No remedy for terrorist assault using chemical weapons in Iowa?

I was advised it is difficult to hold local government officials compliant to the law. That statement I will never understand. The justice system hold citizens accountable for their illegal acts, but they find it difficult to hold citizens with government titles accountable to the law?

I have recognized for several years that nobody is going to act on my behalf. Someone has the authority and the duty to investigate and prosecute corrupt public officials. Is it that you do not know the name of any Federal authority that is willing to become personally involved in a case of torture committed by government terrorists or is there none that exist?

I can make a statement to the public that I am going to take up arms against my attackers and there still will be no Federal authority who will come after me for threatening the lives of those who have tortured me. You know why? Because at some point someone would have to review my evidence. Someone would have to represent me. Somebody would have to hold accountable, not your run of the mill corrupt public officials, but public officials who without a single doubt participated in the torture of an American civilian in the State of Iowa.

No Federal agency or authority could give two shits about their oath to uphold the Constitution. The only option I have is to serve justice myself. I have been disrespected and treated less than human for to long now. My terrorist have no concern about ever being held accountable because no Federal agent will question the lies they have been told. To be an US citizen today and still have a belief that the cops are honorable, servants of justice you would have to be completely off grid with no access to the news at all. Anyone who would question my credibility over that of the local law enforcement officers simply has not reviewed the evidence. You cannot review the evidence and not recognize the false statements made by these local officials. They implicate themselves on public record, you cannot get more solid evidence than what I have.

I have hard copy evidence that my attackers have lied to the FBI. If the shoe were on the other foot I would be criminally charged with the crime of lying to the FBI. When an AUSA tells me that he has the authority to violate a civil court order, an order that if it had be complied to or enforced when it was issued my suffering would have ended right then and there, he is lying.  That order was ignored and my suffering has only increased. In any other situation ignoring a court order is an act of contempt.

Why am I the only citizen who has ever been a victim of chemical warfare committed by my government for the purpose of eliminating me? There are laws in place to prevent this from happening, those laws have been enforced in every other case. Trespassing is a common criminal charge in Lee County, Iowa. Why was I denied the right to have a trespassing complaint filed against someone the evidence supports is a psychopath?

I guess I will never know. I know that one day I will wake up and the camels back will have broken. I know that I will lose my life defending my honor at this time. I accept that to be my destiny. I will die with dignity. My attackers will burn in hell.

There is someone whose title gives him or her the authority to intervene in cases of willful misconduct and intentional negligence of Federal and State authorities, be them elected or hired. Someone with a name and a phone number. Someone who I believe that, if they had any clue as to the facts of this case instead of the hearsay given to the FBI and AUSA would feel obligated to step up on my behalf. I simply do not have the name of the person who has that obligation. All I have is a blank wall to speak to an nobody has heard me.

I don’t know what else to say. Without the contact information I cannot do anything but invoke my 2nd amendment. I just hope after a tragedy happens you and the few others who have been kind enough to listen to me will insist on a thorough investigation as to why this had to happen. Because it has to happen or I am disrespecting myself. I cannot do that any longer. I wish they would come and get me for threatening someones life, then I would have the opportunity to submit my evidence. That’s why they won’t.

Nobody should be treated less than human. I have been and it has been devastating to be the victim of such evil human beings. My life is natters to those who love me. To be forced to defend myself is going to effect the lives of many people. It can only be saved if the Federal laws are enforced. There is no other way.

Torture is a serious criminal offense. My condition is chronic. There is not a day since spring of 2005 that I have not felt the physical and mental suffering of torture. Who prosecutes acts of torture? That is the person who hold lives in their hands. It cannot be any Federal official from Iowa. I asked for an independent investigation years ago. No response, is like putting a cigarette out on my cheek. Denying me the right to present my case to a grand jury is like putting a cigarette out on my cheek. I can tell you there is no person who has not tried as hard as I have to use the justice system to remedy a situation. It just isn’t going to happen for me.

You have the connections to the connection of the person who can take this case under such special circumstances, I am sure of that. You may not know who, but someone you know does, I bet on that. I am sorry you have not been able to assist me, I am thankful for your ear and respect you have shown me.

  •  The remedy to my situation is simply to have an unbiased investigation and a US attorney who has not worked with the County Sheriff for “years” to review my evidence.
  • For an FBI agent not to recognize that private property rights are Federally protected is completely unacceptable.
  • For the AUSA to advise me that no matter what my evidence proves he will use attorney discretion and not prosecute people who have use torture tactics to eliminate me from my private property is unacceptable.
  • For the FBI agent to give me three different versions of how he submitted my complaint to the AUSA and me not to recognize red flags is an insult to my intelligence regarding his credibility.
  • For the FBI agent to refuse to review my evidence and request me to verbally tell him my story brings his professional ability to be questioned.

Who in the FBI or any law enforcement agency would use hearsay over the documented evidence. A a competent investigation into my allegations of these two Federal officials actions of their willful misconduct and intentional negligence, collusion is what is needed for proper justice being served. The evidence is written and sent to me by them.

A legitimate and competent investigation is what the government needs to provide in the best interest of all citizens. Corruption is thicker than the thieves who stole my private property and health from me. This is in everyone’s best interest, these people are why the citizens have no respect for law enforcement. These people are the cause of mass shooting tragedies. The evidence will prove these two Federal authorities conspired to violate my Federally protected rights.

To find an honest unbiased investigator, is that even possible? I have advised that I would travel to have my evidence reviewed. But I am not going to pretend to be ignorant of what my Federal rights are. If an investigator does not know private property rights are Federally protected he shouldn’t be representing the Federal government. He damn sure shouldn’t be lying to my face as this one did. Had the article not been published in the newspaper recently associating the AUSA with working with the Sheriff for “years” I would have no proof of their relationship. Now I do. My State and Federal rights not being held above the protection of corrupt local government officials is unacceptable.

