Old draft that I never published concerning witnesses on my behalf.

 My complaint is against local City and County officials. My personal knowledge of duties and standard procedures regulated for Cities to enforce comes from the fact that my father was (official title at that time, 1970-1980’s) Acting Street Commissioner of a neighboring City. I am very confident in my knowledge and understanding of the laws and procedures pertaining to the duties of a City to provide its residents. My complaint is complex due to unprecedented turn over of City officials, one example is the fact that within 5 years the City had 4 different Mayor. Similar circumstances apply to the City Council and Police Dept. Another unprecedented fact is that chemicals were used as a weapon to force me from my property, either by fleeing or cause my death. The evidence proving this is by a report from an EPA investigation among other sources. I am sure you are ready to dismiss this letter under the assumption that I have some kind of mental disorder. I understand that to be the opinion of most individuals and the fact that my allegations are truly unbelievable has hindered my attempts to expose those who have violated me. I believe my case is the most outrageous case of pubic corruption since the civil rights laws were passed in the 60’s. I have figuratively been raped by local officials. The evidence will prove that I have been literally been

 

Oppressed from my rights to free speech in a public forum.

My evidence is documented by public record

My evidence is documented by photographs

My evidence verified by a compelling list of  witnesses including but not limited to

 1)    brother of Mayor #1 retired from lifelong career Street   Dept. for neighboring City

2) Son of council member and chief of fire dept.

3) Former council member

4) Chief of Police #1

5) County Extension Agent (expert)

6) neighbors 

7) Professional Contractors

8) County Supervisor

9) State Representative (ret)

 

10) Pastor local church

11) Mutual friends of conspirators and complainant

12) Court records

13) Public records containing statements that the Official implicated himself.

14) Medical records and photos documenting the severity in which the chemicals had on my skin.

15) Numerous police reports and court records

The evidence I have is well documented, proving continuous serious criminal offenses have been covered up, and even participated in to abuse my rights under Color of Law. The intent is clear by reviewing the evidence. 

I have reason to believe that the individual who these officials were acting on behalf of to be a psychopath, I believe he is absolutely is capable of causing my death. I request that my identity not be disclosed until an expert in behavior analysis review my evidence. Due to prior experience I have no doubts that I or any person associating with me will be targeted and put in harms way.

I request that an expert in that behavioral analysis review the evidence I have in my possession. Prior to any interrogation of the of the individual I allege are involved simply because of the known calculated ways a psychopath manipulates his victims, text book behavior couldn’t be more spot on.

This attack has been ongoing over a period of 7 years. Beginning with a smear campaign. I do not have the education or computer skills to properly submit my evidence in a written form, Due to the turnover of City officials my story is difficult to explain verbally. I swear this is a true story of extreme criminal acts and brutality by local government officials. I have followed all standard procedures to remedy my situation including a civil case that ruled in my favor citing my right to enjoy property resulting in the court order being violated for no other reason than to prove my only option to escape the chemical weapon is to sell my property and flee or die trying.

Sincerely,
Melody Boatner

9-1-2005 Johnson to Swan letter, full of false statements

TELEPHONE 372-2532 AREA CODE 319 FAX 372-792

 

E-MAIL Johnson@chmi

September 1, 2005

Steve Swan

1013 Concert Street

Keokuk, Iowa 52632

Re: Melody Boatner – Mark and Linda Conlee

Dear Steve:

Ms. Boatner has had major surface water problems since she bought her home. That’s because her lot is lower than the land around it.¹ That was true before my clients added dirt to level their lot. Before my client’s lot was leveled, it steeped more sharply towards Ms. Boatner’s property and sent more water her way.² Also, my clients built their new home deeper in the lot then the prior owner’s house, which results in roof water draining towards Mr. Boatner’s back year instead of towards her home.³ The old driveway described as a “berm” was man-made and apparently altered the natural flow of surface waters to Ms. Boatner’s benefit. Because it was man-made, my clients had the right to remove it They have plans to build a raised garden in the same general vicinity as the old driveway, which may similarly benefit Ms. Boatner.

