighbor. The conflict of interested was taken and used as a way to represent this person and hold him above the law in every fraudulent, immoral terrorist act he committed against me.    

 

The “rash” that erupted on my shins caused severe intense itching immediately after my skin was exposed to it.. It was not until after the grass had died several days later that I could visually see that chemicals had been unlawfully applied to my property. The chemicals were applied to my side of the 300’ common boundary I shared with a neighbor. It was obvious the chemicals had been applied to my property by my neighbor. Nobody else had access to the property. Nobody else had a reason to eliminate me from my private property.

 

          Regarding the defamation of my character as being “lazy” and not maintaining my yard to the degree deserving of nuisance abatement notices. Evidence supports my neighbor,

 Mark Conlee stated “even though Mel Boatner has an older home, she maintains it well”, and that was one of the considerations used in determining we (the Conlee’s) would purchase the from Mayor Dinwiddie. 

 

I was constantly harassed by the City on the Conlee’s behalf. Multiple criminal complaints were filed against me by the State and the City. The charges were with intent to cause financial hardship. The criminal charges based on fabricated laws and ordinances were all dismissed against me.

 

 I was denied filing a criminal complaint for multiple counts of fraud against the City and city clerk Celeste Cirinna prosecuted by Lee County Attorney Mike Short. Cirinna admitted to altering a city ordinance with Mayor Scumbailto present.

 

The exposure to the chemicals caused serious severe effects to my health and caused complete depletion of my financial resources. I was completely unable to function. I could not work in my upholstery shop. I was suffering so severely that my skin would erupt and bleed uncontrollably. In the upholstery business that is not acceptable. It was unbearable to simply wear clothes. I was being tortured by the assault with chemical weapons.

 

           I have no experience in a court of law. I have never needed an attorney to argue a case on my behalf. I was referred to Steve Swan ESQ. Steve Swan advised that he would represent me in filing a complaint against the City of Montrose. Swan advised me that my case is a tort case. He advised me that the person who referred me to him had briefed him on the case. He was advised that I was not financially prepared to find myself defending my Constitutional Rights in a lawsuit. He advised that he was willing to barter his service for mine. He did requested $100 for the filing fee which I paid him that day. I questioned him about his knowledge of the law applying to my case and he was knowledgeable in property law, he agreed that the city is the liable party. Swan advised me that he had already spoken with my neighbor’s brother about this case. He advised that the neighbor’s brother had lied to him about the situation. The neighbor’s brother at the time was an officer for the Lee County Sheriff’s dept Bob Conlee. Swan advised we would file a complaint against both the City and my neighbor. 

 

The following day I received a copy of a letter of intent Swan sent to my neighbor. In the letter he advised that he had 10 days to remedy the nuisance drainage issue. If there was no remedy in ten days, he would file an injunction. 

 

  In this case my attorney suppress all the indisputable evidence I had gathered to present to the judge.Steve Swan never filed the complaint he was hired to file against the liable party, the City of Montrose. Steve Swan intentionally misled me into believing he had filed a complaint against the City of Montrose as he was hired to do. It was not until the final day of this civil trial in which I am the defendant that Swan snickered and advised me that he did not want the case against the City. 

 

You can imagine my confusion when 6 months later I am served a summons by my neighbor. Conlee is suing me for “loss of enjoyment of his property”. 

 

He continued to  apply the chemicals to my private property, as if it were his own.  I installed a privacy curtain. I am well within my legal rights. I had a reality check at this time. I realized after the fact that my attorney most likely took my case on behalf of the Conlee’s. He never submitted the affidavit of my witnesses. He never questioned my witnesses when they took the stand. These are the same witnesses that he described as “experts in their own right” at our first meeting.He never objected to what the Conlee’s were stating in the multiple times they committed perjury in the courtroom.

 

Had this judge had been given the evidence supporting my allegations he could have recognized that two or more government officials with the intent to cause me harm deprived me of my private property rights under color of law.  From 2005-2010 the chemicals were routinely applied to my property on a weekly basis.

 

I felt a sense of relief when in the finding of facts of this case. The Judge cited my “right to use my property as I wished”. I falsely believed the chemical attack would cease with my rights being cited in this ruling. 

 

I was completely mistaken. This neighbor never complied to any law, code or regulation since he began the property redevelopment. He had no regard for this court order. Law enforcement never enforced compliance to this court order just as they had never held him accountable for any of the other multiple violations of the law he committed.

 

 With every dismissal of any criminal charges brought against me, this neighbor became more aggressive in his attack to eliminate me from my private property. He was obsessed with making the court find me in violation of a law.

 

            Prior to being exposed to these chemicals I was in good health. My credit score was 760. I was always aware, as a self employed business owner, maintaining my health was a high priority. I did practice preventive maintenance. 

 

As any other reasonable US citizen, I never expected a neighbor or my government to wage a full on attack against me using chemical weapons. I expected as a US citizen to be safe and secure in my home and on my private property. I expected to always have the right to enjoy my private property. Federal law protects these rights guaranteed to all citizens. The hard copy evidence supports a premeditated intent to violate my Federally protected rights. 

