A nonconforming use is generally defined as a land use or structure that was legal when established but does not conform to the standards of the current zoning ordinance. The term “nonconforming use” actually covers several situations, including nonconforming uses, lots and structures.
Preexisting land uses that do not conform to current zoning are not favored. The ultimate goal of zoning is to achieve uniformity of property uses within each zoning district. At the same time, landowners have made investments in their businesses and buildings, and it would be unfair — not to mention illegal in some states — to require immediate termination or removal. Rather than require the immediate elimination of these preexisting uses, the zoning ordinance will outline a set of conditions for the continued existence of nonconforming uses.
Although state courts apply different interpretations to local zoning codes regarding nonconforming uses, the expansion, enlargement or intensification of a nonconforming use in almost all cases can be regulated or prohibited.
Resumption of a nonconforming use or structure after it has been destroyed may be prohibited in some states. In other states the right to reestablish the nonconforming use exists. Zoning ordinances traditionally have set a specific threshold– for example, a percentage of assessed value — for defining what constitutes destruction, and courts generally defer to the stated threshold. Again, the principle is to allow landowners to continue to reap the benefits of investments made in their properties. If those investments have been destroyed, however, the community may or may not have an obligation to allow a landowner to reinvest in a use prohibited by current zoning.
To prevent nonconforming uses from becoming blighted properties, zoning codes generally do allow for routine maintenance and repair, so long as such activities do not constitute expansion or enlargement.
Once a nonconforming use has been abandoned, its resumption can be prohibited. Most ordinances state a time period, usually six months to a year, that creates a presumption of abandonment if the property is not used for that period. Some states do not allow just a passage of time to establish abandonment. The issue of what constitutes abandonment is one that is generally the subject of much state court case law, with some courts requiring that an “intent to abandon” be shown before the nonconforming use is considered to be terminated. The intent to abandon may be something like a list of criteria, in the zoning ordinance, from which “abandoned” is established from a preponderance of facts about the particular situation.
Gary D. Taylor, Iowa State University
This is typical of the good old boy network. I had been charged multiple times with frivolous charges by the City of Montrose, all charges were alway dismissed that were brought against me. This is typical of how the good old boys went over and above on Mark Conlee’s behalf. The judge had always followed the letter of the law in my cases. This is nothing less than Mark Conlee advising Mark Holland to offer the judge a bribe to find me guilty of a municipal offense. He was so angry when he lost the civil case he filed against me for “loss of enjoyment of his property”. He could not stand the fact that I had broken no law. The charges brought against me were on fabricated laws and ordinances, how the hell does a reasonable person thing a judge is going to rule when the charges brought against me do not exist? Typical psychopathic behavior. He whole purpose for running and getting elected to city council by election fraud was for the purpose of making me take down my privacy curtain and to attempt to cause me financial harm by trying to get me fined. It wasn’t enough for him that the chemicals he had unlawfully applied to my property had me to a state of total inability to function, I found myself in court all winter. Anything he would come up with the rest of them all supported but they implicated themselves when the issue was not about me. I don’t care who you are, nobody has the right to do anything to another person’s property. Not even Mark Conlee according to the real law. Not “Mark Conlee says” law. For the record Mark Holland was not a city council member at this time. Why is council member Conlee asking Mark Holland to ask the judge anything?
MONTROSE COUNCIL MEETING
MARCH 5, 2009
The Montrose City Council met for Public Hearing at 6:45 p.m. on the 5th day of March 2009. Council met at City Hall, 102 S. 2nd St. pursuant to law with Mayor Gregory Ruth presiding and the following Council members present: Conlee, Geyer, Hawk, Slater and Van Pelt.
The Montrose City Council met for Regular Meeting at 7:00 p.m. on the 5th day of March 2009. Council met at City Hall, 102 S. 2nd St. pursuant to law with Mayor Gregory Ruth presiding and the following Council members present: Conlee, Geyer, Hawk, Slater and Van Pelt.
Call to Order. Meeting called to order at 7:00 p.m.Public Forum. Gary Johnson, 405 Pine Alley said he applied for an Army Corps of Engineers permit to put in a mooring ball at the riverfront. He said the Corps may call the city for information.
Steve Fraise, 205 Locust Street spoke with David Hawk about the mud that washed off the hill in front of his house. He said he wants the ditches cleared before another rain. He said David Beelman, owner of the property, will install erosion control devices.
Tony Sciumbato, 110 S. 10th Street said he has been asked to address Council about the problem regarding the 10th Street and Cedar Street drainage problem. He said he cleans the drains about five times per year. He also said the street is deteriorating and he is willing to pay $100.00 toward moving the drain.
Council Member Conlee told Mr. Holland to ask the Judges about their decision regarding certain properties in the City.
Mark Holland, 501 Locust spoke about road drainage and the 5th Street Bridge will deteriorate if ditches are not dugout.He also said the City should hire another part-time person because Public Works Director Hoenig needs help. This also goes back to the $25,000.00 the City will spend on Ameren-UE property. Mr. Holland also said cleanup has gotten worse. Council Member Hawk asked Mr. Holland how many years it took to get this way.
Ron Dinwiddie, 1 Great River Road said he still can’t understand why the City is abandoning water on the hill. It was explained that there would be archaeological studies in Bluff Park that will likely hold up the project much longer. He said it goes against common sense to bring water downhill and then pump it up.
FY2010 City Budget. Moved by Geyer, seconded by Slater to approve the FY2010 City Budget. Roll call voting 5-0 aye. Motion declared carried.
Adjournment. Moved by Van Pelt, seconded by Conlee to adjourn at 9:09 p.m. All ayes. Motion declared carried.