Where was homeland security when I needed protection from terrorists assaulting me with chemical weapons? Oh that’s right! They were the participating in the ongoing assault. There is no immunity from justice given to any of these domestic terrorists by me. https://poisonedbymyneighborfromhell.com

Wanted personal injury lawyer, for case of Government Negligence, Willful Misconduct, Fraud and Harassment resulting in serious injury.

In the Heartland-Government lead Terrorist Group used chemical weapon to eliminate US civilian. The use of chemicals in the manner which they were used in the attack against me was ongoing terrorist acts. Be it written law or not. I know I personally felt terrified. I continue to feel unsafe. I actually believed at the time they would burn my house down with me in it. The Feds have been as much as co conspirators. An agent used tax payers money to travel to my location, after 14 months, his intent was to review my hard copy evidence. He arrived announcing he had no intention of reviewing any evidence. He asked that I tell him the story. I received a letter two hours after he left from Washington DC headquarters advising that the agent had determined no violation of Federal law had occurred. The point is that two hours is not time to get a letter from the departure to the local hub of the post office. This agent clearly had predetermined his decision without any evidence provided by me. I received a letter from him saying as much two weeks later. It does not take a law degree to know that private property rights are Federally protected or that evidence based on hearsay is not evidence admissible to a court. Yet I am the only one who knows about these shenanigans because I have no opportunity to submit my evidence to any authority. A trespassing complaint complied to and enforced would have prevented my ongoing pain and suffering. To allow local government to use terrorist acts against a civilian is unconscionable. I have publicly stated that I am not going to be the only victim of this serious criminal act for the purpose of personal financial gain. Thank you for listening. Give me a day in court or an AR-15. This is exactly why civilians need assault rifles. https://poisonedbymyneighborfromhell.com

Hard to keep local government officials within the guidelines of Federal law?

I was recently advised of this by an attorney, in fact over these past few years several attorney’s have had similar advice for me.

I have gone to extreme lengths to get the proper authority to review the evidence in my case and to proceed to have justice served.

My case is non typical of any other case in this Nation. The criminal acts committed against me have been intentional. They have been as brutal as a civilian in this Country have ever experienced. The pain and suffering continues to exist from the time my eyes open till the time they go to sleep.

The fact that no Federal authority chooses to prosecute my attackers should not have ever been considered in this case. There are Federal laws on the books that are in place to protect citizens from exactly what has happened to me. These laws are not optional for prosecution. Those who have the duty to investigate and prosecute and have not preformed their duties and just as guilty as the ones who physically attacked my person and property, in my opinion they are more liable. They have provided me with no means of having justice be served. The violations of my State and Federal Rights are not to be violated anymore than those who have attacked me. For any person to be held above the law in serious criminal offenses against another citizen is difficult to understand. I know this neighbor is suffering from psychopathic personality disorder. I know that the other officials were in it for personal financial gain. I know the facts because I was a witness, and I have the documentation supporting my allegations.

To the extent in which I have been violated lets get right to the bare bones. Corrupt local government is a common reality in the entire USA. Generally it does not take the form of intentionally causing physical harm and suffering to an innocent civilian. When Senator Chuck Grassley advised me that he requested an inquiry into my allegations I felt a sense of relief. The Senator has great influence over the Federal Government. He advised me that the FBI would be contacting me. I waited for five years and nobody from the FBI contacted me. I contacted the Senator again, he advised me that he would request a second inquiry on my behalf. He advised me to be patient, it takes time. Another five years pass and nobody from the FBI contacted me.

Have you ever tried to contact the FBI, well don’t waste your time because you are only going to be disrespected and hung up on. You can never get the name of the person you are speaking with and quite frankly the statistics show that they as a whole are incompetent. In my case the same is true. I reached out to an agent through the County Sheriff, I knew he had a conflict of interest, that’s how desperate I was.

During these ten years of waiting for a response from the Senator’s inquiry I continued more advanced degree of suffering. My entire body was reacting to the chemical exposure. I had no choice but to stay at my private property with would have resulted in my death I am sure, or flee to escape the chemicals. I chose the latter believing that at some time I would be compensated for the damages I suffered from the intentional actions of my corrupt local government officials. They terrorized me, I was afraid to go to sleep at night because I knew they were not beyond setting my house on fire with me in it. I know that for a fact. You don’t know that because you have never had the opportunity to read my story.

The Senator still has an obligation to assure my evidence has been properly reviewed, however he has now suggested he can do nothing on my behalf. So to sum up what he did, he requested two inquiries on my behalf. He apparently was never given a follow up report from the FBI disclosing what they discovered in my case. I can tell you what they discovered. They discovered nothing, they have never reviewed the evidence. The agent who I finally got connected with came to my home for the purpose of reviewing my evidence. He arrive announcing that he had no intention of reviewing anything. He later disclosed to me that the County Sheriff had given information (hearsay) to a third party and that is how he determined no Federal law has been violated. I can tell you and most of you know that when it come to telling the truth about any subject a law enforcement officer is the last source you can trust to be honest. I was not privy to the information given to this agent, for the purpose I am sure that I would not have the opportunity to present evidence that he was making false statements. This agent was supposed to be investigating on my behalf. He instead cover up the violations of Federal law committed by corrupt local officials.

Now what options do I have to seek justice in a case that destroyed my life? You know and I know the only resolution I have available for justice to be served. The media has much responsibility for the mass shootings we hear of in today’s world. I can testify that these random shooters are not mentally ill. They have been violated to the degree that they will not allow to be disrespected for one more minute. That is what the media should be reporting before it comes to this extreme.