 

I was aware that at some point the government would put a stop on this neighbor’s non compliant property redevelopment. Had standard procedures been followed by the City building administrator this project would have never gotten started. This neighbor had blueprints of his redevelopment. The building administrator is required to review the blueprints. This project would have been denied without question had the building administrator represented the State as he did in every other building permit he issued.  

 

Site layout and stormwater drainage are the first steps in property development. This information is available in every handyman’s book or manual. If common sense does not guide a builder into knowing that you cannot divert more storm water onto a neighboring property than before the redevelopment, any Do-it-yourself 101 states the law does not allow to new redevelopment to divert more storm water onto a neighboring property than before. A new property redevelopment cannot devalue a neighboring property. In this case my property lost a value of $10,000 before the project was even completed.

 

Legally non conforming properties are restricted to not being allowed to have new structures larger than the existing structures. This should have been the end of this story. The worst that could legally have happened would have been this neighbor made an investment into a property that is not developable. Based on the size of the structures this neighbor built on his narrow strip of land. His desire was to have a small farm in the middle of the towns residential district.

 

In this case the building administrator was aware that this was a legally non conforming property.  For reasons I do not know, this building administrator intentionally violated his duty to represent the State of Iowa building code and drainage laws. 

  • He approved these non conforming structures. 
  • He approved the site layout and drainage. 
  • He approved but failed to document the fill dirt that was trucked in, elevating this property as much as 12 ft in some areas. 
  • He allowed the illegal removal of an existing berm. 
  • He issued fraudulent building permits specifically for this particular person.

 

Witnesses will testify that when they had a building permit issued this appointed building administrator followed the standard procedures by the book. One instance the witness states that this building administrator questioned the position she had her buildings laid out on her blueprints. Another says that when he was issued a building permit for a new shed he was charged a fee. The building administrator for the Conlee redevelopment knowingly issued five fraudulent building permits.  The permit for the new home there was no fee was charged. The Mayor certainly knew that the property was legally non conforming, he sold the property to Conlee. It has been suggested by multiple neighbors that the building administrator and the Mayor were involved in an arson of the existing double wide mobile home. 

 

The Mayor’s role in this is relevant concerning a conflict of interest.. The Mayor had a personal financial gain. Ethically he had a duty to step out of any issues concerning this property. He without the authority acted as the building administrator on one occasion in this case. 

 

 The Mayor has a questionable history regarding properties he has owned. Several years prior to this personal financial gain from the sale of real property an individual addressed the city council about her plan to rent a building and open a tattoo shop. The city council denied her plan, explaining that they did not think a tattoo shop would portray the city in the way they wanted the City to be presented. 

 

Not long after that, a different person addressed the City council. This individual was requesting  to open a tattoo shop. This person’s intent was to purchase a property from the Mayor and operate the business from that location. The City council gave this person their full support. The Mayor sold his property, he had a personal financial gain and everyone was happy. Some of the city council members were so supportive they put tattoos on their bodies. The complete change of attitude about a tattoo shop opening in the city I suspect may be a self serving purpose having nothing to do with what the council wants the city to be represented as.

 

  Conlee’s  motive was to acquire my property at any cost. I knew his motive when he refused my verbal request to stop applying the chemicals to my property. Without my property he could never get his illegal redevelopment recorded on the County plat map. His oversized  non conforming structures would never legally fit on his narrow lot of property, no matter which way he positioned his structures. According to Iowa law and according to a statement made by the Mayor on public record, legally non conforming properties cannot be redeveloped with structures having a larger footprint than the existing structures. 

 

I followed all the standard procedures to remedy the situation. A conspiracy against my Federally protected rights, deprivation of rights under color of law allowed for my private property to be taken by force. An act of contempt of a civil court judge citing my right to use my property as I wished, allowed for me to be tortured. He would not stop the chemical attack until he achieved his goal. Government officials and law enforcement had no intention of stopping him. Refusing to trespass him from my property equals a conspiracy. This neighbor was held above the law in every criminal action that was committed against me. 

 

Ongoing refusal to review my evidence is not the remedy for this situation. There is no statute of limitations for torture. FBI agent Thomas Reinwart and Assistant US Attorney Kevin VanderSchel’s willfull misconduct and intentional negligence has caused significantly more mental torture. Reinwart admits he used hearsay evidence to predetermine his decision, with no concern of being held accountable for violating my Federally protected rights. VanderSchel knowingly made a false statement advising that he had the authority to violate a civil court order. Neither of them have authority to violate any citizens Federally protected rights. They are not representing the Federal laws. They are representing corrupt State and local public officials under color of law. 

 

 

 

Requesting answer to question regarding US attorney’s authority.

I have made some connections with associates of the US Attorney’s office. I deserve honest answers to my questions. An expert of Federal law should have the integrity to answer my questions honestly.

  1. Does an AUSA have the authority to violate a civil court order with no type of court process. This particular AUSA advised me that he does have that right. In is not reasonable that any attorney can violate any court order without some type of court process. If I am incorrect show me the written law.
  2. Does an AUSA have the right to violate a citizens Constitutional and Civil rights by using attorney discretion and not prosecuting Corrupt State and Local officials? #law #justice #torture #corruption

This AUSA should not have had to go to my website to get his evidence. My website is not updated in real time. I have thousands of documents of evidence supporting my allegations. I have never claimed they were posted on my website. The FBI agent had the duty to investigate my evidence. He refused, advising me to “tell him the story”. He then sent me an email stating that he had made his decision that no Federal law has been violated based on what Lee County Sheriff Stacy Weber told a third party. I am not an attorney but I know that hearsay is not evidence. I also know its a Federal crime to lie to the FBI. Not in this case and I want to know why I have been held exempt from any law protecting my person and my property from chemical warfare.

