For those of you that suggest the statute of limitations has expired in regards to my case.
Amendment 5 – Protection of Rights to Life, Liberty, and Property
No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.
I see no reference to a statute of limitations in private property taken without just compensation. In fact it is NEVER to be taken without just compensation. Any untimeliness in my case is due to the negligence of the government officials who have been involved in my case. That is aside from the time in which I was blind and unable to defend myself. The entire amendment had been violated in my case. No justice, no accountability to date. I will not be the only victim in this case, I promise these rights do and will apply to me as they do to every other citizen. https://poisonedbymyneighborfromhell.com
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!
According to AUSA my evidence is assumptive.
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.
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.
Here is the original fraudulent permit issued for Conlee’s new home.
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.
“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.
Really you people who have not read this letter I received from the AUSA read it. The prosecutor’s job is to take the hard copy evidence (not hearsay) and use it to convict the criminals. Using hearsay is not evidence!!! There has never been an authority that has taken the time to review my evidence. He may be assuming my evidence is assumptive, because the SA refused to review my hard copy evidence. This guy needs to resign if he does not know that private property rights are Federally protected. Here are the Federal crimes that my evidence supports beyond a reasonable doubt. These Federal imposters are protecting some of the most hardened organization of crime I have heard of. They nearly killed me. This guy really thinks I should have evidence posted that will implicate the highest ranking law enforcement of the county. Yeah that would be real smart on my part.
10-3-2018 Kevin VanderSchel pg 2
Proof that this violation of Federal law cannot be disputed, the evidence proves this did happen. There is no assumption of any kind. The neighbor admitted to it in a civil court trial. I asked this AUSA if he had the authority to violate a civil court order, he said he did. I do not believe that for a minute. If that were the case why would people bother with having a civil court trial? Liars and thieves are the only thing I recognize from these government officials. I want to see hard copy evidence that he has the right to violate a civil court order. I will not take hearsay to be a fact. I am not suppose to contact his office anymore, He can kiss my butt. He works for me and he will pay the price for lying and conspiring to violate my Federal rights. He won’t take me up on my challenge to fist fight. He must be a puss.
18 U.S.C. § 229
– U.S. Code – Unannotated
Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 229. Prohibited activities
Unlawful conduct. (a)–Except as provided in subsection
(b), it shall be unlawful for any person knowingly–
(1)to develop, produce, otherwise
acquire, transfer directly or indirectly, receive, stockpile, retain, own,
possess, or use, or threaten to use, any chemical weapon; or (2)to assist or induce, in any way, any person to
violate paragraph (1), or to attempt or conspire to violate paragraph (1).
Exempted agencies and persons. (b)—
In general. (1)–Subsection (a) does not apply to
the retention, ownership, possession, transfer, or receipt of a chemical weapon
by a department, agency, or other entity of the United States, or by a person
described in paragraph (2), pending destruction of the weapon.
Exempted persons. (2)–A person referred to in paragraph
(A)any person, including a member of
the Armed Forces of the United States, who is authorized by law or by an
appropriate officer of the United States to retain, own, possess, transfer, or
receive the chemical weapon; or
(B)in an emergency situation, any
otherwise nonculpable person if the person is attempting to destroy or seize
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;
(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
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
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.
Letter sent to the City of Montrose by the State of Iowa agency in charge of Environmental violations. The City followed no laws that are in place to protect all living things from toxic chemicals. This letter was sent to the Street Dept Director at the time. There had never been any chemicals applied anywhere in town except the cemetery by city employees. These chemicals were applied precisely on the city’s easement on my property. Not an inch past my boundary or an inch short of my boundary. Only after Mark Conlee was elected to city council were chemicals applied to the easement.