Gregory R. Ruth, Mayor
Celeste L. Cirinna
In this case the County Attorney could not be more involved with enabling violations of these codes. He recently retired. I pray that the new County Attorney stands beh
703.4 Responsibility of employers. An employer or an employer’s agent, officer, director, or employee who supervises or directs the work of other employees, is guilty of the same public offense committed by an employee acting under the employer’s control, supervision, or direction in any of the following cases:1. The person has directed the employee to commit a public offense.2. The person knowingly permits an employee to commit a public offense, under circumstances in which the employer expects to benefit from the illegal activity of the employee.3. The person assigns the employee some duty or duties which the person knows cannot be accomplished, or are not likely to be accomplished, unless the employee commits a public offense, provided that the offense committed by the employee is one which the employer can reasonably anticipate will follow from this assignment.[C79, 81, §703.4]
703.1 Aiding and abetting. All persons concerned in the commission of a public offense, whether they directly commit the act constituting the offense or aid and abet its commission, shall be charged, tried and punished as principals. The guilt of a person who aids and abets the commission of a crime must be determined upon the facts which show the part the person had in it, and does not depend upon the degree of another person’s guilt.[C51, §2928; R60, §4668; C73, §4314; C97, §5299; C24, 27, 31, 35, 39, §12895; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75, 77, §688.1; C79, 81, §703.1]
703.2 Joint criminal conduct. When two or more persons, acting in concert, knowingly participate in a public offense, each is responsible for the acts of the other done in furtherance of the commission of the offense or escape there from, and each person’s guilt will be the same as that of the person so acting, unless the act was one which the person could not reasonably expect to be done in the furtherance of the commission of the offense.[C79, 81, §703.2]Referred to in 717A.3A
703.3 Accessory after the fact. Any person having knowledge that a public offense has been committed and that a certain person committed it, and who does not stand in the relation of husband or wife to the person who committed the offense, who harbors, aids or conceals the person who committed the offense, with the intent to prevent the apprehension of the person who committed the offense, commits an aggravated misdemeanor if the public offense committed was a felony, or commits a simple misdemeanor if the public offense was a misdemeanor.[C51, §2929; R60, §4669; C73, §4315; C97, §5300; C24, 27, 31, 35, 39, §12896; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75, 77, §688.2; C79, 81, §703.3; 1981 Acts, ch 204, §1]Referred to in 717A.3A
703.4 Responsibility of employers. An employer or an employer’s agent, officer, director, or employee who supervises or directs the work of other employees, is guilty of the same public offense committed by an employee acting under the employer’s control, supervision, or direction in any of the following cases:1. The person has directed the employee to commit a public offense.2. The person knowingly permits an employee to commit a public offense, under circumstances in which the employer expects to benefit from the illegal activity of the employee.3. The person assigns the employee some duty or duties which the person knows cannot 703.5Liability of corporations, partnerships and voluntary associations.1. A public or private corporation, partnership, or other voluntary association shall have the same level of culpability as an individual committing the crime when any of the following is true:a. The conduct constituting the offense consists of an omission to discharge a specific duty or an affirmative performance imposed on the accused by law.b. The conduct or act constituting the offense is committed by an agent, officer, director, or employee of the accused while acting within the scope of the authority of the agent, officer, director or employee and in behalf of the accused and when said act or conduct is authorized, requested, or tolerated by the board of directors or by a high managerial agent.2. “High managerial agent” means an officer of the corporation, partner, or other agent in a position of comparable authority with respect to the formulation of policy or the supervision in a managerial capacity of subordinate employees.[C79, 81, §703.5]2013 Acts, ch 30, §261be accomplished, or are not likely to be accomplished, unless the employee commits a public offense, provided that the offense committed by the employee is one which the employer can reasonably anticipate will follow from this assignment.[C79, 81, §703.4]
704.4 Defense of property. A person is justified in the use of reasonable force to prevent or terminate criminal interference with the person’s possession or other right in property. Nothing in this section authorizes the use of any spring gun or trap which is left unattended and unsupervised and which is placed for the purpose of preventing or terminating criminal interference with the possession of or other right in property.[C51, §2774; R60, §4443; C73, §4113; C97, §5103; C24, 27, 31, 35, 39, §12922; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75, 77, §691.2(2); C79, 81, §704.4]
706.1 Conspiracy.1. A person commits conspiracy with another if, with the intent to promote or facilitate the commission of a crime which is an aggravated misdemeanor or felony, the person does either of the following: a. Agrees with another that they or one or more of them will engage in conduct constituting the crime or an attempt or solicitation to commit the crime’s. Agrees to aid another in the planning or commission of the crime or of an attempt or solicitation to commit the crime.2. It is not necessary for the conspirator to know the identity of each and every conspirator.3. A person shall not be convicted of conspiracy unless it is alleged and proven that at least one conspirator committed an overt act evidencing a design to accomplish the purpose of the conspiracy by criminal means.4. A person shall not be convicted of conspiracy if the only other person or persons involved in the conspiracy were acting at the behest of or as agents of a law enforcement agency in an investigation of the criminal activity alleged at the time of the formation of the conspiracy.[C51, §2758, 2996; R60, §4408, 4790; C73, §4087, 4425; C97, §5059, 5490; C24, 27, 31, 35, 39, §13162, 13902; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75, 77, §719.1, 782.6; C79, 81, §706.1]1987 Acts, ch 129, §1
706.2 Locus of conspiracy. A person commits a conspiracy in any county where the person is physically present when the person makes such agreement or combination, and in any county where the person with whom the person makes such agreement or combination is physically present at such time, whether or not any of the other conspirators are also present in that county or in this state, and in any county in which any criminal act is done by any person pursuant to the conspiracy, whether or not the person is or has ever been present in such county; provided, that a person may not be prosecuted more than once for a conspiracy based on the same agreement or combination.[C79, 81, §706.2]