Mark suggested to Ms. Boatner that she lay tile around the perimeter of her house. That would have been a simple,but effective remedy for Ms. Boatner, but she’s not done that. Mark and Linda attended a council meeting and convinced the city to dig a drainage ditch in front of their properties. Ms. Boatner stood to benefit from that proposal, but didn’t bother to attend the council meeting. She later complained that she has to maintain the drainage ditch that was installed as a result of my clients’ efforts.

Mark and Linda are trying to get along with Ms. Boatner. They will not, however, agree to a drainage ditch on their land. In addition to being unsightly, a ditch would be a maintenance problem and a liability concern. Ms. Boatner is, of course, free to do what she wants on her own land.

I think we can resolve this dispute if we all meet at the properties and discuss the options.

                                                                                      Very truly yours,

                                                                                                   Gregory A J

                                                                                                    GAJ/tas Cc: client

Completely false statement. A Review the transcripts and an email to Boatner from Steve Swan ESQ will show Conlee’s only witness testified Boatners property never received stormwater runoff from Conlee property. Water damage was caused by stormwater running from the city street which Boatner remedied before she repaired the water damage to her home when she purchased it in 1995.. Witnesses Randy Kirchner and Stuart Westermeyer were prepared to testify to this. Boatner’s attorney Steven Swan ESQ intentionally suppressed their testimony and affidavits from the court. Swam conspired to violate Boatners State and Federal right to enjoy her own property.
Expert witness on Boatners behalf Robert Dodds was prepared to testify that a berm and swale that has been in place for 10 years is considered existing and cannot be removed, Boatner’s attorney suppressed Dodds testimony
There is no reason Boatner should have to make any alterations to her property do to a neighbor’s illegal property redevelopment. That is not typical or acceptable by any reasonable standard. It would have been reasonable for the building official to do his duty and oversee compliance to State building laws. This redevelopment was not to code by review of blueprints.
There is no reason Boatner should have to make any alterations to her property do to a neighbor’s illegal property redevelopment. That is not typical or acceptable by any reasonable standard. It would have been reasonable for the building official to do his duty and oversee compliance to State building laws. This redevelopment was not to code by review of blueprints.
5 This is so outrageous and false it is unbelievable. Any reasonable person can visually see the increased stormwater to Boatners property is a direct result of Conlee’s illegal property redevelopment. The Conlees never had a ditch install

 

In a nutshell, Mark Conlee is a habitual liar. He is obsessed in attempting to make me take down the privacy curtain. He is intent on acquiring my property. I know I was losing my life to these chemicals. At what point does the law determine his actions become intentional to cause me serious injury or death, after my death? Please advise.

The City of Montrose, Iowa and the Lee County Attorney along with a couple Lee County Sheriff’s officers violated my Federal and State Constitutional Rights.  Mark Conlee began unlawfully applying chemicals to my property beginning in early 2005. Mr. Conlee purchased the nonconforming lot in 2002 from Mayor Ron Dinwiddie. Mr. Conlee was issue an incomplete building permit by building official Mark Holland. The position of building official is appointed to a council member by the Mayor. Mayor Dinwiddie makes a conflicting statement about the city having a building official at a city council meeting in Jan. 2005.

Marks intention to unlawfully apply the chemicals to my property was with intent to cause my person and property serious injury.   Local law enforcement denied me equal protection of the law and due process providing me no access to the court.