warning to City poison
Conlee had applied chemicals to my side of our 300′ common boundary the year prior to this. He continued to apply chemicals to my side of the boundary this year and for three years after that. Five years straight I was intentionally exposed to chemicals. I complained to the city. I complained to County attorney Mike Short. Short advised me that Mark Conlee “said”, “he only applied it to the bottom of his side of the fence. Both the city and county attorney had the same reason not to file a criminal complaint against Conlee. They didn’t believe neighbors filing complaints against neighbors was a good thing to do. I was criminally charged by the City and the State on complaints based on “Mark Conlee said” all charges against me were dismissed. Doesn’t the county attorney know that hearsay is not evidence? Mark Conlee “said” many false statements throughout this attack against my person and my property.
chemicals applied to my side of the 300′ common boundary
18 U.S.C. § 229 – U.S. Code – Unannotated Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 229. Prohibited activities
Unlawful conduct. (a) –Except as provided in subsection (b), it shall be unlawful for any person knowingly–
(1) to develop, produce, otherwise acquire, transfer directly or indirectly, receive, stockpile, retain, own, possess, or use, or threaten to use, any chemical weapon; or (2) to assist or induce, in any way, any person to violate paragraph (1), or to attempt or conspire to violate paragraph (1).
Exempted agencies and persons. (b) —
In general. (1) –Subsection (a) does not apply to the retention, ownership, possession, transfer, or receipt of a chemical weapon by a department, agency, or other entity of the United States, or by a person described in paragraph (2), pending destruction of the weapon.
Exempted persons. (2) –A person referred to in paragraph (1) is–
(A) any person, including a member of the Armed Forces of the United States, who is authorized by law or by an appropriate officer of the United States to retain, own, possess, transfer, or receive the chemical weapon; or
(B) in an emergency situation, any otherwise non-culpable person if the person is attempting to destroy or seize the weapon.
Jurisdiction. (c) –Conduct prohibited by subsection (a) is within the jurisdiction of the United States if the prohibited conduct–
(1) takes place in the United States;
(2) takes place outside of the United States and is committed by a national of the United States;
(3) is committed against a national of the United States while the national is outside the United States; or
(4) is committed against any property that is owned, leased, or used by the United States or by any department or agency of the United States, whether the property is within or outside the United States.
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.
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
In my case eminent domain was not used to take my private property. The way this happened was my neighbor took control of my property from me. He unlawfully applied glyphosate to my property. The evidence suggests that this was his intent. I verbally told him no to do anything to my property the day that I saw the chemicals had been applied, he could have care less about what I told him. I requested an incident report that I had told him not to do anything to my property. By intent the Police chief waited 16 months before he gave me that first report. It was completely inadequate as to the facts of the incident. I gave that one back and told him to give me one that explains what when and why I requested one, he gave me a report that was substandard according to the accurate information. If did not make a difference if I ever got one because my attorney did not submit any evidence that would allow the judge to recognize the degree of inhuman treatment. So if control of my property was taken the only statue I can come up with is conspiracy against rights, deprivation of rights under color of law, and assault with intent causing serious injury. I believe the statute of limitations does not apply in cases of torture and serious injury to a person. It isn’t going to in this case. There is no precedence to make it simpler for a pro se case.
Looking for expert answers to this question. If a State district judge makes a ruling in a civil case. Does a Federal Attorney have the right to violate or ignore that district courts ruling without having to appeal or have some type of court hearing to overturn the previous ruling of the District court?
It does not seem reasonable to me that if a District court order has no relevance from the day the case is decided, what is the purpose of even have a District court trial? Just for the attorneys to make money? I am not buying that. I know the attorneys are there to make money but I do believe that a court order is intended to be complied to until an different determines it is not. I do not believe that AUSA Kevin VanderSchel in his position as Assistant Prosecuting Attorney for the Southern District of Iowa has any power to simply ignore a court order as he advised me he did. I think he is knowingly making false statements. Someone show me a document that gives that power to an attorney. I do not have any reason to believe one word that comes from the mouth of any government official. Hearsay is not evidence, even the common citizen knows that.
Let me ask you, what would you do if someone was intentionally doing something on your private property that was causing you or your family to suffer severely. Even after you asked this person to stop, they continued to use your private property in a way that caused harm to you or your family?