706A.2 Violations.1.Specified unlawful activity influenced enterprises. a. It is unlawful for any person who has knowingly received any proceeds of specified unlawful activity to use or invest, directly or indirectly, any part of such proceeds in the acquisition of any interest in any enterprise or any real property, or in the establishment or operation of any enterprise .b. It is unlawful for any person to knowingly acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise or real property through specified unlawful activity .c. It is unlawful for any person to knowingly conduct the affairs of any enterprise through specified unlawful activity or to knowingly participate, directly or indirectly, in any enterprise that the person knows is being conducted through specified unlawful activity .d. It is unlawful for any person to conspire or attempt to violate or to solicit or facilitate the violations of the provisions of paragraph “a”, “b”, or “c”.2.Facilitation of a criminal network. It is unlawful for a person acting with knowledge of the financial goals and criminal objectives of a criminal network to knowingly facilitate criminal objectives of the network by doing any of the following: a. Engaging in violence or intimidation or inciting or inducing another to engage in violence or intimidation .b. Inducing or attempting to induce a person believed to have been called or who may be called as a witness to unlawfully withhold any testimony, testify falsely, or absent themselves from any official proceeding to which the potential witness has been legally summoned. c. Attempting by means of bribery, misrepresentation, intimidation, or force to obstruct, delay, or prevent the communication of information or testimony relating to a violation of any criminal statute to a peace officer, magistrate, prosecutor, grand jury, or petit jury. d. Injuring or damaging another person’s body or property because that person or any other person gave information or testimony to a peace officer, magistrate, prosecutor, or grand jury. e. Attempting to suppress by an act of concealment, alteration, or destruction any physical evidence that might aid in the discovery, apprehension, prosecution, or conviction of any person. f. Making any property available to a member of the criminal network. g. Making any service other than legal services available to a member of the criminal network. h. Inducing or committing any act or omission by a public servant in violation of the public servant’s official duty. i. Obtaining any benefit for a member of a criminal network by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representation, promises, or material omissions. j. Making a false sworn statement regarding a material issue, believing it to be false, or making any statement, believing it to be false, regarding a material issue to a public servant in connection with an application for any benefit, privilege, or license, or in connection with any official investigation or proceeding.
706A.2 Violations.1.Specified unlawful activity influenced enterprises. a. It is unlawful for any person who has knowingly received any proceeds of specified unlawful activity to use or invest, directly or indirectly, any part of such proceeds in the acquisition of any interest in any enterprise or any real property, or in the establishment or operation of any enterprise. b. It is unlawful for any person to knowingly acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise or real property through specified unlawful activity. c. It is unlawful for any person to knowingly conduct the affairs of any enterprise through specified unlawful activity or to knowingly participate, directly or indirectly, in any enterprise that the person knows is being conducted through specified unlawful activity. d. It is unlawful for any person to conspire or attempt to violate or to solicit or facilitate the violations of the provisions of paragraph “a”, “b”, or “c”.2.Facilitation of a criminal network. It is unlawful for a person acting with knowledge of the financial goals and criminal objectives of a criminal network to knowingly facilitate criminal objectives of the network by doing any of the following: a. Engaging in violence or intimidation or inciting or inducing another to engage in violence or intimidation. b. Inducing or attempting to induce a person believed to have been called or who may be called as a witness to unlawfully withhold any testimony, testify falsely, or absent themselves from any official proceeding to which the potential witness has been legally summoned. c. Attempting by means of bribery, misrepresentation, intimidation, or force to obstruct, delay, or prevent the communication of information or testimony relating to a violation of any criminal statute to a peace officer, magistrate, prosecutor, grand jury, or petit jury. d. Injuring or damaging another person’s body or property because that person or any other person gave information or testimony to a peace officer, magistrate, prosecutor, or grand jury. e. Attempting to suppress by an act of concealment, alteration, or destruction any physical evidence that might aid in the discovery, apprehension, prosecution, or conviction of any person. f. Making any property available to a member of the criminal network. g. Making any service other than legal services available to a member of the criminal network. h. Inducing or committing any act or omission by a public servant in violation of the public servant’s official duty. i. Obtaining any benefit for a member of a criminal network by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representation, promises, or material omissions. j. Making a false sworn statement regarding a material issue, believing it to be false, or making any statement, believing it to be false, regarding a material issue to a public servant in connection with an application for any benefit, privilege, or license, or in connection with any official investigation or proceeding.3.Money laundering. It is unlawful for a person to commit money laundering in violation of chapter 706B.4.Acts of specified unlawful activity. It is unlawful for a person to commit specified unlawful activity as defined in section 706A.1.5.Negligent empowerment of specified unlawful activity. a. It is unlawful for a person to negligently allow property owned or controlled by the person or services provided by the person, other than legal services, to be used to facilitate specified unlawful activity, whether by entrustment, loan, rent, lease, bailment, or otherwise. b. Damages for negligent empowerment of specified unlawful activity shall include all reasonably foreseeable damages proximately caused by the specified unlawful activity, including, in a case brought or intervened in by the state, the costs of investigation and criminal and civil litigation of the specified unlawful activity incurred by the government for the prosecution and defense of any person involved in the specified unlawful activity, and the imprisonment, probation, parole, or other expense reasonably necessary to detain, punish, and rehabilitate any person found guilty of the specified unlawful activity, except for the following: (1) If the person empowering the specified unlawful activity acted only negligently and was without knowledge of the nature of the activity and could not reasonably have known of the unlawful nature of the activity or that it was likely to occur, damages shall be limited to the greater of the following: (a) The cost of the investigation and litigation of the person’s own conduct plus the value of the property or service involved as of the time of its use to facilitate the specified unlawful activity. (b) All reasonably foreseeable damages to any person, except any person responsible for the specified unlawful activity, and to the general economy and welfare of the state proximately caused by the person’s own conduct. (2) If the property facilitating the specified unlawful activity was taken from the possession or control of the person without that person’s knowledge and against that person’s will in violation of the criminal law, damages shall be limited to reasonably foreseeable damages to any person, except persons responsible for the taking or the specified unlawful activity, and to the general economy and welfare of the state proximately caused by the person’s negligence, if any, in failing to prevent its taking. (3) If the person was aware of the possibility that the property or service would be used to facilitate some form of specified unlawful activity and acted to prevent the unlawful use, damages shall be limited to reasonably foreseeable damages to any person, except any person responsible for the specified unlawful activity, and to the general economy and welfare of the state proximately caused by the person’s failure, if any, to act reasonably to prevent the unlawful use. (4) The plaintiff shall carry the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the specified unlawful activity occurred and was facilitated by the property or services. The defendant shall have the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence as to circumstances constituting lack of negligence and on the limitations on damages in this subsection.1996 Acts, ch 1133, §27; 1998 Acts, ch 1074, §33Referred to in 706A.3, 706A.4