I have pleaded with the media to publish my story. The local editor has been sent the evidence as it took place by me. He stated that my case looks cut and dry. He is right there is no reasonable justification for the criminal offenses that have been committed against me. But he will not publish my story because he has a good relationship with the County Sheriff and does not want to put that in jeopardy. Should I happen to decide I will not go one more minute being disregarded and disrespected to be a human being I am certain that this local editor will withhold the evidence that has been submitted to him by me.

Protecting corrupt government officials is not in the best interest of them. It takes a tragedy and still they are protected from being exposed as the animals they have become.

The buck stops here. https://poisonedbymyneighborfromhell.com terrorist governments using chemical weapons against civilians happening in the USA today. But don’t tell the general public. Let them put themselves in a life threatening situation, that is in the best interest of all involved, right?

Give me my day in court or an AR-15.

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 – Conspiracy Against Rights

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 – Conspiracy Against Rights

This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).

It further makes it unlawful for two or more persons to go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another with the intent to prevent or hinder his/her free exercise or enjoyment of any rights so secured.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to ten years, or both; and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years, or for life, or may be sentenced to death.

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 – Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law

This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.

This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.

Acts under “color of any law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under “color of any law,” the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Is there any question that these laws have been violated through this evidence?

Montrose and Lee County, Iowa unprecedented case of #public corruption, #nepotism and #kleptocracy

18 U.S. Code CHAPTER 11B—CHEMICAL WEAPONS. FBI SA THOMAS REINWART DETERMINED NO VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW HAS OCCURRED

The fact that FBI Agent Reinwart, refused to review my evidence that supports without a doubt my allegations leaves his decision irrelevant. It does not take a graduate of the academy to know that an investigation requires reviewing evidence from both sides of a case. In an email he sent me he admits that he made his decision based on what I verbally told him and what the County Sheriff told a third party. I even submitted evidence that the Sheriff had a conflict of interest with the opposing party. He made his decision based on false statements given by the sheriff. I asked Reinwart to share with me the information the Sheriff had made in his statements. Reinwart refused. Reinwart was supposed to be investigation this case on my behalf. He could not share the false information given by the Sheriff because I have hard copy evidence that would prove the Sheriff was lying. The sheriff knows no facts about this case. Any information he has is based on lies made by the Conlee’s. I can prove multiple counts of perjury made by Conlee in the civil case. AUSA Kevin VanderSchel was lying when he advised me that he had the authority to violate a civil court order. When we have Federal authorities who have no regard to the oath they took to uphold the Constitution its time for the citizens to unite and remove them from their positions. Dirty Rotten Bastards. I have a purpose to speak to the Inspector General. To expose one corrupt government official is small potatoes. I have an entire group of self serving government impostors that need removed from their positions. Hearsay is not evidence. Dirty Rotten Bastards. Private property is never to be taken without just compensation. Reinwart did not possess the knowledge of  any Federal law, who is responsible for putting this incompetent individual in his position? He has shown me that he is not qualified to investigate any case regarding Federal law!

18 U.S. Code § 229.Prohibited activities

(a)Unlawful Conduct.—Except as provided in subsection (b), it shall be unlawful for any person knowingly—

(1)to develop, produce, otherwise acquire, transfer directly or indirectly, receive, stockpile, retain, own, possess, or use, or threaten to use, any chemical weapon; or

(2)to assist or induce, in any way, any person to violate paragraph (1), or to attempt or conspire to violate paragraph (1).

(b)Exempted Agencies and .—

(1)In general.—

Subsection (a) does not apply to the retention, ownership, possession, transfer, or receipt of a chemical weapon by a department, agency, or other entity of the United States, or by a person described in paragraph (2), pending destruction of the weapon.

(2)Exempted persons.—A person referred to in paragraph (1) is—

(A)any person, including a member of the Armed Forces of the United States, who is authorized by law or by an appropriate officer of the United States to retain, own, possess, transfer, or receive the chemical weapon; or

(B)in an emergency situation, any otherwise non culpable person if the person is attempting to destroy or seize the weapon.

(c)Jurisdiction.—Conduct prohibited by subsection (a) is within the jurisdiction of the United States if the prohibited conduct—

(1)takes place in the United States;

(2)takes place outside of the United States and is committed by a national of the United States;

(3)is committed against a national of the United States while the national is outside the United States; or

(4)is committed against any property that is owned, leased, or used by the United States or by any department or agency of the United States, whether the property is within or outside the United States.

18 U.S. Code § 229A. Penalties

(a)Criminal Penalties.—

(1)In general.—

Any person who violates section 229 of this title shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years, or both.

(2)Death penalty.—

Any person who violates section 229 of this title and by whose action the death of another person is the result shall be punished by death or imprisoned for life.

(b)Civil Penalties.—

(1)In general.—

The Attorney General may bring a civil action in the appropriate United States district court against any person who violates section 229 of this title and, upon proof of such violation by a preponderance of the evidence, such person shall be subject to pay a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed $100,000 for each such violation.

(2)Relation to other proceedings.—

The imposition of a civil penalty under this subsection does not preclude any other criminal or civil statutory, common law, or administrative remedy, which is available by law to the United States or any other person.

(c)Reimbursement of Costs.—

The court shall order any person convicted of an offense under subsection (a) to reimburse the United States for any expenses incurred by the United States incident to the seizure, storage, handling, transportation, and destruction or other disposition of any property that was seized in connection with an investigation of the commission of the offense by that person. A person ordered to reimburse the United States for expenses under this subsection shall be jointly and severally liable for such expenses with each other person, if any, who is ordered under this subsection to reimburse the United States for the same expenses.