This guy takes the cake. Like if its not on this website it there must not be evidence, pretty assumptive of the AUSA for the Southern District of Iowa. Chemical warfare has nearly cost me my life and he thinks its a good idea to put all my evidence out here for the public to view, even the deranged people who used chemical warfare to eliminate me from my property. What is it that he is calling assumptive? All the evidence I have posted is hard copy original documents. If he cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that chemical weapons were used to eliminate me from my private property when even a civil court order or no law enforcement would stop him from applying chemicals to MY property, he should really find a new job. This case is cut and dry. Any reasonable person who would read the evidence I have posted has no doubt this was an intentional act. This evidence is based on facts, SA Reinwart wanted to used hearsay evidence, when the hard copy evidence is right in front of him. He wasted tax payer money to travel clear to the tip of Iowa to refuse to review hard copy evidence and ask for hearsay. When a person knows he is causing another person physical harm and doesn’t stop what he is doing to cause it, its pretty obvious why he is doing it. There is nothing that I have posted that does not have hard copy evidence to support. Reinwart did not follow procedure for investigation and you have not followed procedure for prosecuting criminals. VanderSchel you are assuming that reasonable people do not know it is illegal to do anything to another person property, not to mention unheard of act of chemical warfare as stated by the EPA field investigator. That is a F(&99+ fact. And I have to mention that you advised me that you would not be the person prosecuting this case anyway so why do you think you have any input about this case at all? You are assuming you have some kind of authority over a case that you are not the prosecutor of. That show a defect in your personality any reasonable person can determine that to be a fact also. An attorney of minimum experience could win this case. The evidence is solid as a rock. Not the hearsay, the hard copy evidence. Hearsay does not stand up in court, don’t you know that?
Here is an example of how well FBI SA and the AUSA reviewed my evidence. In this letter the AUSA claims that most of the activity occurred 2003-2005. It is well documented that 2003-2005 is when the City allowed for the non compliant to State building code structures built on Mark Conlee’s nonconforming lot to be built. If they would have actually reviewed my evidence, instead of asking that I tell them this complex story they would have discovered the chemical warfare started in 2005-2010, during that time I was unable to get any protection of the law, there was a civil trial that the court ruled in my favor, however Conlee would not comply with that court order and the chemical attack continued on a weekly basis. There is nothing in this letter that is based on the facts the evidence supports. VanderSchel has advised that he has reviewed my website. He could not have mistaken the timeline if he actually had reviewed it. VanderSchel the chemical poisoning began in 2005. Are you being intentionally negligent? I also advised you that when I was forced to flee from my property because I could get no law enforcement to stop this man from applying the toxic chemicals to my property, the full body skin condition was so severe it was unbearable to wear clothes, I was blind, and I was homeless for the following 4 years. So that takes us up to 2014 before I was able to make contact with anyone who has the duty to protect my Constitutional Rights. SA Reinwart does not know that private property rights are Federally protected rights. He does not seem to know about any Federal laws except hate crimes. He did not review my evidence, He did not interview any of my witnesses, he did not interview my Drs., he did not interview the perps or he could have easily charged them with lying to the Feds. You tell me Mr. VanderSchel just what did SA Reinwart do to investigate my allegation. You claim that the statute of limitations had expired between 2013 and 2016, am I responsible to make Reinwart investigate in a timely fashion? I couldn’t even get him to review the hard copy evidence which was the purpose for him to come to my home 16 months after I contacted him. I had previously contacted a female agent from the Hiawatha division and was waiting some time for her to respond as she advised she would, finally I telephoned the number I had previously contacted her with, Reinwart answered and advise that she had been transferred. Is it my responsibility to call and check if an agent has been transferred? I have not read that as a standard procedure for complainants. Not to mention my emails to the Omaha division, and telephone calls to the Washington DC headquarters. I have gone above and beyond reasonable efforts to contact an FBI agent. Senator Grassley advised me in 2009 that an agent would be contacting me. I waited 10 years then I got impatient. Its not as if I have physically recovered from the chemicals illegally applied to my property without any protection of the law and my private property rights for those significant 5 long years.