708.4 Willful injury. Any person who does an act which is not justified and which is intended to cause serious injury to another commits willful injury, which is punishable as follows:1. A class “C” felony, if the person causes serious injury to another.2. A class “D” felony, if the person causes bodily injury to another.[C51, §2577, 2594; R60, §4200, 4217; C73, §3857, 3875; C97, §4752, 4771, 4797; S13, §4771; C24, 27, 31, 35, 39, §12928, 12934, 12962; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75, 77, §693.1, 694.6, 697.2; C79, 81, §708.4]99 Acts, ch 65, §5, 2013 Acts, ch 90, §184 Referred to in 80A.4, 702.11
I am searching for any civil cases in which the plaintiff has filed a civil complaint alleging trespassing against the private party. I want to see any civil cases in which the plaintiff has filed multiple counts of fraud against another person. I want to see any legal action in which the plaintiff has filed a civil case alleging the defendant has committed a criminal offense. I came across the document above when I believe Lee County Detective Bob Conlee was attempting to set me up for a drug bust. If you would review Lee County Attorney Michael Short . Short advised me that “he” would decide who gets prosecuted in Lee County, Iowa. He wasn’t kidding he was willing and did everything needed to protect Mark Conlee in his unprecedented illegal actions against his neighbor.
Most of you have the common knowledge of the laws and rules a Sheriff has the duty to provide to the citizens in their County described below. I am still waiting for the results of an investigation into my allegations as stated by then County Attorney Mike Short and current Lee County Sheriff Stacy Weber. Weber has a conflict of interest that is next to none according to the record. He certainly learned from the best of the best as former County Detective Bob Conlee is described as his mentor. His reason for getting into law enforcement as a career choice.
Working with Federal and State Legislatures to create laws providing safer communities
The SHERIFF is the only elected Law Enforcement Officer in the State of Iowa.
THE DUTIES OF SHERIFF INCLUDE:
- Execution and return of all legal civil papers
- Enforce the law of the State of Iowa
- Enforce County Ordinances
- Conduct criminal investigations
- Provide Law Enforcement services to the Judicial Court System
- Supervise all jails and the custody of incarcerated offenders
- Maintain the Sex Offender Registry
- Patrol all areas of the county
- Respond to any and all disasters within the county
- Assist other Law Enforcement agencies
- Sustain Iowa VINE for Victims
Mr. Short failed the citizens of Lee County to a serious degree beginning in filing two criminal complaints against me on behalf of his number one colleague Detective Bob Conlee and his brother, Mark Conlee. The complaints were clearly frivolous and fabricated. There is no existing law against giving the middle finger to another person.
This is an example of the standard procedure followed in any action in this “criminal” case. There was no local government official willing to honor their ethical oath. They were all completely devoted to Mark Conlee’s goal to acquire his goal. It was like they were hypnotized. I know full well that the County attorney should know what is a criminal violation and what is a fabricated law. Chief Shipman scratched out the last sentence as I advised him there was no law preventing a citizen from having two licensed, insured vehicles on their private property. Mark Conlee used his position as council member to push past any recognition of ethical standards. I feel like I have been raped by these public servants. I will never be the person I was prior to the physical assault by this gang.in their quest to acquire my property. No holds barred, they were intent on this goal. I was unable to assert my rights to save my life.
Sheriff Weber recently told me there has been an investigation into my allegations since May 1st. The only thing that I am aware of that has happened is the city clerk still participating the the conspiracy to cover up the evidence of the City officials implicating themselves by taking down the City’s webpage that had the min of the meeting since 2005.
This situation is not difficult to understand.
Mark Conlee, brother of Lee County Detective Bob Conlee purchased the legally non conforming property from Mayor Dinwiddie. He began redeveloping the property by tearing down the existing single car garage, trucking in enough fill dirt to elevate the property in some areas 10′ higher than before, he constructed a nonconforming 2 story oversized garage. He altered the roof surface from standard procedure by turning it so it diverted storm water runoff directly onto my property, he changed the grade of the fill dirt so all storm water ran onto my property. My property lost value of $10,000 just because the drainage was forseeable going to cause my property uncontrollable flooding. In questioning this illegal structure I was advised Conlee intended to build a living quarters in the upper level. Standard procedure requires drain tile to be installed around the base of the slab, it was not. Standard procedure requires gutter and downspout to be installed and directed to the city drainage ditch, it was directed directly to divert storm water from the massive roof onto my property.
The following spring there was a suspicious fire that supposedly destroyed the existing trailer. Suspicious to me because the only firemen on the scene that morning were Mayor Dinwiddie, building official/fire chief Mark Holland, Mark Conlee and the son of Mark Holland. The son, Jake was a former resident of the Conlee property, we discussed the fire after the fact. I discovered that only 2 weeks prior there was a trailer fire at a nearby mobile home park that was caused by the same M.O. I understand my testimony is not acceptable but several weeks prior to the fire after his new garage was finished he came over to my yard and gave a friend who was with me a message from his brother in Fla. At that time I asked him, “now that you have that nice new garage what are you going to do with the trailer, he said he wanted it to burn. I was still understanding he was going to build a living quarters in the second level of the garage. The morning of the fire, there was no fire alarm that went off, being 1 block from my house I was always awakened by the siren. That morning I was awakened by the clanging of the fire hose being connected to the hydrant on my corner of the street. The only fireman who acted in an attempt to extinguish any fire was the son, Jake Holland. The other 3 on the scene did nothing but stand on the sidewalk the entire time and chat. Jake got the hose connected and was motioned to lay it down. There was no action physical action made to extinguish any fire. After some amount of time an hour or so Mark Conlee puts on the hazard uniform and enters the home. He exits about 5 minutes later empty-handed and gives the others still on the sidewalk a nod. They continue to stand on the sidewalk for another hour or so. Jake puts the equipment away and they go on about their day. I find it suspicious that Dinwiddie and Holland did not go to their regular job that morning. Conlee went to work and was called home. There was no smoke coming from the building, there was nothing telling that a fire had happen to the building after it was over.
