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

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

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

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

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

3-9-2010-skin-condition-progressing

null

According to AUSA my evidence is assumptive.

image

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

null

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

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

null

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 ARTICLE XIV.

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

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.