I was speaking with the AUSA. He seemed quite sarcastic in all his statements. One statement in particular I really question. I asked him if you had the authority not to honor the ruling made in the civil court trial. He advised that he could completely ignore that order. I think in order for anyone to violate a court order they would have to appeal that decision. Who can answer that question? If that were the case why even bother with a civil court trial? I think the AUSA is full of himself and lying more often that he has told me the truth. Then he advised me that he would not be the prosecutor if I could ever get a prosecutor to file a complaint on my behalf. My question to that is why is he even involving himself in this case when he has no authority to prosecute? He wouldn’t give me the contact info for the correct prosecutor, not that the correct prosecutor has not been completely convinced of the lies that this sarcastic prosecutor has been willing to accept as fact. Who do these people think they are that they can violate my Federally protected rights any more that the locals already have. Terrorist acts using chemical weapons is a serious criminal offense. I think they have to prosecute crimes that are this serious. Crimes that chemical weapons have been used for force me from my property? According to the incompetent FBI agent is not a violation of Federal law. Where did he get his education?
Feeling defeated I returned home, pretty disappointed in being deceived by the information posted on the FBI website. I continued to correspond with this particular agent. Eventually (16 months) we set a date for him to come to my home specifically to review my evidence. My evidence has to date never been reviewed by any State or Federal authority. When he arrived he informed me that he did not intend to review anything. Relevant to this case is the fact that the County Sheriff had taken it upon himself to contact a FBI friend of his. I do not know what information the Sheriff gave him. I requested that information be shared with me to give me the opportunity to prove the hearsay was false. I was denied access to that information. There is clearly a conflict of interest between the Sheriff and the opposing party. I emailed a newspaper article supporting the conflict of interest and he seemed to take a little more interest in what I was telling him.
The agent sitting on my sofa refused to review the hard copy evidence requested that I verbally tell him the story. I advised him that I could not verbally tell this story to anyone. This story is too complex to be comprehended verbally. He was not willing to accept anything else. I skipped around on different issues in this case. After 21/2 hours he advised me that he was not going to submit my case to the US Attorney because he claims there was no Federal law violated. I completely disagree. Private property rights are Federally protected rights. I also allege conspiracy against right, deprivation of rights under color of law, and torture. He advised me of three different versions of how he got this case to the AUSA. I think it was the third and final version was how he did it. He submitted my case orally to a third party who in turn verbally told the story to the AUSA. Now knowing that this agent did not have the information needed to submit a complete complaint to anyone, how can this be considered competent? Also my allegation of conspiracy against rights, I had done all the leg work in this case. I did not have the authority to look into financial records for any transaction that could be found indicating a payment (bribe) had been paid. He had that authority and never bothered to use his authority to investigate that. I allege deprivation of rights under color of law. This is easy to recognize from the hard copy evidence I have. This neighbor was attacking me with chemicals used as a weapon for over 5 years as routinely as he mows his yard. Once a week would be an accurate claim. He did it as if it were part of his yard maintenance. Again private property rights are Federally protected rights. This agent would never acknowledge this is a fact, I assume he is ignorant about Federal law. His expertise is in hate crimes. He recognized right away that this was not a hate crime. My case is not alleging hate crime so perhaps he should not have been the investigator. My case requires the knowledge of Federal rights, as described in public corruption guidelines. The FBI website claims they hold a high priority in exposing public corruption. That is a false statement. There could be no stronger case with evidence so solid in supporting public corruption in my local government officials. The violation of civil rights, civil liberties, and Constitutional rights cannot be denied. My right to equal protection of the law, assault with chemical weapons resulting in torture is undeniable by the evidence I have. The intent of my local government officials was to eliminate me from my property using chemicals as weapons. The fact that local law enforcement did not want to make this neighbor says plenty about how this brutal attack occurred. It says much more about the character of this neighbor. There is nothing he would not do to achieve his goal to acquire my property for the purpose of making his illegal property redevelopment recordable on the county plat map without having to remove the noncompliant structures from his small non conforming lot. The environmental factors putting my health in serious harm is also a Federal environmental violation.