In this letter he completely abuses his power of office by denying me the right to submit further evidence to him by advising me not to communicate with his office. A recent letter in the local newspaper supports a conflict of interest between this AUSA and Sheriff Weber as they have spent “years” working on a drug case. Yet another conflict of interest that would not have been discovered had the article not been published in the newspaper.

This AUSA seems to believe he has the option not to prosecute a case with such a serious offense as torture. I don’t believe he does have that option. I believe he has the duty to recuse himself from this case and have this case prosecuted by a US Attorney from Illinois or Missouri. The thin blue line stops when a citizens live is on the line. Had I not have fled I would be dead.

The evidence proves Mark Conlee did this intentionally to harm me. That is what the FBI was supposed to be investigating, EVIDENCE not HEARSAY. There are no assumptions or conjecture on my part at all.

 

10-3-2018 pg 2 Kevin VanderSchel

10-3-2018 pg 2 Kevin VanderSchel

 

Due to personal issues I will not be available for updating my story on a regular basis. Please share. I believe if the one person gets this story the public would make mincemeat out of these Public impostors.

12-26-2019 submitting complaint to FBI Agent Thomas Reinwart one last time.

From: songboat@gmail.com 12-26-2019

To: FBI Thomas Reinwart

Thomas,

The only way the US Attorney could not recognize this as a case of conspiracy against right and deprivation of rights under color of law would be due to you not presenting the facts given by the evidence. I am going to give you the facts one more time. I want to speak directly with a rep of the US Attorney for the southern district of Iowa. You have not and can not provide me with any conflicting evidence that my allegations are not correct. Here it is one more time. You must read it in its entirety to understand the unprecedented conspiracy that was committed against me including that without these conflicts of interest  this could have never have happened to this degree of torture.

INTRODUCTION  Complaint alleging Public Corruption, Request for investigation of violation of State and Federal civil rights.

This case concerns my neighbor Mark Conlee’s redevelopment of a legally nonconforming property purchased from the Mayor of my city. He began redeveloping the property by adding a new non compliant garage. He trucked in fill dirt and not only was the massive illegal roofs rotated to drain storm water onto my property he set the grade of the elevated fill dirt to drain down onto my property. The five building permits are illegal, the building official refused to address my concerns in regard to the nuisance drainage the redevelopment caused my property as his duty requires. When this neighbor discovered he could not get the illegal redevelopment recorded on the county plat map, he determined the remedy was to eliminate me. He began unlawfully applying chemicals onto my property. It took very little time before the chemicals caused me a severe skin condition. I verbally told this man not to apply anything to my property, and requested an incident report from the chief of police. Needless to say that I had developed a full body severe skin condition before the 16 months in it took the Chief of police to give me the incident report. This was so severe that it was unbearable to wear clothes. I hired an attorney to sue the City. He was on board with the law at our first meeting. I was questioning him about his knowledge and he passed. The liability was the City. One of the building permits was not signed by the builder and had been forged at a later date  from the original on file. The other permits are illegal based on the fact that this was a legally non conforming property. For those who don’t know there are very stringent rules that apply to redevelopment of such properties. As commented by Mayor Dinwiddie on public record. You’re not allowed to build any structure larger than the existing structures. This guy even went so far as to put in a garden pond that drained onto my property. I am a single middle aged female. I owned my property outright having purchased it in 1995. I opened an upholstery shop that I operated from one of the existing structures on my property. I could not have been happier with my ideal of acquiring my American Dream.

The chemicals continued nonstop. I was surprised when I got served notice that I was being sued by this neighbor for “loss of enjoyment of his property”. It seems that the legally installed privacy curtain that I installed on my side of the 300′ common boundary was too much for him to bear. He could not see out of his windows. Does he even realize that he was looking into his actual side yard? His lot was too narrow to set the oversized structures on. When I spoke to my attorney I was clear that my intent was to sue the City. He advised we would sue both parties adding that the City is where the money was. I know, the liable party is where the money is. I have a long line of paternal parents that held authority titles for a neighboring city. I did not know why he wanted to sue the neighbor to but that is why I hired an attorney. I did not question it. I have never needed an attorney and I am unfamiliar with the court process. The letter of intent my attorney sent the next day did state that if there were no remedy in 10 days he would file an injunction. Upon receiving the letter, the neighbor removed all evidence of an existing berm he had illegally removed. He illegally changed, the frontage of his home to now be the city alley. Apparently, the re-positioning of his home made him believe that my backyard was now his backyard . He added a little roof over the side entrance door to make it look as though his frontage was the street but it clearly was the alley now. This being one of many counts of perjury he committed in the civil court case

I continued to go to council meetings each time a new Mayor was elected. That would be an unprecedented  four Mayors in 5 years. As a citizen being affected by a nuisance drainage as a result of the non-compliant redevelopment, I had the duty to notify the building official that there was a problem. I tried to call him on the telephone, I left messages on his answering machine. He never returned my calls.  My attempts to address the city council were in vain, I had the floor and there would be a distraction caused by the former building official. I was never allowed to speak about my complaint or try to get the proper authority to make him stop applying the chemicals. He would not stop and no law enforcement would file a complaint against him for trespassing.