Conlee almost immediately builds a new home. There is no question that the building permit is illegal. He changed the frontage of the home to now be the alley, that is illegal. The roof surface is also altered from standard procedure just as the garage and directed to divert storm water directly onto my property. I advised Conlee that we needed a ditch, reasonably to run directly down the common boundary since he was the one who had the new redevelopment that caused the problems to my property. He was unwilling to have it on his property, the man I was going to barter upholstery for excavating a ditch backed out fearing a liability if he happened to get on Conlee property since there had been no survey, only a verbal agreement on the common boundary. Conlee illegally removed an existing berm that had been put in place by the original owners of both property for the sole purpose of protecting my home structure from storm water runoff from the Conlee property when the original home burnt prior to 1972 when they brought in the mobile home. Berm and swale were commonly used at that time for this purpose. The berm was on the Conlee side of the common boundary, the swale was on my side of the common boundary. The building officials refused to address my concerns, his duty is to oversee property redevelopment is in compliance with State building and drainage laws. When he refused to come to the location I contacted Lee County Ext, agent Robert Dodds, he did come to the location and took some photos. I had many questions I showed him the building permit which lacked the signature of the builder Mark Conlee but was signed and approved by the building official. Mr. Dodds noticed some other discrepancies on that building permit. He questioned why years before when he built a garage he had to pay a pretty significant amount for the fee charge of his building permit. Mark Conlee had paid no fee according to the permit. He explained that in regards to storm water drainage and property development you are not allowed to divert more storm water to the neighboring property than before the redevelopment. He sent a copy of the letter to Mayor Dinwiddie allow with drainage laws. Dinwiddie had no regard for this expert opinion. When all other times any opinion from Mr. Dodd has held high regard with the city of Montrose.
I hired attorney Steve Swan to sue the city of Montrose. Retired Sheriff’s officer, John Farmer referred Swan to me. John worked for the city of Montrose prior to moving up to the sheriff’s dept. He is well aware of the characters who hold positions in Montrose. I met with Swan and he advised me that John Farmer had briefed him on the case, John told him that I did not have many financial resources. I had been self-employed as an upholsterer since I purchased my property in 1995. I was never without work, but I basically charged what I needed to pay my bills, explains why I had a backlog of work for over a year at all times. Swan also advised me that he had spoken to Lee County Detective Bob Conlee, Bob had already lied to him when he told him his brother never trucked in any fill dirt but poured the new slabs just as the property existed. He advised me that my case was a tort case and we would sue both parties, Conlee and the city. He asked if I would be willing to barter upholstering his vehicle for his service. I willingly took him up on that offer, I was so moved by his kindness I had to pull over on the highway because I was crying with gratitude. The following day I received a copy of a letter of intent he sent to Conlee the previous afternoon. The letter demanded Conlee remedy the nuisance drainage problem in 10 day or he would file an injunction against him. Conlee began removing the existing evidence of the berm and its height, he built a little roof over the door on the side of his house as if he had not changed the frontage of his property.
I emailed Swan multiple times on the 10th day telling him to file the injunction. I never heard another word from him and he filed no injunction to stop work.
Soon after this, a rash developed on my shins, I referred to it as a rash because that was what it appeared to be to me. I thought perhaps an allergic reaction to something. I had never had any problems prior to this with my skin, I had never even have poison ivy.The itch was intense, nothing similar to a bug bite. I had used a push lawnmower since I purchased my place, I did that for cardio, and in fact I never wanted a riding lawn mower. The next time I went out to mow I noticed that the neighbor had applied something to my side of the common boundary. I had never been exposed to what I assumed was weed killer. I had not changed my routine for 10 years. It seemed reasonable that whatever this neighbor was apply to my side only of the common boundary could possibly be the cause of what had now rapidly spread over other parts of my body. I told him and the new police chief that day not to apply anything to my property and explained I thought it could be the cause of my skin eruptions. I requested an incident report from the police chief.
By this time my opinion of Mr. Conlee’s character was less than honorable. He knew my property was flooding, my foundation had been damaged and he was unwilling to allow me to have a ditch dug down the common boundary. He continued using the chemicals without hesitation as routine yard maintenance applying them to my property only. I kept requesting the incident report from Chief Shipman and he kept coming up with excuses as to why he did not have it for me, a witness says he was lying about the reason he did not have it. When I did receive it 16 months later the first on was not satisfactory in detail, I told him no that I wanted one with the details. A week later he gave me a half-hearted report. By this time my rash had become a severe skin condition. My entire body was raw. The pain was excruciating, it was unbearable to wear clothes.
I had requested a trespassing complaint be file on my behalf early on. Every request denied by the City and Lee County Attorney. The chemicals now had become a weapon with intent to cause me serious injury. The fact that I was denied equal protection of the law and access to the courts make this a conspiracy deprivation of rights under color of law.
It became clear to me the reason Conlee would not stop applying chemicals to my property when I realized he was unable to get the illegal redevelopment recorded on the county plat map.