This SA who had done nothing to investigate my allegations advised me that he had make his determination not to further investigate based on what I had told him compared to what the Sheriff had told his colleague. This means that the Sheriff’s word was found to be more credible than my word. I have evidence that proves the Sheriff acted unethical, has made false statements to me and has received stolen property that belongs to me. The statistics support any law enforcement officer will knowingly make false statements or turn a blind eye to the officers serving under him in unethical behavior. There is no evidence that I have misled or made false statements about any of my allegations. This SA is incompetent and I am requesting new investigation based on the allegations stated in this letter. Having no contact information for a higher FBI authority this is my formal request. I am requesting a tolling of the statute of limitation due to the incompetence that has occured throughout this case. I don’t care who you are, nobody has the right to do anything to another person’s property.
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.”—Thomas Jefferson We are approaching critical mass, the point at which all hell breaks loose. The government is pushing us ever closer to a constitutional crisis. What makes the outlook so much bleaker […]
Our local media publisher Chuck Vanderburg has been following my story since the beginning. I don’t know exactly what set him off, but he has blocked me from sending him emails. Interesting. He seemed to always have a high opinion of our County Sheriff. So if he should happen to lurk on my site here is what I want him to know.
I don’t know how long I have been blocked. I rarely even want to comment on any of your stuff. But once in a while I see something that is so conflicting with what I have experienced I have to comment. Not that you will publish it, but so you will personally know the facts and my feeling about something you are publishing. I feel sorry for you. You do not feel that individual rights are as important if not more important than your relationship with Sheriff Weber, He has proven criminal behavior of being a low life scoundrel matching the character of the rest of his group of organized self serving imposters. How these people can so easily put on such a phoney mask to the reality of what they are achieving behind the backs of unsuspecting citizens is unreal. It is a learned behavior. I am naive. You had me fooled. Weber’s commitment to the Conlee’s is a much higher degree than his representation of the written law. IMO as a media representative you have an ethical duty to the citizens to be truthful and expose wrongdoers. You have the tool to help society in general but do not utilize it for the good of the people. But you have made the decision to oppress the story and in effect have contributed a large amount of the brutality that has been committed against me as a human being. Shame on you for playing with my life by not publishing the evidence that you know full well is completely based on facts. Whatever Chuck, one day everything will be public. Never give up your 1st Amendment rights under pressure of retaliation. All my best,
Investigations by the FBI are premised upon the fundamental duty of government to protect the public against general crimes, against organized criminal activity, and against those who would threaten the fabric of our society through terrorism or mass destruction. That duty must be performed with care to protect individual rights and to insure that investigations are confined to matters of legitimate law enforcement interest. The purpose of these Guidelines, therefore, is to establish a consistent policy in such matters. The Guidelines will enable Agents of the FBI to perform their duties with greater certainty, confidence and effectiveness, and will provide the American people with a firm assurance that the FBI is acting properly under the law.
What’s the deal here? Are there any areas within the USA that are excluded? Because the SA that investigated my case did not follow anything about these guidelines, nor did he recognize that private property rights were Federally protected. Who doesn’t know that without having been trained to be an FBI agent?
I have gotten no answers. With every new contact I am left with even more questions. I want to know.
How did it take eleven years for my complaint to get from Senator Grassley to the AUSA.
How can this case even claim to have been investigated by the FBI, when the SA refused to review the hard copy evidence. My allegations of a conspiracy against rights would have to have financial records investigated to find if a bribe has been taken. That is what I told the SA. The FBI website states that the FBI works 24 hours per day, 7 days a week. That is false. I traveled to Cedar Rapids and arrived at 2:30 p.m. I telephone the FBI headquarters from the parking lot and advised him that I was there to speak with someone. (Determined that somebody was going to review my solid evidence) I was advised that it was to late in the day to speak with anyone. I advised the SA that I would get a room and be there first thing in the morning. SA advised me that it would not be possible to speak with anyone the following day due to it being a Federal holiday. It was Columbus Day. It took 16 months for this SA to clear his schedule enough to come to my home. He stayed 2 1/2 hours, checking his watch repeatedly. I assume he was attempting to make it back to headquarters by 5 p.m. So for anyone who really believes the FBI is an honorable agency holding a high priority to exposing public corruption you are completely misled.