I believe that if I had been a male, he would never have been brave enough to ignore my request. The Chief of Police did advise me that he did not want to file a complaint against him because he did not want to make him mad. The civil court case he filed against me was dismissed citing my right to enjoy my property. I felt a sense of relief assuming the chemicals would stop based on the citing of my right to enjoy property I could not have been more wrong. This made him mad. He suspiciously is elected to city council for the sole purpose of “getting me back”. The chemicals continue without hesitation. I hear nothing from my attorney in regards to the case against the city even though I email him multiple times. I went to give him a payment and mentioned that the Mayor actually took my side in regards to the privacy curtain I installed. He advised me that the reason the Mayor took my side was that he had received a letter from my attorney. My attorney had lied to me all this time. He never filed the complaint against the city. He never did anything on my behalf. He did suppress evidence on behalf of this neighbor. This guy and the police chief physically altered Railroad ties I had placed along the common boundary to try to divert the excessive storm water from my property to the city drainage ditch. This was a direct act in contempt of court. There was no reason but to prove to me that he was not going to abide by the court of anyone else’s ruling. He had to have my property.

The county attorney advised me that he would violate his duty to prosecute all criminal offenses and he would decide who is prosecuted in his county. He then proceeds to file criminal charges against me several times for fabricated laws. Laws that do not exist, but I cannot get one for criminal trespassing against this neighbor whose intent is clearly to cause me serious injury or death. I suffered severe pain for five long years. I knew I was dying. Only when a former city police chief now moved on to the Sheriff Dept stopped by my home to advise me that this neighbor had no intention to cease and desist with the chemicals did I know I had no option. I had either to shoot this neighbor dead or sell my home business and property for enough funds to repay the debt I owed my friend for supplying the funds for my basic living expenses over the 5-year period and pay for my final expenses. I knew I was dying.

I could not leave this earth without repaying my friends well over $10,000 dollars. My condition only increased, I  could not bear to have anything touch my skin the pain never stopped. It was 24/7, I had lost my eyesight by this time also as a result of the medical treatment administered to offer my skin some relief. This neighbor has more than less of the traits to determine a psychopath according to Hare’s list. I now know the reason the police chief or anyone else for that matter did not want to make this guy mad. However, for me to be the sacrificial lamb and live to tell about it, no way. It is the duty of law enforcement to protect the rights of the people in these United States. They take an oath to do just that, the criminal acts committed by this enterprise of local government officials is unbelievable. However, the evidence does not lie.

I did survive and I am now seeking compensation for my damages. According to the Storm water management handbook, the courts see cities as having deep pockets in not complying to the State building code and drainage laws. Now I am looking for law enforcement and prosecuting attorney  that are committed to protecting the rights of their fellow citizens. https://poisonedbymyneighborfromhell.com What is truly unbelievable this group of thugs being afraid to do their duty to the degree that they would rather commit serious criminal acts against a woman than make this man mad. I am concerned for the entire community. This man showed no empathy when he saw my skin. His intent was to acquire my property at any cost. Something’s not right here. I have known these individuals most of my life and I have never witnessed or heard rumors of any of them committing criminal offenses on someone else’s behalf. Mayor Dinwiddie clearly had a personal financial gain when he sold this otherwise worthless piece of property to Mark Conlee.  Didn’t Mark Conlee know that redeveloping a nonconforming property is not an option? the city building official intentionally allowed the illegal construction, and avoided his duty to address my concerns. Lee County Attorney Michael Short recently retired and I believe the shuffling of the new County Attorney is finished so I believe it should be possible to hold those who have committed criminal acts be prosecuted and I should be compensated for being the victim of the criminal acts that were committed against me. As it stands, I am forced to watch these individuals living large from the guts of my property. I sit here with chronic health problems in a small section 8 rental house that is not satisfactory for my lifestyle or sewing machine. I do not know how long I can contain my patience. It has been an extended period. The chances I will be diagnosed with cancer are overwhelmingly high percent based on the studies on glyphosate. These people have new homes and garage no worries. My achieved American dream has been ripped (taken) from my hands causing injury with no compensation, no acknowledgement much less an apology. In fact if you asked anyone of the participating authorities they would most likely just respond that I am “crazy”. That information was given to the Mayor by a family member who has mental issues with narcissistic personality disorder.  If you read my webpage, https://poisonedbymyneighborfromhell.com  you will find much more evidence supporting this story and the others who conspired to deprive me of my rights under color of law. There just is no other way to view or excuse these events. I will not be denied my right to private property no matter who or when justice is served. In the end I will be compensated for the suffering I have been made to endure at the hands of these self serving government impostors. They need to be held accountable by the Justice Dept. They need never to hold another government position as they have proven capable of serving the ultimate sacrifice to those who they have taken an oath to protect.  It makes no difference that this is only one individual that has harmed their duty to protect the rights of all equally. If I had not fled I would have paid the ultimate price for simply having owned the property a psychopath purchased from the Mayor.