Lee County attorney Mike Short suggested mitigation two years in a row, I was willing. Even sent my report in the mail to the mitigation service. However Mark Conlee was not. He knew his illegal redevelopment would be order to be removed. return the lot back to the original state. His excuse the first year was because he had paid an attorney to represent him in a civil case he filed against me. In that case the judge dismissed his case citing my right to enjoy my property. I put up a privacy curtain and Mr. Conlee believing my backyard was his backyard because he changed the frontage of his home to face the alley was offended by the curtain. I knew I was well within my rights. I always know the law before I ever act. I felt a sense of relief by the judge’s ruling. My right to enjoy my property in my mind meant no more chemicals on my property either. I was wrong about what the ruling meant to Mark Conlee and Chief of Police Brent Shipman. They approached me in my yard one day and Conlee advised me he was going to my the railroad ties I had legally placed down my side of the common boundary to divert the storm water toward the city drainage ditch. I advised him if he had a problem with the boundary line he would need to file another civil complaint. I question Brent Shipman as what was purpose of him being with Conlee. He advised me that he was acting as a witness that Conlee was telling me ahead of time that he was going to alter my property. At that point I advised them both that I intended to invoke my second amendment right. I advised Chief Shipman never to knock on my door again. I headed to the house to get my weapon, you never saw two adults run up a hill so fast.
Imagine now, here I am, my body completely raw, trying to meet deadlines for my upholstery clients and having to defend my property every afternoon from 3:30pm the rest of the night.
I retrieved my weapon, a single shot long arm pellet gun and stood guard on my property till way past dark. I had to have some rest, I had other responsibilities so I went in the house and laid down to sleep a bit. When I woke up the next morning I went out to check the boundary line. Sure enough Conlee had moved the railroad ties I placed to protect my property. I had them held in place with staubs. I had new lawn edging put in place and the railroad ties were pushed every which way. The staubs were broken off, the edging pull out of the ground and just laying there. My skin condition was full body, I was terrified to go near that boundary in the first place, I have never felt so violated in my life. This was done in contempt of a court order. I called the only authority of the law available Chief Shipman and told him I wanted to file a trespassing complaint against Conlee. He asked me if I saw him do it. I told him he was the witness that Conlee was going to do it. It was complete violation of my rights. It was a conspiracy.
I again contacted Lee County attorney Mike Short, he advised me that he doesn’t let neighbors file complaints against each other because it never stops. Yet I was charged by the State and City several times on fabricated laws and ordinances on Conlee’s behalf. I never even got into the courtroom. Conlee did not even show up. I was told by Montrose Deputy Judd that Conlee was on vacation in Fla. What kind of public servants are these people. What kind of people conspire with intent to cause serious injury to anyone? Narcissists are described as these kind of people. It only take one narcissist to manipulate a group of people into believing anything they say. With every complaint that was dismissed against me the more aggressive the City, on Conlee’s behalf, became to find me guilty of a crime. Public record has a discussion about it. The council and Mayor discuss going to speak with the judge. What does that mean? Offer him a bribe? The judge knew the laws. The judge knew what wasn’t against the law. What else would they feel they needed to speak to him about?
Well the reality set in after 5 years of being abused by my local government officials, committing criminal acts against me. I had by this time lost my eyesight, unable to read, unable to recognized people, I was terrified. A neighbor using chemical weapons with intent to cause serious injury is defined as terrorist acts. If he is capable of doing this what would he not do to eliminate me? These government officials conspired to commit terrorist acts against me. Deprived me of my rights under color of law, committed a conspiracy against my rights as well as defamed my character and fabricated ordinances and laws in an attempt to cause me financial harm.
Mark Conlee had to have my property to ever get his illegal redevelopment recorded on the county plat map and he decided the action to take was to eliminate me. I had two options one was to shoot him dead or flee and seek justice according to the law. I mistakenly chose the latter option. To date I have gotten little if any interest in my story. I am sure if the right person gets to read this action will be taken and justice will be served. But how long? The City and Prosecuting attorney had the duty not to let this happen in the first place.
One other thing I want to mention in regard to Mayor Dinwiddie and his property. Several years ago a woman spoke to the city council about opening a tattoo shop in a building that was available, the council discussed this and they did not think a tattoo shop would represent the city as they wanted it to be represented. It was only a short time later that a different woman spoke to the council about opening a tattoo shop in a building she intended to purchase from Mayor Dinwiddie, the city council was all for this new business in town. What is the difference? Mayor Dinwiddie would receive a personal financial gain just as he did when Conlee purchased the legally nonconforming lot from him.
Attorney Steve Swan conspired with Conlee in violation of his oath to represent his clients best interest
Lee County Attorney Mike Short conspired with Mark Conlee by denying me equal protection of the law, access to the court, and terrorist acts. Conspiracy against rights under color of law.
Lee County Detective conspired with Mark Conlee in misrepresenting his authority to be that of a building official, he was acting without jurisdiction, he defamed my character and knowingly made false statements associating me with illegal drug activity. Conspiracy against rights under color of law.
The most recent act of conspiracy was when Sheriff Stacy Weber advised the city clerk that there was an investigation that initiated City clerk Celeste Cirinna took down the City of Montrose website that contained the minutes of the council meeting and evidence of these officials implicating themselves to suppress the evidence. I have copies of all the meeting minutes.
City clerk Celeste Cirinna committed multiple counts of fraud, conspiracy against rights. But Lee County attorney refused to prosecute any of these criminal offenses. They already knew they could do anything and not be held accountable by local law enforcement. The evidence cannot be disputed, they have no defense.
What is not in violation of Federal law in this case is my question?
