sent to #Grassley, #Loebsack, #Reinwart, #VanderSchel 6-13-2019
The Attorney General’s guidelines for domestic FBI investigations.
The general objective of these Guidelines is the full utilization of all authorities and investigative methods, consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States, to protect the United States and its people from terrorism and other threats to the national security, to protect the United States and its people from victimization by all crimes in violation of federal law, and to further the foreign intelligence objectives of the United States. At the same time, it is axiomatic that the FBI must conduct its investigations and other activities in a lawful and reasonable manner that respects liberty and privacy and avoids unnecessary intrusions into the lives of law-abiding people. The purpose of these Guidelines, therefore, is to establish consistent policy in such matters. They will enable the FBI to perform its duties with effectiveness, certainty, and confidence, and will provide the American people with a firm assurance that the FBI is acting properly under the law.
Clearly you have all violated these guidelines. As I reported Violation of my Constitutional Right given by Amendment 4, 5 and 14 have been violated. IN REGARDS TO A PROPER INVESTIGATION BEING DONE THAT IS OBVIOUSLY BEEN NOT WITHIN THESE GUIDELINES. THOMAS REINWART REFUSED TO REVIEW THE HARD COPY EVIDENCE THAT HE SPECIFICAL TRAVELED ON GOVERNMENT FUNDING TO MY HOME TO REVIEW. UPON ARRIVAL REINWART ADVISED ME THAT HE HAD NO INTENTION OF REVIEWING MY HARD COPY EVIDENCE. HE ADVISED ME TO VERBALLY TELL HIM THAT STORY AND HE WOULD TAKE NOTES. I ATTEMPTED TO TOUCH ON THE VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL LAW THAT HAD BEEN COMMITTED AGAINST ME. HE GAVE ME 2 1/2 HOURS OF HIS TIME. ALL THE WHILE HE WAS CHECKING HIS WATCH AS IF HE HAD AN IMPORTANT PENDING APPOINTMENT. HE HAD THREE NOTES WRITTEN ON HIS PAD WHEN HE EXITED MY HOME. I CAN NOT CONFIRM IF THOSE NOTES WERE RELATED TO THE INFORMATION I HAD TOLD HIM OR NOT. HE SEEMED LETHARGIC DURING THE TIME HE WAS IN MY PRESENCE. HE WAS NOT GIVING ME HIS FULL ATTENTION. TWO HOURS AFTER HE LEFT MY HOME I GET A LETTER FROM THE WASHINGTON DC DEPT OF THE FBI. THE LETTER STATED THAT REINWART HAD DETERMINED NO VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW HAS OCCURRED. THE EVIDENCE PROVES IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM TO SEND A DECISION TO WASHINGTON DC AND THE DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR TO GET THAT DECISION RETURNED TO ME WITHIN TWO HOURS OF REINWART LEAVING MY HOME. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE. THAT BEING SAID REINWART HAD TO HAVE MADE A PREDETERMINED DECISION AS TO WHETHER ANY VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL LAW HAVE OCCURRED. BASED ON WHAT EVIDENCE? HE USED HEARSAY GIVEN TO A THIRD PARTY BY THE LEE COUNTY SHERIFF WHO I CAN SUBMIT EVIDENCE RIGHT NOW THAT PROVES HE KNOWINGLY MAKES FALSE STATEMENTS. SHERIFF WEBER IS A KNOWN LIAR. MY EVIDENCE HOWEVER IS DIRECTLY FROM PUBLIC RECORD AND CANNOT BE CONSIDERED ANYTHING BUT FACTUAL. AUSA VANDERSCHEL ADVISED ME THAT NO MATTER WHAT THE FACT ARE IN THIS CASE THAT HE WAS GOING TO USE ATTORNEY DISCRETION AND NOT PROSECUTE THOSE WHO USED CHEMICALS AS A WEAPON WITH INTENT TO ELIMINATE ME FROM MY PRIVATE PROPERTY. I ASKED HIM IF HE HAD THE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE A CIVIL COURT ORDER AND HE ADVISED ME THAT HE DOES HAVE THAT AUTHORITY. I HAVE FOUND NO EVIDENCE THAT HE HAS THE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE A CIVIL COURT ORDER ANYMORE THAN THESE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS DID WHEN THIS CIVIL COURT ORDER WAS ISSUED. NO EVIDENCE PROVIDED BY VANDERSCHEL TO PROVE HE HAS THAT AUTHORITY SUGGESTS THAT HE IS KNOWINGLY MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS. I CONTEST ANY DECISION THAT FEDERAL LAW HAS NOT BEEN VIOLATED IN MY CASE. IF YOU CAN PROVIDE ME WITH ANY CASE STATE OR FEDERAL IN WHICH CHEMICAL WEAPONS HAVE BEEN UNLAWFULLY APPLIED TO A NEIGHBOR’S PROPERTY AND IN VIOLATION OF A CIVIL COURT ORDER CHEMICALS CONTINUED TO BE APPLIED TO A CITIZENS PROPERTY WITH NO COMPLIANCE BY THE TRESPASSER OR NO ENFORCEMENT OF COMPLIANCE BY LAW ENFORCEMENT I WOULD GLADLY REVIEW THAT DOCUMENT. I DO NOT BELIEVE TO CAN OFFER UP A DOCUMENT AS SUCH BECAUSE ALL REASONABLE CITIZENS KNOW THAT TRESPASSING IS A VIOLATION OF STATE AND FEDERAL LAW. JOHN KAUFMAN HAS BEEN ADVISING ME FOR OVER TEN YEARS THAT THE FBI WOULD CONTACT ME. THE FBI NEVER CONTACTED ME. I REQUESTED AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO MY CASE EXPLAINING TO KATIE WHAT HAD TAKEN