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.
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
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.
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
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.