This cannot be allowed in the USA under any circumstances. I certainly do not intend to be the first and only citizen who has been subject to such brutal criminal acts by my local government officials. There is no more time for excuses this needs to be addressed. These crimes are in violation of the Constitution of the State of Iowa and The Constitution of the United States of America. I am requesting an investigation into the evidence that has never been reviewed by any authority.

Sincerely,

Melody Boatner

Keokuk, Ia.

Unprecedented, complex,  HARD COPY EVIDENCE PROVING MY ALLEGATIONS OF CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS. DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW, GROSS NEGLIGENCE, USING CHEMICALS AS A WEAPON WITH INTENT TO CAUSE SERIOUS HARM OR DEATH, DOCUMENT FRAUD, MAIL FRAUD, PERJURY, MAKING FALSE POLICE REPORTS, CONFLICT OF INTEREST, TAKING OF PROPERTY WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION, CRIMINAL TRESPASS, CONTEMPT OF COURT, DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER, COLLUSION, INTENT TO CAUSE PHYSICAL AND EMOTIONAL STRESS. ABUSE OF POWER, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. NONCOMPLIANT PROPERTY REDEVELOPMENT, NUISANCE DRAINAGE COMPLAINT, KNOWINGLY MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS,. FAILURE TO KEEP FROM HARM,

Original property layout

This building permit is fraudulent as it is impossible to construct this building from pouring a slab to complete finish in the timeline of 5 days. It is incomplete as there is no fill dirt amount, setbacks or other information required by the State of Iowa. This document is folded for scanning purposes. Boatner was initially informed that this structure was non compliant because the owner intended to build a living quarters in the second story.

After a suspicious fire supposedly destroyed the existing double-wide mobile home this building permit was issued. Fraudulent building permit issued by City of Montrose, Ia. Not signed by the builder, no fee charged, no fill dirt or setbacks recorded. This permit is also folded for purposes of scanning.

When the city building official refused to address my concerns about a nuisance drainage issue according to city ordinance I contacted Lee County extension agent for an opinion. He wrote a letter to me and a copy to Mayor Dinwiddie including a copy of the Iowa drainage laws. There was no response.

City clerk Cirinna altered the fee charged on this original permit to conflict with Lee County Ext. Agents observation.

Water standing in yard

Water standing in the yard. Note upper right hand corner retaining fill dirt on neighbors new garage.

Ground in crawl space saturated with groundwater caused by increased stormwater runoff from neighbors new redevelopment and illegal removal of existing berm foundation washed out. This side of the house had never received water like this because of the existing berm that Conlee removed unlawfully.

According to expert Bob Dodds anything existing for more that 10 years is considered existing, Conlee illegally removed the berm that had been put in place in 1972 for the purpose of protecting Boatners home from stormwater runoff.

Neighbor’s allegation that my nuisance drainage was caused by the city street is false. This photo shows crawl space toward the street is dry. Dark area of soil is saturated from side of home that faces neighbors property

Common boundary supporting neighbors applied chemicals to my property (on the right side of photo). This boundary is 300’ long and there was never any action by law enforcement to stop the application of chemicals to my property.I began to report the unlawful acts in late April 2005 and nothing was ever done on my behalf until I was forced to escape from them in Aug 2010.

Conlee’s opinion was that a ditch on his property would be unsightly. Boatner believes Conlee has a severe personality disorder. He thinks he is above the law. He committed perjury in his testimony under oath in Conlee vs Boatner as he knew full well Boatner wanted a ditch dug because the stormwater diverted to. The wire fence was installed by Conlee to keep Boatner from digging a ditch down the common boundary.  If the building codes were recognized publicly, Conlee would have never been allowed to expand the size of the new structure larger than the existing structures. The Mayor and building official were well aware of the legality of Conlee’s redevelopment that is why they refused to address her grievances. They violated their oath of office. They conspired with Conlee to allow Boatner’s State and Federal RIght to be violated. They conspired with Conlee to use chemicals as a weapon to eliminate her from her property.

I did not notice the chemicals until the the grass was getting green in the spring as soon as  I did notice them I knew what was causing the “rash” on my shins

I advised neighbor not to apply anything to my property and requested an incident report from Police Chief Brent Shipman

Spreading

Spreading, Condition continues to get worse. No action from law enforcement to protect e from harm or my Constitutionally protected private property rights

Poison continued to be applied to my property on a routine basis. By this time the “rash had developed into a full body severe skin condition that caused severe pain to the degree it was unbearable to wear clothes. Poison continues to be applied to my property without my permission against my control

I can think of no more brutal way to eliminate a neighbor. In the background is the Steel Roofing I had just purchased to put on my home. It was in no way my decision to move. This was heavy 1/4 “ j channel steel.

I had no authority to stop this neighbor from unlawfully applying chemicals to my property except to take up arms.

law enforcement has the duty to provide protection of my private property rights.

This felt more like a chemical burn. Boatner  was completely unable to function. This was an intentional brutal attack that have had serious lifelong effects

.

16 Months later I received this report that is completely inadequate from Police chief Brent Shipman. I refused this and told him I wanted one that was more specific.