18 U.S. Code § 229B. Criminal forfeitures; destruction of weapons

(a)Property Subject to Criminal Forfeiture.—Any person convicted under section 229A (a) shall forfeit to the United States irrespective of any provision of State law—

(1)any property, real or personal, owned, possessed, or used by a person involved in the offense;

(2)any property constituting, or derived from, and proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, as the result of such violation; and

(3)any of the property used in any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission of, such violation.

The court, in imposing sentence on such person, shall order, in addition to any other sentence imposed pursuant to section 229A (a), that the person forfeit to the United States all property described in this subsection. In lieu of a fine otherwise authorized by section 229A (a), a defendant who derived profits or other proceeds from an offense may be fined not more than twice the gross profits or other proceeds.

(b)Procedures.—

(1)General.—Property subject to forfeiture under this section, any seizure and disposition thereof, and any administrative or judicial proceeding in relation thereto, shall be governed by subsections (b) through (p) of section 413 of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 853), except that any reference under those subsections to—

(A)this subchapter or subchapter II” shall be deemed to be a reference to section 229A (a); and

(B)subsection (a)” shall be deemed to be a reference to subsection (a) of this section.

(2)Temporary restraining orders.—

(A)In general.—

For the purposes of forfeiture proceedings under this section, a temporary restraining order may be entered upon application of the United States without notice or opportunity for a hearing when an information or indictment has not yet been filed with respect to the property, if, in addition to the circumstances described in section 413(e)(2) of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 853(e)(2)), the United States demonstrates that there is probable cause to believe that the property with respect to which the order is sought would, in the event of conviction, be subject to forfeiture under this section and exigent circumstances exist that place the life or health of any person in danger.

(B)Warrant of seizure.—

If the court enters a temporary restraining order under this paragraph, it shall also issue a warrant authorizing the seizure of such property.

(C)Applicable procedures.—

The procedures and time limits applicable to temporary restraining orders under section 413(e)(2) and (3) of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 853(e)(2) and (3)) shall apply to temporary restraining orders under this paragraph.

(c)Affirmative Defense.—It is an affirmative defense against a forfeiture under subsection (b) that the property—

(1)is for a purpose not prohibited under the Chemical Weapons Convention; and

(2)is of a type and quantity that under the circumstances is consistent with that purpose.

(d)Destruction or Other Disposition.—

The Attorney General shall provide for the destruction or other appropriate disposition of any chemical weapon seized and forfeited pursuant to this section.

(e)Assistance.—

The Attorney General may request the head of any agency of the United States to assist in the handling, storage, transportation, or destruction of property seized under this section.

(f)Owner Liability.—

The owner or possessor of any property seized under this section shall be liable to the United States for any expenses incurred incident to the seizure, including any expenses relating to the handling, storage, transportation, and destruction or other disposition of the seized property.

18 U.S. Code § 229C. Individual self-defense devices

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prohibit any individual self-defense device, including those using a pepper spray or chemical mace.

18 U.S. Code § 229D. Injunctions

The United States may obtain in a civil action an injunction against—

(1)the conduct prohibited under section 229 or 229C of this title; or

(2)the preparation or solicitation to engage in conduct prohibited under section 229 or 229D[1] of this title.

18 U.S. Code § 229E. Requests for military assistance to enforce prohibition in certain emergencies

The Attorney General may request the Secretary of Defense to provide assistance under section 382 of title 10[1]in support of Department of Justice activities relating to the enforcement of section 229 of this title in an emergency situation involving a chemical weapon. The authority to make such a request may be exercised by another official of the Department of Justice in accordance with section 382(f)(2) of title 10.[1] 

18 U.S. Code § 229F. Definitions

In this chapter:

(1)Chemical weapon.—The term “chemical weapon” means the following, together or separately:

(A)A toxic chemical and its precursors, except where intended for a purpose not prohibited under this chapter as long as the type and quantity is consistent with such a purpose.

(B)A munition or device, specifically designed to cause death or other harm through toxic properties of those toxic chemicals specified in subparagraph (A), which would be released as a result of the employment of such munition or device.

(C)Any equipment specifically designed for use directly in connection with the employment of munitions or devices specified in subparagraph (B).

(2)Chemical weapons ; convention.—

The terms “Chemical Weapons Convention” and “Convention” mean the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction, opened for signature on January 13, 1993.

(3)Key component of a binary or multicomponent chemical system.—

The term “key component of a binary or multicomponent chemical system” means the precursor which plays the most important role in determining the toxic properties of the final product and reacts rapidly with other chemicals in the binary or multicomponent system.

(4)National of the united states.—

The term “national of the United States” has the same meaning given such term in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22)).

(5)Person.—

The term “person”, except as otherwise provided, means any individual, corporation, partnership, firm, association, trust, estate, public or private institution, any State or any political subdivision thereof, or any political entity within a State, any foreign government or nation or any agency, instrumentality or political subdivision of any such government or nation, or other entity located in the United States.

(6)Precursor.—

(A)In general.—

The term “precursor” means any chemical reactant which takes part at any stage in the production by whatever method of a toxic chemical. The term includes any key component of a binary or multicomponent chemical system.

(B)List of precursors.—

Precursors which have been identified for the application of verification measures under Article VI of the Convention are listed in schedules contained in the Annex on Chemicals of the Chemical Weapons Convention.

(7)Purposes not prohibited by this chapter.—The term “purposes not prohibited by this chapter” means the following:

(A)Peaceful purposes.—

Any peaceful purpose related to an industrial, agricultural, research, medical, or pharmaceutical activity or other activity.

(B)Protective purposes.—

Any purpose directly related to protection against toxic chemicals and to protection against chemical weapons.

(C)Unrelated military purposes.—

Any military purpose of the United States that is not connected with the use of a chemical weapon or that is not dependent on the use of the toxic or poisonous properties of the chemical weapon to cause death or other harm.