When Mark Conlee filed a civil complaint against me for putting up a legal privacy curtain. I am aware that he told the general public that he won the case, but he lied.  His case was dismissed. He committed multiple counts of perjury in this 3 day imaginary pursuit of justice. The evidence that is mentioned in the transcripts of this case being submitted by the plaintiff, I never saw. The evidence that I had given my attorney, was never submitted to the court.  The case that I hired an attorney to represent me was as the plaintiff and was against the City of Montrose, Ia. My attorney advised me that we would sue both parties, adding that “the city is where the money is at.” I never found out the truth until the last day of this civil case filed against me by Mark and Linda Conlee. When I was served papers that the Conlee’s were suing me, well, I was quite surprised. There was no person willing to protect my rights or unwilling to commit a crime on behalf of Mark and Linda Conlee. There has to be a reason for the intentional disregard for all laws in this case. The most common reason for treason is greed. As I have said on numerous occasions. My case is about criminal offences committed against me by my local government officials. As this crimes were committed I was advised that I could not file any civil complaints alleging criminal offenses. I have been advised by the County clerk only the County Attorney has that authority. I have been advised this is a private case, but I have no authority to file a criminal complaint against these conspirators. During every criminal act that was committed against me there were two or more individuals involved in the act. The explanation of this judge is based on no factual evidence. The factual evidence was suppressed  by my attorney. This ruling was based on hearsay of what Mark Conlee said and it makes no sense at all. Illegal removal of an existing berm is what several of my experts were prepared to testify to had they been given the opportunity. Or had the written affidavits been submitted to the court. All the stormwater from this long narrow lot of property was diverted onto my property after the illegal property redevelopment was completed. Mark Conlee did illegally change the frontage of his property but swore under oath that he did not. Photo evidence that my attorney suppressed proves that without any doubt. In spite of my witnesses not being questioned at all by my attorney. In spite of my attorney’s opinion that my witnesses were “experts in their own right”, and a “compelling list of witnesses”. The judge still dismiss Mark Conlee’s civil case against me. Had this judge been given the evidence and heard the testimony my witnesses were prepared to testify to. Mark Conlee was not the liable party in the case I hired an attorney for. I do not know the purpose my attorney advised me that we would sue both parties. I do not know why my attorney required $100 on that first day specifically to cover the filing fee for the complaint against the city but never filed the complaint. I do not know why my attorney reassured me throughout this time line that he had filed the complaint against the city when he knew full well he had not. I have an idea as to why he misrepresented this client. Any reasonable person could only come to the conclusion that I have as to why this many government officials would commit criminal offenses on behalf of  Mark Conlee. I have been waiting patiently for the government official with the authority to further investigate what I have no authority to investigate the most reasonable conclusion as to how this happened in the USA. I am still being advised this is a private issue. I have read hard copy evidence that this is what the Federal government considers a high priority. The hard copy evidence is more reasonable than hearsay with no evidence to support this is a private issue. As I have no authority to file a criminal complaint of conspiracy against rights against the City and County. Only prosecutors have the authority to file criminal complaints against anyone as I understand it. I do know for a fact that the liable party in my case initially is the City of Montrose, Iowa. The building official has the duty to review the blueprints. Site layout and drainage are the first steps any reasonable person does when constructing or redeveloping. The building official assures compliance to State laws not the neighbor. This has been a premeditated act since the day Mark Conlee’s redevelopment was rejected from being recorded on the County plat map. This was a premeditated plan to eliminate me from my property. This is a case of violation of my State and Federal Constitutional RIghts and justice will be served.

9-18-2006 findings of fact pg 9.jpg

Conlee vs Boatner finding of facts, page 9

 