9-16-2006  intentional untimely incident report requested by Boatner 16 months after the discovery of chemicals on her property. By this time it was too late the condition had become chronic. There was never any intervention from local city and county law enforcement to protect my right to private property. Police chief Shipman advised me that he did not want to make this neighbor mad. Lee County attorney dismissed the photo evidence and advised me that “Mark Conlee said” that he only applied the chemicals to his side of the fence.

Letter of Intent From Boatner attorney to Conlee

Boatner hired an attorney very early in this case, to file a complaint against the city of Montrose early on. Conlee commits perjury in the civil case Conlee vs Boatner also.  Steve Swan knowingly lied to her. He reassured her that he had filed the complaint against the City of Montrose. Boatner believes that Attorney Swan was so eager to take her case that it leaves to question whether arrangements were premeditated by Conlee and Swan for him to do just what he did, nothing except suppress evidence that is right here in this file. Suppress testimony of witnesses that he claimed were experts in their own right, but then did not ask a question to any of them. This case followed no standard procedures. What began as a simple nuisance drainage issue that could have been easily remedied. Turned into a criminal conspiracy all because one of the good old boys wasn’t smart enough to pay attention to step on in land developing. Site layout and drainage. His nonconforming lot he should have known has stringent laws in development. Mayor Dinwiddie, the seller of the property, acknowledges this in the public record.

How many cases are there in which the plaintiff offers the defendant an out of court settlement? Well in this case Conlee offered Boatner two out of court settlements. Both of which are ridiculous. Mark Conlee is a psychopath. Nobody in their right mind intentionally hurts another human being. In this case he was asked to stop applying the chemicals. He refused to stop. The reason he continued was for the purpose of eliminating Boatner.

First offer to settle out of court. Plaintiff’s offer to defendant is admission to guilt. Boatner’s attorney suppressed this from the court.

2nd offer to settle out of court. This was suppressed from the court. This offer is completely ridiculous being Boatner is not responsible for the new developments stormwater drainage.

This is the privacy curtain Boatner installed, it was within her legal right as there was no fence ordinance at that time. You can also see Conlee’s property is graded down toward her property. The existing berm prior to the redevelopment was located on the left hand side of this photo, Conlee has put some bricks where the berm used to be. You can see the Conlee’s new home has the roof rotated from the original home to divert stormwater directly onto Boatner’s property. Prior to the removal of the berm a heavy rain would develop a small pond in this front yard of the Conlee’s property. Boatner’s property received no stormwater runoff from the Conlee property.  The judge erred in what he stated Conlee’s witness actually stated in her testimony. She actually stated the her (Boatner’s) property NEVER received stormwater runoff from the Conlee property. Boatner’s attorney recognized this as a fact in an email exchange. No competent attorney could be so incompetent not to raise issue with what he acknowledges in an email to Boatner when she contacted him after receiving the decision. The attorney’s oath swears that he will represent the best interests of his client. Boatner’s attorney violated that oath. His action support intent to cause Boatner harm.

Finding of Fact

Finding of Fact,  The dismissal of Conlee’s this case only made Conlee more aggressive toward Boatner. Conlee decided he would get elected to council member. The timeline for announcing candidacy was not within the guidelines. We never got the decision on the civil case until the end of Oct.  I believe you must have your candidate announced before that timeline. Conlee went to the city hall every afternoon when he got off work for a week, and read the city codes before he announced. Conlee‘s personality true to itself, he gave her a thumbs up as she drove by one afternoon, indicating  that he had made a deal for his position and was going to be elected to city council. His intent as a council member was to force me to take that curtain down. He intended to harass me financially. Clerk Cirinna obediently began to take orders from Conlee. She fabricated an ordinance specially for Boatner .

The fraudulent ordinance indicated Boatner had to take the curtain down. Boatner pleaded not guilty. The case was dismissed by the City Attorney. There was not a word spoken to the court about the case. Correction the paragraph below the red line is fraudulent.

Footnote of the court order the judge noted the issues in this case had been remedied by a previous court of law.  These types of crimes continued along with the chemicals exposure until 2010. At that time Boatner’s condition had become dire. She also lost her eyesight. She was helpless to defend herself or her property. Conlee’s network of authorities did not waver in their malicious fight to acquire Boatner’s property.

Finding of Fact

The court ruling, citing Boatner’s right to enjoy her property meant she has been returned complete control of her own property.

According to Lee County Deputy David Hunold, who came to her home investigating a second of the same fabricated law complaint against her by Lee County Attorney Mike Short on behalf of  Mark Conlee.

The first complaint stated that Boatner had driven by Conlee’s home and given him the middle finger. According to Officer Hunold the Judge did not specify Mark Conlee was not allowed to continue to apply chemicals to her property. He could continue and he did continue to apply chemicals to her property. She had just been to court over this same allegation that she had given him the finger and it was dismissed. She never even got to see the judge. Mark Conlee in contempt of court did not show up for court.  He was on vacation in Florida. The newest Police Chief Karl Judd advised Boatner that he knew Conlee was on vacation and would be a no show prior to the court date.