(D)Law enforcement purposes.—

Any law enforcement purpose, including any domestic riot control purpose and including imposition of capital punishment.

(8)Toxic chemical.—

(A)In general.—

The term “toxic chemical” means any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals. The term includes all such chemicals, regardless of their origin or of their method of production, and regardless of whether they are produced in facilities, in munitions or elsewhere.

(B)List of toxic chemicals.—

Toxic chemicals which have been identified for the application of verification measures under Article VI of the Convention are listed in schedules contained in the Annex on Chemicals of the Chemical Weapons Convention.

(9)United states.—The term “United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States and includes all places under the jurisdiction or control of the United States, including—

(A)any of the places within the provisions of paragraph (41) [1] of section 40102 of title 49, United States Code;

(B)any civil aircraft of the United States or public aircraft, as such terms are defined in paragraphs (17) and (37),1 respectively, of section 40102 of title 49, United States Code; and

(C)any vessel of the United States, as such term is defined in section 70502(b) of title 46, United States Code.

 

Federal Prosecution of State and Local Corruption: From Sea to Shining Sea

There’s actually a constitutional basis to argue that the federal government should pursue these cases. The Guarantee Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article 4, Section 4, provides that the “United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government.” If “republican form of government” is understood to mean a representative democracy with power derived from the consent of the governed, then federal prosecution of state corruption may fulfill this mandate by removing corrupt state officials who either rose to power illegitimately or are using their powers to the detriment of their citizens. The normal political and legal structures within a state may be fine for handling most crimes, but when it comes to political corruption those structures themselves may be impaired. When that’s the case, there may be a role for the federal government.

When Should the Feds Step In?

One reason federal intervention in a state corruption case might be appropriate and even welcome is the presence of a real or perceived conflict of interest among state officials. If corruption exists at a high level in the state government, those who would be charged with investigating and prosecuting it – the state attorney general, for example – may be political allies and close friends of the potential targets. If a city or state is run by a well-entrenched corrupt political “machine” (I’m lookin’ at you, Chicago) it may be unrealistic to expect the local authorities to tackle the corruption among their friends and colleagues. Indeed, the prosecuting authorities in the state may themselves be involved in the corruption.

Another factor in favor of federal prosecution can be the resources available to the federal government. A large-scale public corruption investigation demands a great deal of prosecutorial and investigative time and money. Many state prosecutor’s offices could quickly be overwhelmed by the demands of such a case, particularly considering all of the other state matters they are tasked with handling. Federal prosecutors, with the vast investigative and prosecutorial power of the federal government behind them, are simply better equipped to tackle such a large-scale investigation than their state counterparts.

Prosecutorial resources and expertise are also an issue. Many state and local prosecutors accustomed to dealing with street crimes may have never handled a major public corruption case. Such cases raise complex legal and factual issues concerning things like proof of corrupt intent, not found in more typical state criminal law fare. The U.S. Department of Justice recognized the special nature of political corruption investigations by establishing the Public Integrity Section in 1976, with a staff of attorneys who specialize in such cases and travel the country assisting other federal prosecutors who are handling them. DOJ can bring a degree of prosecutorial firepower and experience to such investigations that is beyond the reach of most states.

The Laws Used to Prosecute State and Local Corruption

Somewhat surprisingly, there are not a lot of federal laws aimed directly at state and local corruption. The principal federal statute covering bribery and gratuities, 18 U.S.C. § 201, applies only to federal public officials. But federal prosecutors have been creative when it comes to putting other federal statutes to work in these cases.

Honest services fraud – perhaps the most popular theory used to prosecute state and local corruption is honest services mail and wire fraud. The mail and wire fraud statutes (18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1343) apply to use of the mail, phone lines, or wireless transmissions in furtherance of any “scheme or artifice to defraud.” The statutes are routinely applied to the more typical schemes to defraud victims of money or property, such as a Ponzi scheme. But prosecutors also use mail and wire fraud to prosecute state and local officials for corruption, on the theory that the corrupt acts defrauded the public of its intangible right to the fair and honest services of their public officials.

Honest services fraud has been used to prosecute many state and local officials over the past few decades. At times it has been applied to schemes that appeared more politically sleazy or unethical than criminally corrupt, which led to controversy about the potential breadth of the theory. But in 2010 in Skilling v. United States the Supreme Court limited the statute, ruling that it only applies to conduct that amounts to bribery or kickbacks. Even with this limitation, though, it remains an important weapon for federal prosecutors attacking state or local corruption. Honest services fraud was one of the primary statutes used in the McDonnell prosecution, as well as in the prosecutions of New York state legislators.

Hobbs Act Extortion – another common theory is extortion under color of official right under the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951. As I have discussed elsewhere, extortion “under color of official right” has been interpreted by the Supreme Court essentially to be the equivalent of bribery. In the absence of a general federal bribery statute that applies to state and local officials, Hobbs Act extortion is a favorite of federal prosecutors looking at state and local corruption. Along with honest services fraud, Hobbs Act extortion formed the core of the indictment against the McDonnell’s in Virginia, and the same two statutes also were used in the recent indictment of former New York state Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver.

Federal Program Bribery – a less commonly used but very powerful law is the federal program bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 666. It prohibits theft or bribery by an agent of any organization or state or local government in connection with programs or agencies receiving federal funds. There are certain (and quite modest) minimum dollar requirements involved, but once those are met this statute is a potent anti-bribery tool that can apply not only to state or local government officials but to private individuals as well.

RICO – the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1964, is a statutory behemoth primarily aimed at organized crime. Given the breadth of the statute, however, it is possible to apply it to entities such as a governor’s office, charging that state officials or others conducted the affairs of that office through a “pattern of racketeering activity.” Racketeering activity is defined to include a number of state law crimes, including bribery and extortion. Accordingly, a state law bribery scheme affecting a state or local government, while not violating the federal bribery statute, may be brought as a federal prosecution through the vehicle of RICO.