Though the City police refused to acknowledge my Constitutional rights, the Civil court did. The judge cited in this page of the court transcripts “my right to use my property as I see fit”. That is a Federal and State Constitutional Right. This right is never to be taken. Conlee committed perjury in nearly every statement he made in the courtroom. My attorney Steve Swan conspired with Conlee to suppress evidence. He never question any of my “compelling list of witnesses nor did he submit photo evidence or the witnesses affidavits to the court. The judge based his ruling on the testimony of Conlee’s witness. The judge misquoted that witness. The judge claims she said the Boatner property always received stormwater runoff from the Conlee property. That is not what she said. My attorney knew the judge misquoted Ms. Adkins as he stated in an email he sent me after the written ruling was sent in the USPS mail. I recognized he misquoted her testimony as soon as I read the court ruling. Relevant is the fact that when I received the written decision I was advised by my attorney that I only had 7 days to file an appeal, he did not want the case. What she actually said was nearly word for word what my witness, Ms Adkins ex-husband was prepared to testify on the stand and did state in his written affidavit. Unfortunately my attorney failed to question my witnesses or submit the affidavits to the court. This can not be dismissed as an incompetent attorney. He would never have passed the bar. Attorney Steve Swan conspired with Conlee to assist him in acquiring my property by the use of chemicals weapons with intent to cause me serious injury. Swan knew this before we went to court. tHad he intended to represent my best interest he would have file the complaint against the City of Montrose as I hired him to do, and he pretended he had up until the final day of the civil case Conlee filed against me. He would have amended the counter complaint against in the Conlee case for trespassing at least.

 

9-18-2006 findings of fact pg 6

9-18-2006 findings of fact pg 6

 

The following documents are and could have easily been recognized by the judge as Conlee’s admission of his illegal property redevelopment being the cause of the nuisance drainage issue that occurred to my property after the development was completed. Steve Swan also kept these documents suppressed from the court.

6-5-2006 Conlee offer to settle out of court

Lee County Extension agent was prepared to testify that the Iowa drainage law is that a redevelopment cannot produce more stormwater runoff to a neighboring property than before the redevelopment. In this case just the massive roof surfaces of the new structures increased the stormwater runoff to Boatner’s property significantly. Apparently the judge was not given the photo’s of before and after the redevelopment or was not clear about the Iowa stormwater drainage law.

There was no mention of the building permit for the home requiring the signature of the builder not being signed by the builder but was approved by the city building official. Or the fact that public record shows Mayor Dinwiddie acknowledges that fact just prior to me submit the unsigned building permit to him. He took no action to require the building authority to follow through with standard procedure in Conlee’s illegal property redevelopment. Mayor Dinwiddie states on public record that a redevelopment cannot have structures larger than the existing structures. All law were violated by Conlee and he was supported completely by the local authorities despite the state of despair I was suffering as a result of my State and Federal right being violated ongoing for a period of over 5 years.  The building official has the duty to remedy issues between property owners regarding new property redevelopment, he refused. The City police have the duty to protect my rights, in this case they not only allowed my rights to be violated but assisted in the violation of my rights.

6-5-2006 Conlee 1st offer to settle out of court

 

6-22-2006 2nd offer by Conlee admitting liability for drainage

6-22-2006 2nd offer by Conlee admitting liability for drainage

By the Judge recognizing my right to do what I want with my property, I find it reasonable to believe that would include my right to determine that no chemicals be unlawfully applied. That was not what happened after this case. The chemicals continued to be applied. Lee County attorney sent Deputy Dave Hunold to my house to investigate a second allegation that “Mark Conlee said” I had given him the finger. I advised Hunold that I wanted to file a trespassing complaint. He advised me after reviewing the court order that the judge did not specify no chemicals so he did not think a trespassing complaint was applicable. I thought to myself are you kidding me? He also advised me that he was only at my house to investigate a complaint made by Mark Conlee that I gave him the finger for the second time. The actions of officer Hunold support a conspiracy to deprive me of my rights under color of law and contempt of court which I have no authority to file a criminal complaint against.

If it is true there is no Federal law against terrorism, as I have been advised then this evidence supports this was an act of Conspiracy against rights. This evidence supports this was an act of deprivation of rights under color of law. Both of which are violations of Federal laws.

sincerely,

Melody Boatner.