PROTECTING CIVIL RIGHTS:
A Leadership Guide for State, Local, and Tribal Law Enforcement
Protecting Civil Rights: A Leadership Imperative
All law enforcement leaders recognize the ethical and legal imperatives to which they and their officers must adhere to ensure that civil rights of all individuals in their communities are protected. Law enforcement officers, in fact, are the most visible and largest contingent of the nation’s guardians of civil rights. Every police officer commits to upholding the nation’s prime guarantor of rights, the U.S. Constitution, when sworn into office. To be effective, a police department and its individual officers must be seen primarily as protectors of civil rights, rather than agents of social control whose main purpose is to limit individual freedoms. The effectiveness of police in their varied missions—from law enforcement to community service—depends on the trust and confidence of the community. Public trust and confidence are severely reduced when individuals’ civil rights are compromised. And when any community perceives that its civil rights are systematically violated by the police, all sense of trust, cooperation, and partnership between the police and that community will be undermined. Understanding these ethical imperatives, law enforcement leaders must be continually vigilant to ensure that the actions of their officers do not violate civil rights and do not compromise public support. Officers are granted a tremendous amount of authority and discretion to enforce the law, that is, to protect individual rights from being infringed upon by others in the community. At the same time, officers themselves must act within the confines of the Constitution while executing their tremendous power and wide discretion. They must never consider themselves above the law while executing their responsibility to enforce the law. This commitment is what distinguishes police in constitutionally based, democratic societies like ours from police in nondemocratic countries, where they too often are perceived as oppressive agents of a government whose main purpose is to restrict, rather than protect, the rights of civilians.
Across the United States, law enforcement personnel have an overwhelmingly positive record of accomplishment for respecting and protecting civil rights. Leaders should find it heartening and a source of pride that the vast majority of the countless interactions that officers have with civilians result in actions that are conducted lawfully, professionally, and within constitutional boundaries. The fact that the overwhelming majority of police officers routinely respect civil rights under the most trying and volatile conditions is remarkable. Given the risks inherent in police work and the grave consequences that can occur when civil rights are violated, law enforcement leaders must be unwavering in holding their officers accountable. Their officers are vested with authority and discretion that can be abused. Unlike any other profession, the possibility of violating civil rights, or being perceived as violating civil rights, is inherent in many of the duties officers are required to perform on a day-to-day basis. Unfortunately, the notoriety and harm that arise from even isolated instances of civil rights violations can easily overshadow the vast majority of police-civilian encounters that are performed respectfully and professionally. Law enforcement leaders bear the tremendous responsibility to ensure that individual officers and units within their agencies uphold the law and its most basic guarantees.
Realistically, law enforcement leaders recognize that on rare occasions officers will violate a civilian’s civil rights, wittingly or unwittingly. On even rarer occasions, groups of officers or small factions within an agency may act without regard for civil rights, perhaps even asserting that effective law enforcement can come only at the expense of civil rights. Leaders must be resolute in their responses to isolated incidents of civil rights violations to minimize damage and set a clear example. In the case of officers who systematically violate civil rights, their behavior must not be tolerated and action must be decisive and uncompromising.
Effective leaders, supported by the managers who serve them, must strive to identify and intervene when officers exhibit potentially problematic behavior before it escalates to the point of violating civil rights. Against this backdrop, the seriousness of law enforcement leaders’ responsibility to communicate a consistent and far-reaching commitment to civil rights protections cannot be overstated. Although laws, departmental policy directives, and standard operating procedures are critically important, law enforcement executives’ leadership and communication skills are the most critical elements for ensuring that officers regularly exercise sound judgment and engage in professional and ethical policing. Law enforcement leaders can and must demonstrate a fundamental and complete allegiance to civil rights protections in a coordinated manner using multiple approaches. They must clearly convey a simultaneous commitment to effective law enforcement and civil rights protection; they must codify this commitment in their agency’s mission statements; they must ensure that their department’s policies are clear, sound, and consistent with civil rights guarantees; they must train and supervise officers in manners that are consistent with this commitment; and they must respond to alleged civil rights violations with vigilance and with fair and decisive action. As law enforcement leaders succeed in these regards and make these efforts transparent to the public, they validate the core premise that civil rights protection is not only an ethical and legal imperative but a practical imperative as well. Protecting civil rights is good for police, good for the community, and essential for maintaining the partnerships that must exist between the two.
Federal Investigations: A Response to “Patterns or Practices” of Civil Rights Violations Despite the ethical, legal, and practical imperatives to protect civil rights, law enforcement officers occasionally abrogate their oaths. When these unwitting or intentional violations of citizens’ civil rights go unaddressed, they can escalate into more widespread patterns or practices of civil rights violations that can undermine the credibility of an entire law enforcement agency and erode public trust and confidence. Moving beyond isolated instances, pattern or practice violations of civil rights comprise an urgent call to law enforcement executives and the municipal, county, or state governments under which they serve to reassume the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that officers uphold their oaths of office and adherence to constitutional guarantees.
During the last decade, the federal government has responded to such situations in the rare, but urgent circumstances where allegations of pattern or practice civil rights violations have arisen. The passage of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law No: 103-322) enabled the federal government to take action to remedy any pattern or practice of conduct by state and local law enforcement agencies “that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.” In response to this enabling legislation, the Special Litigation Section of the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice assumed the responsibility for investigating alleged pattern or practice civil rights violations and for establishing remedies to such violations.
During the last decade, the Special Litigation Section has investigated an array of alleged pattern or practice civil rights violations including the following:
- Unlawful or excessive use of force
- Inadequate training on use-of-force techniques
- Racial profiling
- Illegal stops and searches
- Intimidation by police
- Harassment of civilians in retaliation for reported misconduct
- Inadequate supervision
- Failure to investigate alleged officer misconduct.
Investigations by the Special Litigation Section resulting in a determination of actionable civil rights violations generally have been resolved through negotiated agreements in the form of memorandums of agreement (MOA) or consent decrees. Through such agreements, the federal government and law enforcement agencies agree to a course of action to correct the patterns of civil rights violations and to remedy the conditions that allowed the violations to occur. Since 1994, 14 agencies have been or currently are under federal monitoring as a result of civil rights violation investigations. While these 14 agencies represent an infinitesimal fraction of the country’s nearly 18,000 state, county, local, tribal, and special jurisdictional law enforcement agencies, the impact of these federal investigations and agreements has been and continues to be profound and far-reaching.