The AUSA knows that the FBI investigator was incompetent. He knows the FBI SA gave him false information. He has determined to use attorney discretion for no reason, and certainly not within the suggested guidelines for doing so.
This gang rape by my local and Federal government officials is completely illegal, immoral and in violation of Federal law. The AUSA needs to find a new job supporting corrupt government officials and not falsely assume the position of duty that does cover this type of prosecution.
Neither the FBI SA or the AUSA is aware that private property rights are Federally protected rights. They are not qualified to hold their positions if they do not even know what the Federal law protects.
I want answers to these three questions. I want them now.
A Chemical Weapon is a chemical used to cause intentional death or harm through its toxic properties. Munitions, devices and other equipment specifically designed to weaponize toxic chemicals also fall under the definition of chemical weapons.
The prohibition of the use of herbicides as a method of warfare is recognised in the CWC Preamble. However, herbicides are not defined specifically in the Convention.
Herbicides that are intentionally used to harm humans or animals through chemical action on life processes could be considered a chemical weapon under the general purpose criteria.”
I have never claimed my damages occurred in 2003-2005, that is when the illegal property redevelopment was going on. My allegations of conspiracy against rights and deprivation of rights under color of law began in 2005 with the most recent occurring in April 2017. If anyone actually felt they had a duty to actually read my complaint there would be no mistaking of timelines. But in this case we rely on what someone who was not interested in the first place tell their version of the story to a third party. That is hearsay, which is not evidence that is allowed in court or in any reasonable investigation. Mr. VanderSchel, how about I send a copy of my complaint directly to you. You read the entire complaint and then you may be more able to base a decision on what the complaint states. Your information is incorrect. I should not have to continue to beg for justice based on people being misinformed as to that the evidence supports.
I contacted Senator Grassley in 2007, he forwarded my information to the FBI. Are you telling me it has taken 11 years for my case to get from the Senator to the hands of the US attorney and the information is not based on the information in the written complaint I submitted to the local FBI agent. This local agent told me 3 different versions of what would happen after I submitted my complaint to him. I do not have any evidence that he even submitted my written complaint. I have evidence that the most recent act of conspiracy happened in April 2017 well within the statute of limitations. I have not been negligent in anyway of not submitting timely complaints. How in the hell does it take 11 years for a complaint to get from a Senator to a US Attorney.
Somebody has some splanin to do. Where is the written complaint I submitted to the local FBI?
652. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR CONSPIRACY
Conspiracy is a continuing offense. For statutes such as 18 U.S.C. § 371, which require an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy, the statute of limitations begins to run on the date of the last overt act. SeeFiswick v. United States, 329 U.S. 211 (1946); United States v. Butler, 792 F.2d 1528 (11th Cir. 1986). For conspiracy statutes which do not require proof of an overt act, such as RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961) or 21 U.S.C. § 846, the government must allege and prove that the conspiracy continued into the limitations period. The crucial question in this regard is the scope of the conspiratorial agreement, and the conspiracy is deemed to continue until its purpose has been achieved or abandoned. SeeUnited States v. Northern Imp. Co., 814 F.2d 540 (8th Cir. 1987); United States v. Coia, 719 F.2d 1120 (11th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 973 (1984).
An individual’s “withdrawal” from a conspiracy starts the statute of limitations running as to that individual. “Withdrawal” from a conspiracy for this purpose means that the conspirator must take affirmative action by making a clean breast to the authorities or communicating his or her disassociation to the other conspirators. SeeUnited States v. Gonzalez, 797 F.2d 915 (10th Cir. 1986).