Gallery

Attorney fails to file complaint, lies to client claiming he did. Client gets sued by illegal property redeveloper for frivolous complaint. Is it typical for a person to sue you and offer 2 out of court settlements? Judge dismisses case, Police chief assists in violating court ruling, contempt is a criminal law.

This gallery contains 4 photos.

Conlee sues Boatner for installing privacy curtain. Boatner was well within her legal rights to install a privacy curtain. The fact that he is and has been routinely unlawfully trespassing by applying toxic chemicals to her property having been told not to. He sues her for using her property as she chose to assuring no encroachment on Conlee’s property indicates Conlee has a personality disorder. Continue reading

Link

Witnesses on Boatner’s behalf

These individuals were intended to be witnesses in a case that should have been titled Boatner vs. City of Montrose, Ia, that is what Steve Swan was hired to do, that complaint was never filed. Steve Swan assured me that he filed the complaint against the city several times,it was he that advised me that we would sue both parties, the city and Mark Conlee. I was well aware that the liability was that of the city, Steve Swan was aware of that also. I met with him the first time so I could question his knowledge of the law pertaining to property redevelopment, legally nonconforming properties and the duty a city must provide for the residents. He was overpaid according to his own documented statements of evidence.  Steve Swan was intentionally negligent, no attorney could pass the bar showing the skills he showed throughout this untimely process. Lee County Attorney Michael Short sent a deputy to investigate a complaint made by Mark Conlee against me, claiming he was concerned  that there may be a conflict of interest. My witnesses were never interviewed by the City of Montrose Police Dept or Lee County Sheriff’s Dept. Mark Conlee make multiple false police reports against Boatner. Conlee was never concerned of being held accountable by the City of Montrose or Lee County Attorney Michael Short for his many criminal offenses including contempt of court. They fully participated in every action he requested, legal or illegal, nobody showed any concern for the law that they were violating by participating.

Documented evidence proves Lee County Attorney Michael Short advised Boatner that he would need and independent investigation. I am not certain what County Attorney Short meant by “an independent investigation”. Due to the fact that none of my witnesses were ever interviewed in what would be considered a typical investigation. I stated that I wanted an investigation I am still today  patiently waiting to hear from Lee County Attorney Short as the the results of his independent investigation.

My witnesses took the stand to testify on my behalf in a civil suit Mark Conlee filed against me. Conlee vs Boatner EQEQ 004043 cause of action, loss of enjoyment to his property. They were not question by Steve Swan. My first witness was a former tenant of the Conlee property, well aware of the existing berm and the fact that when it rained the berm held back the stormwater from my property causing the front yard of Conlee property to retain a small pond. Swan never asked him any questions. I asked him why he didn’t question that witness about the berm. Steve Swan advised me that the judge uses his own common sense. In the previous criminal cases against me I never had to speak a word as the evidence was undeniable. Had Steve Swan submitted the written affidavits and photo evidence that supported my allegations. Unfortunately Steve Swan was to incompetent to file a complaint against the liable party, the City of Montrose, question the witnesses who should have been viewed as experts in their field, notify me in a timely manner that a decision had been made.

5-13-2005 Letter from Lee County Extension Agent including Professional Opinion on Nuisance Drainage Issue