Debate over federal prosecution of state and local officials reflects fundamental tensions about the proper balance of state and federal power that have existed since the founding of the nation. There will always be some, such as Governor McDonnell’s defenders in Virginia, who will argue that the federal government should butt out and allow the states to handle their own affairs. But as discussed above, there are many reasons why federal intervention may be necessary and appropriate — and if recent developments are any indication, federal prosecutors are not hesitating to jump in.

Montrose and Lee County, Iowa unprecedented case of #public corruption, #nepotism and #kleptocracy  Using Chemical weapons against civilians for the purpose of eliminating them from their private property.

US Assistant Kevin VanderSchel and FBI Agent Thomas Reinwart, incompetent Federal authorities violating Federal law.

Assistant US Attorney Kevin VanderSchel and FBI SA Thomas Reinwart,
The both of you have shown incompetence in you job duties. Kevin VanderSchel had to
resort to my website in order to obtain any evidence about my case. In what he did
comprehend from my website, he had the fact completely ass backwards.
SA Thomas Reinwart had no evidence to submit to VanderSchel because as I have always
stated, Reinwart never reviewed my evidence.
I want to know the names and contact information for your supervisors.
I requested this information from Reinwart previously and got no answers.
Senator Grassley has a duty to oversee that procedures of Federal authorities are met
with high regard. In this case their has been no regard shown to a citizens Federally
protected rights.
I have the evidence to support these allegations. Do you job Senator Grassley.
Private property taken by unlawful use of chemicals against a civilian.
Use of chemicals as a weapon is defined as terrorist acts.
Not on my watch

TOTAL DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS Section II

TOTAL DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS Section II

The phrase, “no one can “be compelled to be a witness against himself,” is in agreement with the Supreme Court ruling in Haynes v. U.S., 390 U.S. 85, 88 S.Ct. 722, wherein the ruling was that to force anyone to register anything is communicative, and such communicative evidence is precluded by the 5th Amendment

So with that in mind, all fiat governmental administrators, police and all associated by interlocking directorates have been given knowledge! You “know, or should have known.” 

Under USC Title 42 §1986: Action for neglect to prevent…, it states: Every person who, having knowledge that any wrongs conspired or to be done… and having power to prevent or aid in preventing… Neglects or refuses so to do … shall be liable to the party injured… and; 

The means of “knowledge”, especially where it consists of public record, is deemed in law to be “knowledge of the facts” that makes the offending, trespassing, pirating “Officer” and all supporting interlocking directorates subsequently liable for all damage and injury. THE WORLD has now been given “knowledge of the facts” as it pertains to this conspiracy to commit a fraud against me.

AT LEAST THIRTEEN (13) TIMES I noticed all Capturing and Offending Parties that I reserved ALL my Rights at all times. I did not, do not, and never have voluntarily agreed to play any game of ‘let’s pretend’ with any Legal Fictional Entity or other governmental agency. I stopped trusting big boys with real guns in 1968 with my Honorable Discharge for US Army. I reiterate, I reserved all my Rights at all times, compromising none, even though that increased my degree of torture within their confines.

“[W]aivers of fundamental Rights must be knowing, intentional, and voluntary acts, done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences. U.S. v. Brady, 397 U.S. 742 at 748 (1970); U.S.v. O’Dell, 160 F.2d 304 (6th Cir. 1947)” . 

Fraud, deceit, coercion, willful intent to injure another, malicious acts, RICO activity and conspiracy were instrumented against Claimant by said Capturing and Offending Pirates Unconscionable “contract “One which no sensible man not under delusion, or duress, or in distress would make, and such as no honest and fair man would accept. ; Franklin Fire Ins. Co. v. Noll, 115 Ind. App. 289, 58 N.E.2d 947, 949, 950. And; 

Under USC Title 42 §1982, §1983 and/or §1441. Property rights of citizens …, further evidences the above position that the City or State cannot take property because they DO NOT have Jurisdiction. It states that federal or state governmental agencies MUST have a monetary or proprietary interest in my private property in order to have jurisdiction over it (my property has no government grant/funding and is not a subsidized government project). 

The State cannot diminish the rights of the people. Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516.

To say that one may not defend his own property is usurpation of power by the legislature.” O’Connell v. Judnich (1925), 71 C.A.386, 235 P. 664.

“The phrase ‘common law’ found in this clause, is used in contradistinction to equity, and admiralty, and maritime jurisprudence.” Parsons v. Bedford, et al, 3 Pet 433, 478-9 “If the common law can try the cause, and give full redress, that alone takes away the admiralty jurisdiction.” Ramsey v. Allegrie, supra, p. 411.Inferior Courts – The term may denote any court subordinate to the chief tribunal in the particular judicial system; but it is commonly used as the designation of a court of special, limited, or statutory jurisdiction, whose record must show the existence and attaching of jurisdiction in any given case, in order to give presumptive validity to its judgment. In re Heard’s Guardianship, 174 Miss. 37, 163, So. 685

 The high Courts have further decreed that Want of Jurisdiction makes “…all acts of judges, magistrates, U.S. Marshals, sheriffs, local police, all void and not just voidable.† Nestor v. Hershey, 425 F2d 504. 

Void Judgment -One which has no legal force or effect, invalidity of which may be asserted by any person whose rights are affected at any time and at any place directly or collaterally. Reynolds v. Volunteer State Life Ins. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 80 S.W.2d 1087, 1092. 