PLACE WITH ME REACHING OUT TO REINWART. SHE IGNORED MY REQUEST AND THE NEXT INQUIRY WAS DONE BY CALVIN SHIVERS WHO ONLY LOOKED AT THE FALSE STATEMENTS AND INFORMATION ALREADY SUBMITTED BY REINWART. SO I AM AGAIN REQUESTING THAT YOU REASSESS THE SITUATION. REFER TO PRIOR CASES IN WHICH LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS HAVE USED CHEMICALS AS A WEAPON TO ELIMINATE A CITIZEN FROM THEIR PRIVATE PROPERTY. OR DO YOUR JOBS CORRECTLY AND WITHIN THE GUIDELINES YOUR DUTIES DESCRIBE. AGAIN I AM SUBMITTING VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL AND STATE LAW THAT HAVE BEEN COMMITTED AGAINST MY PROPERTY AND MY PERSON. PLEASE SUBMIT THIS LETTER PERSONALLY TO YOU SUPERVISOR. I WILL TELL YOU AGAIN THAT I AM NOT ABOUT TO BE THE ONLY PERSON IN THE US TO HAVE MY PRIVATE PROPERTY TAKEN BY MY LOCAL GOVERNMENT USING CHEMICALS AS A WEAPON TO ELIMINATE ME FROM THAT PROPERTY. YOU HAVE THE AUTHORITY AND DUTY TO REPRESENT ME, A LAW ABIDING CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES AND YOU HAVE A DUTY TO EXPOSE CORRUPT GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS FROM THE LOWEST LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT TO THE HIGHEST. NOT RESPONDING TO MY EMAILS IS NOT GOING TO SOLVE THIS PROBLEM. I AM NOT GOING TO SOLVE THIS PROBLEM. THOSE WITH THE AUTHORITY ARE GOING TO SOLVE THIS PROBLEM. VANDERSCHEL PERHAPS YOU SHOULD REREAD MY COMPLAINT UNTIL YOU DO UNDERSTAND THE INFORMATION INCLUDED. YOU DID NOT EVEN RECOGNIZE THE TIMELINE WHEN YOU FIRST MADE YOUR COMMENTS ABOUT IT, REMEMBER? DO YOUR JOB!
Public corruption and civil rights
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.
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.
“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  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  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.
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:
- 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,
- a munition or device designed to cause death or harm through toxic chemicals that would be released by the device, or
- 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.
.Iowa Code Sec. 237. Section 729.5, Code 2013, is amended to read as follows: 729.5 Violation of individual rights — penalty. 1. A person, who acts alone, or who conspires with another person or persons, to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate or interfere with any citizen in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to that person by the constitution or laws of the state of Iowa or by the constitution or laws of the United States, and assembles with one or more persons for the purpose of teaching or being instructed in any technique or means capable of causing property damage, bodily injury or death when the person or persons intend to employ those techniques or means in furtherance of the conspiracy, is on conviction, guilty of a class “D” felony. 2. A person intimidates or interferes with another person if the act of the person results in any of the following: a. Physical injury to the other person. b. Physical damage to or destruction of the other person’s property. c. Communication in a manner, or action in a manner, intended to result in either of the following: (1) To place the other person in fear of physical contact which will be injurious, insulting, or offensive, coupled with the apparent ability to execute the act. (2) To place the other person in fear of harm to the other person’s property, or harm to the person or property of a third person. 2. 3. This section does not make unlawful the teaching of any technique in self-defense. 3. 4. This section does not make unlawful any activity of any of the following officials or persons: a. Law enforcement officials of this or any other jurisdiction while engaged in the lawful performance of their official duties. b. Federal officials required to carry firearms while engaged in the lawful performance of their official duties. c. Members of the armed forces of the United States or the national guard while engaged in the lawful performance of their official duties. d. Any conservation commission, law enforcement agency, or any agency licensed to provide security services, or any hunting club, gun club, shooting range, or other organization or entity whose primary purpose is to teach the safe handling or use of firearms, archery equipment, or other weapons or techniques employed in connection with lawful sporting or other lawful activity
My Doctor says “I am pioneer of the effects Roundup by Monsanto can cause to the human body after being intentionally exposed to the chemical for over five years on a routine basis.