These frivolous charges were made against Boatner by Lee County attorney Mike Short in State of Iowa vs Boatner. This 2nd complaint was altered from the original simply by adding the words “he is tired of this happening all the time” therefore bumping it up to a harassment charge. Someone should have advised the County Attorney that there is no law against giving anyone the finger. In Boatner’s opinion the judge would have commented that Conlee deserved for her to give him the finger. Boatner was still being denied a trespassing complaint against Conlee. As Officer Hunold was leaving her home she told him wait, she wants to file a complaint for trespassing, having just shown him the court document. Officer Hunold advised her that he was only there to investigate a complaint from Conlee that she had given him the finger. Lee County Attorney Mike Short had sent him in case there was a conflict of interest involved. There definitely was a conflict of interest in this case. This case reeks of  violations of Federal law.

May 23 2008   Mark Conlee assisted by Police Chief Shipman violates the civil court order. Somehow Chief Shipman feels he has the authority to overrule a court order and authorize Conlee  to alter the railroad ties Boatner had placed on her property along the common boundary to divert the excessive amount of stormwater runoff. Boatner’s property now receives 90% of Conlee’s stormwater runoff after the illegal property redevelopment. He pulled the plastic edging out that Boatner had installed, he pushed the ties out of alignment. You can see a broken staub in the foreground of this photo. The staub’s were broken off at ground level all the way down the row of ties. Boatner was putting myself in danger by being out in her yard to place these ties and edging as there were chemicals that had been applied to the entire common boundary. Boatner had no chance to secure her private property rights. Her only option other than to flee would be to shoot this man dead.

This photo is easier to indicate the broken staub’s and edging that was pulled from the ground and laying on top of the soil. This action was don’t in contempt of the civil court order citing Boatner’s  right to enjoy my own property. He never did this to the upper half of the property. He did this in the middle of the night. Earlier that day Conlee along the the Police Chief approached Boatner and informed her that he was going to move her railroad ties. Boatner went into her house and returned with a single shot pellet gun. Boatner stood guard and defended her property till after dark. Boatner is human. She was still trying to operate her upholstery shop business and did goe in the house to try and get some rest. The next morning this is what took place on her property. Several weeks later Conlee calls a false report into the police stating he heard shots fired from Boatner’s property. The purpose for the false police report was to know if Boatner had weapons. It is a violation of the law to make false police reports. There is no law that applies to Mark Conlee. You can see the amount of fill dirt that was brought into Conlee’s property by the retaining timbers on the left of the photo. He committed perjury in the civil case denying the amount of fill dirt he had trucked in.  As you can see Boatner’s property has mature trees and his property has nothing that would prevent him from installing a drain pipe to divert his stormwater to the city drainage ditch as required by State drainage law.

This is the finished illegal property redevelopment of Boatner’s neighbor. Completely not in compliance with state building code, Conlee went to get this recorded on the County plat map and apparently it was denied. This is the reason that he determined the remedy was to eliminate Boatner. It took 5 years of severe suffering, emotional and physical before she had no choice but to flee. The only other option she had was to shoot this man dead or flee. This was her home, business and property. It was apparent that Boatner or Conlee was going to die if she stayed, Due to the intentional negligence and conspiracy against her rights by local government officials She is still being denied justice. These government officials have been allowed to commit serious criminal offenses. why? Boatner will not go away, No way no how. Her assets were in her property, Her property has been forcibly taken. Her credit rating before Conlee came to the worthless lot next door was 760. Two trips to the ER in the first few days of this attack wiped her credit out. Then as a council member Conlee uses his position in an attempt to cause her more financial harm. By involving the City clerk, who has no problem forging documents of file or fabricating city ordinances. There is a slough of things the clerk performed that were criminal and ethical violations. Anyone who looks at this evidence sees that.

There is no excuse for the treatment of a human being as brutal as this attack waged against me. Boatner has EPA results and much more evidence that she has the right to submit. To date no authority has given her the opportunity.

Does anyone recognize a conspiracy against rights? Deprivation of Rights under color of Law? These are violations of Federal law.

Anyone who does not visually recognize that these oversized structures set sideways on the Conlee property has changed the frontage of his property to be the city alley is not qualified to oversee the first step taken when redeveloping begins, site layout and stormwater drainage.

Anyone who does not visually see the significant increased stormwater being diverted onto Boatner’s property is not qualified to oversee new property redevelopment.

Anyone who does not recognize the violations against Boatner’s State and Federal Rights please explain how Boatner’s rights have not been violated.

Boatner wants to know the process needed to redress grievances. Her attempt to get any answers from anyone has been in non productive. She is really been put through hell by the chronic skin condition and the loss of her eyesight.

Had she invoked her second amendment rights where would she be now? Would she have been found not guilty of murder and at home enjoy life as it was prior to Conlee purchasing the adjoining lot from Mayor Dinwiddie? Would she be in prison for murder. We will never know. We know that she is still burdened by the events that took place in violation of Federal law from Spring of 2005- Fall of 1010.  Her ability to enjoy life is blocked by the crimes committed against her by an entire local government subdivision. This cannot be dismissed as the basic fundamental rights are what we as Americans base our freedoms on.

