I have contacted you on several occasions and have yet to get a legitimate response. The fact that I have not had the ability to speak with one individual about my case is unnerving. Here is what happened prior to the FBI and the US Attorney for the Southern District of Iowa got involved in my case.
About the Author 1-18-2019
Good old boy network from hell in Montrose and …
About Mark Conlee
About Mayor Ron Dinwiddie
About Fire Chief/council member/building offici…
About Detective Robert (Bob) Conlee
EFFECTS OF CHEMICALS HAVING DIRECT CONTACT WITH…
About Steven Swan Esq. Keokuk, Ia
Conlee vs. Boatner cause No. EQEQ004304
About Celeste Cirinna, City of Montrose Clerk
About Police Chief Brent Shipman
About Lee County Attorney Michael Short.
About Lee County Sheriff Stacy Weber incomplete…
At this point it was clear that these people were conspiring against my Constitutional Rights. It does not take a law degree to reasonably access this to be supported by the evidence. As well as the following violations of Federal law. 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:
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.
.Iowa Code Sec. 237. Section 729.5, Code 2013, is amended to read as follows: 729.5 Violation of individual rights — penalty. 1. A person, who acts alone, or who conspires with another person or persons, to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate or interfere with any citizen in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to that person by the constitution or laws of the state of Iowa or by the constitution or laws of the United States, and assembles with one or more persons for the purpose of teaching or being instructed in any technique or means capable of causing property damage, bodily injury or death when the person or persons intend to employ those Fri Nov 08 16:03:04 2013 59/65 CH. 90 60 techniques or means in furtherance of the conspiracy, is on conviction, guilty of a class “D” felony. 2. A person intimidates or interferes with another person if the act of the person results in any of the following: a. Physical injury to the other person. b. Physical damage to or destruction of the other person’s property. c. Communication in a manner, or action in a manner, intended to result in either of the following: (1) To place the other person in fear of physical contact which will be injurious, insulting, or offensive, coupled with the apparent ability to execute the act. (2) To place the other person in fear of harm to the other person’s property, or harm to the person or property of a third person. 2. 3. This section does not make unlawful the teaching of any technique in self-defense. 3. 4. This section does not make unlawful any activity of any of the following officials or persons: a. Law enforcement officials of this or any other jurisdiction while engaged in the lawful performance of their official duties. b. Federal officials required to carry firearms while engaged in the lawful performance of their official duties. c. Members of the armed forces of the United States or the national guard while engaged in the lawful performance of their official duties. d. Any conservation commission, law enforcement agency, or any agency licensed to provide security services, or any hunting club, gun club, shooting range, or other organization or entity whose primary purpose is to teach the safe handling or use of firearms, archery equipment, or other weapons or techniques employed in connection with lawful sporting or other lawful activity
When I contacted the FBI division that is listed as covering my area I was in contact with SA Thomas Reinwart. It took over 14 months for Agent Reinwart to clear his schedule to come to my home for the specific purpose of reviewing my hard copy evidence. Reiwart arrived at my home. He advised me that he had no intention of reviewing any hard copy evidence. He advised me to verbally tell him this story. I advised him that it was not possible to verbally tell this story to anyone due to the complexity of the case. He gave me 2 1/2 hours of his time to attempt to hit on the particular violations of Federal law. Two and a half hours after SA Reinwart left my home I receive a letter in the mail from the FBI Washington Division. The letter stated that Agent Reinwart had determined that no violation of Federal law has occurred. The letter was signed by Deputy Assistant Director J.C. Hacker. Who I sent several certified letters to disputing that decision. It does not take a law degree to recognize that an investigation based on hearsay is an incompetent investigation. The general public understands that hearsay is not evidence.
Several weeks later I receive in the mail a letter from SA Reinwart stating that based on the information I told him and the information Sheriff Weber gave a third party, SA Jeff Huber he had determined no violation of Federal law had occurred.
I requested Reinwart to disclose the information Sheriff Weber had given to the third party. Reinwart refused to disclose that information. I know that Sheriff Weber gave false information because he has never reviewed the hard copy evidence either. No authority has reviewed the evidence to date. Withholding evidence that was used to determine if a violation of Federal law has occurred further expands my allegation of conspiracy against rights. Hearsay is not admissible evidence. For Deputy Assistant Director J.C. Hacker to simply ignore the certified letters I sent to him with this information continues to violate my Constitutional Rights guaranteed by Federal law.
At some point during this time I am in contact with Assistant US Attorney Kevin VanderSchel. VanderSchel advised me that he would not prosecute this case. He gave me three different reasons why he would not prosecute this case. With each excuse I submitted evidence that conflicted with what he was claiming. He clearly did not consider my case being relevant enough to review the evidence he did have in this case. His determination of the timeline of events was completely incorrect. He was attempting to claim the statute of limitations had expired. The evidence I sent him confirmed he was incorrect about that issue. The final and fourth time VanderSchel advised he would not prosecute this case was simply because he has attorney discretion and simply does not have to.
I recognize private property rights are considered the most valuable citizen’s rights. Apparently AUSA VanderSchel felt no shame knowing he was given false information that he was basing his first three reasons not to prosecute on. VanderSchel making a determination not to prosecute this case violates his oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America.
I asked AUSA VanderSchel if he had the right to violate a civil court order. VanderSchel advised me that he does have that authority. AUSA VanderSchel knowingly made a false statement by advising me that he had that authority. To disregard a civil court order would in the least require a writ. Had that civil court order been complied to by the local officials initially I would not have suffered nearly the degree of damages that I have suffered at the hands of my Government. At no time has any written law been complied with by any government authority in this case.
My property was taken by use of chemical weapons with intent to eliminate me from my private property. There is no question about that. The evidence supports this to be a fact that is indisputable. SA Thomas Reinwart advised that there is no law against using chemical weapons against citizens. He advised me that terrorist laws only apply to individuals who support terrorists. If that is in fact the law. Then every individual who allowed and assisted my neighbor in using chemical weapons to eliminate me from my private property are in violation of that law.
I am not going to allow this story to be covered up, swept under the rug or accept anything less than my right to due process of the law. My rights under the 14th amendment, the 4th Amendment, the 5th Amendment and I expect those who have taken the oath to uphold the Constitution to prosecute those who have violated that same oath.
I had requested an independent investigation through Congressman Dave Loebsack. I explained clearly the reasons stated above for an independent investigation. The memo must not have gotten through. I receive a letter from Deputy Assistant Calvin Shivers based on the false evidence given in the first letter from Deputy Assistant J.C. Hacker. I attempted to contact Shivers. I am sure he received my email with my concerns. My emails have never received a response
This case is unprecedented. It would be few individuals who would have the lack of morals to use chemicals as a weapon against a fellow human being. In this case an entire group of government officials aided the chemical assault against me. That assault has resulted in chronic health problems that will be life long. I am against requesting an independent investigation based on the hard copy evidence supporting my allegations. The only evidence that has been considered in this case has been hearsay. It goes without saying that the citizens confidence in being able to take the word of any government official to be based on fact has been long gone. If its not admissible in court then its certainly not acceptable to determine if a Federal law has been violated.
I do expect a response to this letter in a timely fashion. Any disputes with the information contained in this letter can be confirmed by an honorable authority personally contacting me. The violations committed against me are in part based on sexual discrimination. I want and deserve and expect to be treated equally to any other citizen of the United States of America.