Due to the fact that after multiple requests from Boatner for the building administrator Mark Holland to come to the location and address her concerns, he refused.  A witness was prepared to testify that she asked Holland if he was going to go to the location and address Boatner’s concerns. He replied that he had no intention of going to Boatner’s to address her concerns.  Knowing that the expert on this situation would be the local FEMA director Steve Cirinna. Knowing that a conflict of interest exists due to the fact the he is the husband of the city clerk Celeste Cirinna his opinion was not an option. Through a referral from the internet source Boatner contacted Lee County Extension Agent Robert Dodds for an opinion regarding the nuisance drainage issue. Mr. Dodds did come to the location as a professional courtesy.  Mr Dodds noticed some discrepancies that I had not, I only noticed that the building permit was not signed by the builder as required by State of Iowa law. The following letter was written to me advising me of his opinion to some questions I had asked him. A copy was also sent to Mayor Dinwiddie along with a copy of the State drainage laws. This letter was never discussed privately with Boatner or at a public council meeting. This letter was not submitted as ongoing business to the next elected administration of Mayor Tony Sciumbato . This expert’s opinion was ignored in this case, yet there are numerous instances unrelated to Conlee-Boatner nuisance drainage issue in which public record shows Mr. Dodds opinion was requested and respected. At this point any reasonable person would recognize a conspiracy to deprive me of my Federal Constitutional Right to Equal Protection of the Law and my Right to Enjoy my own Property at the least of the issues in this case.
5-13-2005 Bob Dodds letter to Mayor Dinwiddie

5-13-2005 Lee County, Ia extension agent Bob Dodds letter answering questions Boatner has asked, identifying errors or violations of drainage laws to Boatner and  Mayor Dinwiddie. He included a copy of the Iowa storm water management regulations.

Image

3-10-2005 Foreseeable adverse effects to Boatner property have occurred crawlspace and back yard.


This is the damage to my foundation due to the illegal removal of the existing berm by Mark Conlee. I requested multiple times for the building official to come to the location and address my concerns. Conlee’s will claim that the damage was caused by storm water runoff coming from the street. However it has already been established that Boatner hand dug the ditches bordering her property upon purchase in 1995. Prior to repairing all damage caused by the lack of maintenance by the city of many years. This photo is from the basement of  Boatner’s home. Shot toward the right front corner, The front of the house facing 5th St is dry, easy to distinguish by the light color. The left side of this photo is the side of the home that faces Conlee’s property. Easy to distinguish this soil is saturated by storm water caused by illegal removal of existing berm by Mark Conlee along with the regrading of his entire lot due to him changing the frontage ¹ of his new home to be toward the alley. He regraded the entire lot downward to drain onto Boatner’s property.

¹Conlee committed perjury in civil court Conlee vs Boatner Eqeq 

This photo shows the soil saturated and the foundation washed out, this is the side of the house that faces Conlee’s property. According to witnesses Tonya Adkins and Stuart Westermeyer both former owners testified that the property never received storm water runoff from the Conlee property. When there was a heavy rainfall because of the berm the front yard of the Conlee property became a pond,the berm held all the water from running onto Boatner’s property. Witnesses were prepared to testify to all this and I have written affidavits stating this as true. Attorney Steve Swan failed to submit affidavits and to question witnesses on my behalf in a civil suit Conlee filed against me for loss of enjoyment to his property. Yes that is a tell tale sign of narcissistic personality disorder. I will post all the court records as the events happened.

I contacted Mayor Dinwiddie, building official Mark Holland and every other council member on this day. I requested each of them come to the location and see with their own eyes the flooding of my property caused by Mark Conlee’s illegal property redevelopment. Only one of the council members had the professional courtesy to answer my request, Cathy Roberts Farnsworth saw the adverse effects my property was having. Building official Mark Holland had the duty to act as the authority. he is the only authorized authority to represent the State building codes for the City of Montrose, Ia. He had been on notice since fall 2004 and had not preformed his duty on my behalf. That is to untimely to consider he is not conspiring with Mark Holland to violate my Federal Right to enjoy and equal protection of the law under color of law.

Here you can see it standing it the level spot that we had the pool set up. This yard has never held water in the past. I may have more knowledge than most about these issues but building administrator Holland has a manual that states the standard procedure required for redeveloping non conforming properties, his lack of concern was not due to ignorance, it was due to conspiracy intent to deprive me of my rights under color of law. Witnesses will testify that he questioned them about site layout when they were issued a building permit for their new home. He refused to answer my concerns and continued to issue Mark Conlee two more building permits. It is noted on public record that Holland did drive by, that will be posted by the date of the meeting.