Existing Conflicts of Interests Among City of Montrose and Lee County Iowa Officials

In Regard to the property redevelopment Property 105 N 5TH St Montrose, Ia

Mayor Ron Dinwiddie   Seller Mark Conlee  Buyer

Members on Montrose Volunteer Fire Department (suspected arson on existing home)

Mayor Ron Dinwiddie

Mark Conlee

Council Member/Building Admin Mark Holland(Fire Chief)

Council Member Jeff Junkins

Co-workers

Council Member Jeff Junkins

Council Member Mark Conlee

Linda Conlee

Family Members

Lee County Detective Robert (Bob) Conlee        Brothers Mark Conlee

Council Member Mark Holland        Siblings Council Member Judy Brisby

Lee County FEMA Officer Steve Cirinna        Spouses      City of Montrose Clerk Celeste Cirinna

City of Montrose and Lee County, Iowa Law Enforcement

Special relationship as noted in local media

Lee County Sheriff Stacy Weber

Lee County Detective Robert Conlee – special relationship- Lee County Attorney Michael Short

Lee County Deputy David Hunold – special relationship – Montrose Chief of Police Karl Judd Montrose Chief of Police Brent Shipman Lee County FEMA Officer Steve Cirinna

Links to individuals who conspired against Boatner’s rights, conspired to deprive her rights under color of law and committed criminal offenses on Conlee’s behalf for no good reason, except to prove they would not be prosecuted no matter what they did in committing a criminal offense

Open these links for evidence of criminal offenses committed by the individuals involved

About Mark Conlee

About Mayor Ron Dinwiddie

About Council member/building official/fire chief Mark Holland

About Police Chief Brent Shipman

About Steve Swan Esq

About Lee County Attorney Mike Short.

About City Clerk Celeste Cirinna

About Lee County Detective Bob Conlee

Effects of chemicals having direct contact with my skin unlawfully applied to my property

Unofficial City of Montrose council meeting minutes this evidence was hidden from the public website in April 2017 when Sheriff Stacy Weber got wind that there was an investigation pending.

Conlee vs Boatner Eqeq004300 This court record is full of evidence of perjury committed by Mark Conlee and his attorney Greg Johnson. Conspiracy against rights committed by Mark Conlee, Greg Johnson and Steven Swan ESQ. Still the court ruled in my favor even with the evidence suppressed from the court.

About Sheriff Weber

Sheriff Stacy Weber conspired with city clerk to hide evidence in April 2017 Sheriff Weber has an existing conflict of interest with the Conlee’s that will not allow the written law to apply in any situation involving this situation. Sheriff Weber spoke to SA Jeff Huber. Any information given to SA Huber could not have been based on fact, Weber was not privy to any of the facts of this case. Without a reasonable comparison of that information with the facts in the case there can be no reasonable conclusion of this case.

Weber picks Conlee as No. 2

By JEFF HUNT dgceditor@dailygate.com

Dec 23, 2016

MONTROSE – Lee County Sheriff-elect Stacy Weber has appointed a new chief deputy to serve as his second in command. He promoted Will Conlee, a patrol deputy, to help him lead the department. When Weber was campaigning for office, he said if elected there would be changes. Weber said it wasn’t just Conlee’s experience that made him inviting for the job, but it didn’t hurt. “He started with the city of Fort Madison in 1998,” Weber said. “He moved to the sheriff’s office in 2000.”Weber summed up the main reason he wants Conlee in one word.“Leadership,” Weber said. “This was a decision that was easy for me because with the people who are working here, I observed on a daily basis who has leadership skills.” Weber called Conlee a good man and said it is a plus that he was from the area and that his father was in law enforcement. “His father is one of the reasons I am in law enforcement today,” Weber said. “Will comes from good stock. He does the right thing when nobody’s looking.” Weber said the chief deputy will act as the sheriff when the sheriff is not present. He said in the past there were two parts to being the sheriff. One part is the man who comes in and runs the office, and the other is the man who goes out and meets the community. When Weber is out of the office he knows someone will be in charge. Conlee comes from Montrose. He received his law enforcement training at Cedar Rapids Police Academy.

https://poisonedbymyneighborfromhell.com

The Pathocracy of the Deep State: Tyranny at the Hands of a Psychopathic Government — John W. Whitehead, Constitutional Attorney

“Politicians are more likely than people in the general population to be sociopaths. I think you would find no expert in the field of sociopathy/psychopathy/antisocial personality disorder who would dispute this… That a small minority of human beings literally have no conscience was and is a bitter pill for our society to swallow — but […]

via The Pathocracy of the Deep State: Tyranny at the Hands of a Psychopathic Government — John W. Whitehead, Constitutional Attorney

I am hoping that someone with authority gets word of my situation.

I am not or have never been an aggressive person. Well maybe a little 25 years ago when I had a nip or two. But I am the type if I don’t agree with someone I keep it to myself. I am not confrontational. I will take the short end of the stick every time to keep the peace. This case is more than I can handle. I promised myself I will not be the only victim of this brutal attack. I will invoke my 2nd amendment right. I don’t know when. I just know that I cannot allow for my dad to have served on a Destroyer in the South Pacific taking on bombs and kamikaze pilots thinking he was fighting for the freedoms of his countrymen.

Ironically he spent his career working as the Street Commissioner of a larger neighboring town. His father’s career was also working for the neighboring city. I know the duties and responsibilities a city MUST provide its residents. One of them being nobody has the right to do anything to another persons property. Trespass enforce would have solved this problem from the get go. This was a conspiracy against my rights. Deprivation of Rights under color of law and torture from chemical warfare.

About City of Montrose, Ia Mayor, Ron Dinwiddie

Random facts about the attack