“Whenever a law deprives the owner of the beneficial use and enjoyment of his property, or imposes restraints upon such use and enjoyment that materially affect its value, without legal process or compensation, it deprives him of his property within the meaning of the constitution. … It is not necessary, in order to render the statute obnoxious to the restraints of the constitution, that it must in terms or effect authorize the actual physical taking of the property or the thing itself, so long as it affects its free use and enjoyment, or the power of disposition at the will of the owner.” Forster v. Scott,136 N. Y. 577, [18 L. R. A. 543, 32 N. E. 976]; Monongahela Nav. Co. v. United States, 148 U. S. 312, 336, [37 L. Ed. 463, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 622].

 Mr. Lewis in his work on Eminent Domain, third edition, section 11, says: ‘A law which authorizes the taking of private property without compensation, … cannot be considered as due process of law in a free government.’ (Chicago etc, R. R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U. S. 226, [41 L. Ed. 979, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 581].” Associated etc., Co. v. Railroad Commission (1917) 176 Cal. 518, 528-530.

An unconstitutional law is not a law, it confers no rights, imposes no duties, and affords no protection. Norton vs. Shelby County, 118 US 425.

Primacy of position in our state constitution is accorded the Declaration of Rights; thus emphasizing the importance of those basic and inalienable rights of personal liberty and private property which are thereby reserved and guaranteed to the people and protected from arbitrary invasion or impairment from any governmental quarter. The Declaration of Rights constitutes a limitation upon the powers of every department of the state government. State ex rel. Davis v. Stuart. 64 A.L.R. 1307, 97 Fla. 69, 120 So. 335. 

“The rights of the individual are not derived from governmental agencies, municipal, state, or federal, or even from the Constitution. They exist inherently in every man, by endowment of the Creator, and are merely reaffirmed in the Constitution, and restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies of government. The people’s rights are not derived from the government, but the government’s authority comes from the people. The Constitution but states again these rights already existing, and when legislative encroachment by the nation, state, or municipality invade these original and permanent rights, it is the duty of the courts to so declare, and to afford the necessary relief. City of Dallas, et al. v. Mitchell, 245 S. W. 944, 945-46 (1922). 

A constitution is designated as a supreme enactment, a fundamental act of legislation by the people of the state. A constitution is legislation direct from the people acting in their sovereign capacity, while a statute is legislation from their representatives, subject to limitations prescribed by the superior authority. Ellingham v. Dye, 178 Ind. 336; NE 1; 231 U.S. 250; 58 L. Ed. 206; 34 S. Ct. 92; Sage v. New York, 154 NY 61; 47 NE 1096.

 “Owner has constitutional right to use and enjoyment of his property.” Simpson v. Los Angeles (1935), 4 C.2d 60, 47 P.2d 474

“We find it intolerable that one constitutional right should have to be surrendered in order to assert another”. SIMMONS v US,

 “When rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.

 “The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.” Miller v. U.S. 230 F 2d 486, 489. History is clear that the first ten amendments to the Constitution were adopted to secure certain common law rights of the people, against invasion by the Federal Government.” Bell v. Hood, 71 F.Supp., 813, 816 (1947) U.S.D.C. — So. Dist. CA. 

Economic necessity cannot justify a disregard of cardinal constitutional guarantee. Riley v. Certer, 165 Okal. 262; 25 P.2d 666; 79 ALR 1018. When any court violates the clean and unambiguous language of the Constitution, a fraud is perpetrated and no one is bound to obey it. (See 16 Ma. Jur. 2d 177, 178) State v. Sutton, 63 Minn. 147, 65 NW 262, 30 L.R.A. 630 Am. 459. 

“The ‘liberty’ guaranteed by the constitution must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiar and known to the framers of the constitution. This liberty denotes the right of the individual to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to locomotion, and generally enjoy those rights long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” Myer v. Nebraska, 262 U .S. 390, 399; United States v. Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 654.

 “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” Norton vs. Shelby County, 118 US 425 p. 442

 “The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

 “No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.” 16 Am Jur 2nd, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256 

All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void. Chief Justice Marshall, Marbury vs Madison, 5, U.S. (Cranch) 137, 174, 176 (1803).

 “Right of protecting property, declared inalienable by constitution, is not mere right to protect it by individual force, but right to protect it by law of land, and force of body politic.” Billings v. Hall (1857), 7 C. 1.

People are supreme, not the state. Waring vs. the Mayor of Savannah, 60 Georgia at 93 

“The Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity is one of the Common-Law immunities and defenses that are available to the Sovereign…” Citizen of Minnesota. Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, (1988) 491 U.S. 58, 105 L.Ed. 2d. 45, 109 S.Ct. 2304.

“The people of the state, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the king by his own prerogative.” Lansing v. Smith, (1829) 4 Wendell 9, (NY). 

“In Land v. Dollar, 338 US 731 (1947), the court noted, that when the government entered into a commercial field of activity, it left immunity behind.† Brady v. Roosevelt, 317 US 575 (1943); FHA v. Burr, 309 US 242 (1940); Kiefer v. RFC, 306 US 381 (1939

 “Ignorance of the law does not excuse misconduct in anyone, least of all in a sworn officer of the law.” In re McCowan (1917), 177 C. 93, 170 P. 1100.

“All are presumed to know the law.” San Francisco Gas Co. v. Brickwedel (1882), 62 C. 641; Dore v. Southern Pacific Co. (1912), 163 C. 182, 124 P. 817; People v. Flanagan (1924), 65 C.A. 268, 223 P. 1014; Lincoln v. Superior Court (1928), 95 C.A. 35, 271 P. 1107; San Francisco Realty Co. v. Linnard (1929), 98 C.A. 33, 276 P. 368.

 “It is one of the fundamental maxims of the common law that ignorance of the law excuses no one.” Daniels v. Dean (1905), 2 C.A. 421, 84 P. 332.