A case that started with a simple nuisance drainage issue, it ended up with the neighbor using chemicals with intent to cause me serious injury. He and the local officials had no regard to the building codes or requirements pertaining to legally nonconforming property redevelopment. There was not one thing regarding this redevelopment that was compliant with the State building code or State drainage laws. When he realized he could not get his new redevelopment recorded on the county plat map he decided the remedy was to eliminate me and acquire my property. This will give you an idea of the offenses that have been committed against me. These are clear violations of Federal Law. Equal protection, private property right, the 14th amendment to name a few.
Are you diagnosed with any injury or condition as a result of this behavior or otherwise?
Yes, the skin condition that resulted in the chemical exposure is chronic, the only way I can keep it reasonably under control is by taking the medication methotrexate. Methotrexate itself is known to cause damage to internal organs. I have to have blood drawn and tested quarterly for the amounts in my system are considered as “safe”. My body specifically my arms are covered in scars. I must avoid the sun due to the methotrexate. Initially I was required to travel to the University of Iowa hospital weekly, slowly it has now become every six months, I have an appointment tomorrow in fact. This Dr. literally saved my life. There is no other case that I can find that a person has been intentionally exposed to glyphosate ongoing for five + years. The fact that my attackers were my government officials, public servants makes this much more difficult for my to tell my story. To think that justice will ever be served seems unobtainable. I question whether glyphosate is the only chemical that was unlawfully applied to my property along the common boundary. The attacker began unlawfully applying chemicals to my property the year prior to the EPA field investigation. Only after he was elected to city council did he apply i on the city easement along lot #1 of my property. He is well connected with the local agricultural supply corp. It was only when he applied it to the city easement when a neighbor two properties down from me reported chemicals to the EPA. Where he applied it happened to be the point source of a large portion of the city’s drainage ditches. When he applied it and it rained it naturally ran downstream into a backwater slough that feeds directly into the Mississippi River. A neighbor notified the EPA when all living plant life on her property was killed by the chemicals. This man by this time had suspiciously been elected to the city council. He was misrepresenting his authority to be that of an employee of the street dept, which he had no authority nor did the city’s insurance cover him in acting as an employee of the city. I continue to suffer emotional distress, I was distraught that I had no protection of the law to file a trespassing complaint against this man. This man sued me because I (within my rights) put up a privacy curtain his case was dismissed. The judge’s order cited my “right to enjoy my property”. I felt a sense of relief believing this meant that he would not apply chemicals to my property again. I was soon after charged by the State on this man’s behalf for a misdemeanor act. The citation stated “Mark Conlee said Melody Boatner drove by his house and gave him the middle finger”. A few days later I received another citation, this one stated “Mark Conlee said Melody Boatner drove by his house and gave him the middle finger, he is tired of this continuing to happen.” The additional wording bumped the charge up to harassment. The County Attorney sent Lee County Deputy David Hunold to my house, according to Hunold, the County Attorney was concerned there may be a conflict of interest. We sat for over an hour, I showed him documented evidence that Conlee lied in court, knowingly make false statements, made false police reports and his admission in court documents that he did apply chemicals to my property. He got up to leave and I said “wait a minute, I want to file trespassing complaint against Conlee”. Deputy Hunold advised me that he was only there to investigate the complaint regarding me giving him the finger. There is no law against giving someone the finger, I admitted I did one time. That is the only interaction I ever had with this man aside from telling him years earlier not to apply anything to my property, not to enter my property. I have the date and photo evidence. Conlee violated the court order in the civil case he filed against me. He approached me, accompanied by the Chief of Police, he advised me that he was going to move the railroad ties that I had placed down the common boundary to divert the significantly increased storm water runoff from his illegal property redevelopment. I ask the Police Chief, what are you doing here? He advised me that he was acting as a witness that Conlee told me in advance that he was going to move the railroad ties. This is the same police chief that the day I told Conlee not to apply anything to my property, because I felt whatever he had been unlawfully applying was causing me medical problems. I followed up directly with the Police chief requesting an incident report. I finally received an incident report sixteen months later. By that time my body was eaten up. I was unable to function at all, to simply wear clothes was unbearable. I continue to have eruptions to my skin but is controllable with ointment provided by prescription from my dermatologist in Iowa City. I have had many incidents caused by bad interactions with medications that have been given in an attempt to offer some relief to the severe skin condition. I was overdosed on IV steroids by the Dr on duty at the Ft Madison Community Hosp. resulting in hallucinations resulting in being hospitalized in ICU for three days. There are many instances similar to what I have just explained, I have everything documented.
The problem for me to date has been the existing conflict of interest between these local officials. Anyone with the authority to protect my rights and prosecute criminal offenses have clearly conspired to cover up, violate Federal law pertaining to private property, equal protection and several of the Constitutional Amendments. The evidence is much clearer than my ability to tell this story. Photos and court documents do not lie. This is not supposed to happen in the USA. This is illegal, ignorance of the law is no excuse. This has never happened to another citizen.
My father was employed as the Street Commissioner of a neighboring town. I was aware of the violations that were being committed against me as they were happening. I reported these crimes to the proper authority as they occurred. I had a successful business that I operated from this property. A home the biggest investment a person make in their lifetime. Mine was taken because my neighbor having all the right people holding the needed government position was allowed to violated all laws concerning redevelopment of legally nonconforming property. Everyone except the County Recorder, he couldn’t get past having to have this illegal redevelopment recorded on the county plat map.
29.5 VIOLATION OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS — PENALTY.
- A person, who acts alone, or who conspires with another person
or persons, to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate or interfere
with any citizen in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or
privilege secured to that person by the constitution or laws of the
state of Iowa or by the constitution or laws of the United States,
and assembles with one or more persons for the purpose of teaching or
being instructed in any technique or means capable of causing
property damage, bodily injury or death when the person or persons
intend to employ those techniques or means in furtherance of the
conspiracy, is on conviction, guilty of a class “D” felony.
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
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
- This section does not make unlawful the teaching of any
technique in self-defense.
- 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
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
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.
via Iowa Code 729.