NOTICE OF CLAIMANTS INTENT

 I’VE THROWN MORE LAW INTO THIS DOCUMENT than the offending Libellee(s) have probably read in their lifetime. Forcing a Living Man to “pretend”  he’s a corporation, a trust, a legal entity, or some other “device” is contrary to common sense and True Law. A benefit, no matter how benevolent, cannot be forced upon any Living Man against his will. I exercise my will to inform the entire world that I am not a partaker in the/this/any Babylonian Empirical enterprise that ‘buys and sells men’s souls’ as a common commodity.  My plain statement of intent revolves around the fact that one man’s protest won’t help my fellow man, unless I demand “Enforceability.”  [Pr 29:19 “A servant will not be corrected by words: for though he understands he will not answer.”] And, [Jeremiah 13:22-26. I will discover thy skirts upon thy face, that thy shame may appear] I am openly showing you and the entire world the filth of the “Whore of Babylon”  I am lifting her skirt above her head that all can see the filth of the murders, slavery, torture, extortion and, yes, even PIRATING done by her. There are no ‘innocent by-standers’ in this theatre of Legal Fictional Entities (actors). You are either part of the solution or you are part of the problem. I am exercising one of my greatest Rights, the Right of being left alone, the Right of Privacy, the Right of Peace, which all Libellee(s) have greatly disturbed. 

The ninth (9th) Maxim of Commercial Law states that credibility is measured by the degree of risk one takes. You won’ find much greater risk than I have taken to bring Truth and clarity to this very ugly scenario. 

WHAT IS THE TRUE PURPOSE FOR POLICE ACTION/REVENUE GENERATORS? 

My limited education has informed me that anyone having my signature can use it as they see fit. So, they create new money by sending a “bill,” an instrument which has no charge to it. The bill is like an invoice, which if not rebutted will run like any invoice … 30, 60, 90 days, then it becomes a security which can be levied against. The new money created is MY money which I can prove by either 1099OID or 1099A. 

All vendors, retailers, etc., have the liability (ability to lie) to collect the interest on the national debt, which in essence is what they are doing … but they are not sending that along to the US Treasury and are in reality “pirates” operating on letters of marque and reprisal against the “enemies” of the US, you, me, and the 14th Amendment citizen under TWEA (trading with the enemy act) … BUT THEY ARE NOT PAYING THE TAX MEANING THAT THE MONEY CREATED IS “UNREPORTED INCOME” …hence the OID or A and resulting 1040 claim on interest back to principal – ME. 

When you do a full AFV (Acceptance For Value by a Private Bank/Banker) and state on the AFV “bill” to Deposit to the US Treasury and Charge the same to your corporate, Legal Fictional Entity (strawman), or to the vendor itself, it is a chargeback to the collector of the national debt, the US Treasury (you could do a chargeback to any other source … like to the Republic … if you so choose). The newly created money then is taken from the pirate for failure to ‘state a claim upon which relief can be granted (Rule 12 b 6)’ and either charged back for the use of the Republic or charged back where ever you send it. [Read: EXHIBIT  THERE IS NO MONEY] The client (vendor/presenter/seller/clerks/police “ticket†) account(s) is/are not entitled to the funds because of failure to pay the tax. The new bill is always ‘new’ money (which increases the National Debt with every issue) as they got paid when we put our signature on the original application for “credit”. The presenter (police/ticket) is always trying to avoid liability on the return of the tax to US Treasury by doing a ‘pass over’ from the application/ Bill directly to the bond of the strawman and getting you/me to become liable (30,60,90 days) … so now the presenter is trying to pirate from the US Treasury and make you liable for the payment of the tax bill — which we do when we take the Bill and AFV and deposit to the US Treasury and charge it back to either the presenter or our strawman (they are actually the same entity … all corporations o the US).     

The Treasury can’t ‘cut them a check’, but actually ‘charge’ them for the money on the presentment which is essence should have been forwarded to Treasury on the national debt!!! THEY ARE IN DISHONOR AND WILL BE LIQUIDATED UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHAPTER 11 BANKRUPTCY OF THE US! Vendors or presenters already have the benefit privilege of discharge when issued a TIN, and trying an end run with a ‘bill’ is thievery under public policy. They are not entitled to “new” money as this is a felony called unjust enrichment. One easy way to prove the felony is the 1099A, and under 18 USC 4 — misprision of felony, the IRS has to prosecute. The presenter has no rights in the matter for failure to state a claim and pay the tax … it is all NEW MONEY!!! And, every action performed raises the National Debt by that much. These are Dark Matters.

 

My Comment Submitted on Regulations.gov (ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0361-2340). The use of chemicals applied to another person’s property is a fucking criminal offense! Who wants to prove otherwise? You who know and ignore are as guilty of this as those who participated!

My local government officials assisted one of their own in applying glyphosate to my side of our 300′ common boundary. This behavior continued for over five years. I verbally requested this neighbor to stop because I felt it was causing a rash on my shins. He refused to stop. I requested the City police chief to file a trespassing complaint against this neighbor. He refused advising that he did not want to make this neighbor mad. I requested the County Attorney to file a trespassing complaint against this neighbor he advised that he did not file neighbor against neighbor complaints. His double standard is indisputable because I was criminally charged multiple time by the State based on fabricated laws. I was criminally charged by the city multiple time by the city based on fabricated ordinances. While I was trying to defend my person and my property the “rash” had progressed into a full body severe skin condition. I hired an attorney to sue the City for my damages. The city is liable because they issued fraudulent building permits to this neighbor. The building administrator refused his duty to address my complaints in regard to the nuisance drainage causing adverse effects to my property and significant loss of value. The fact that the Mayor sold this legally nonconforming lot to this neighbor provides an existing conflict of interest. The building administrator refusing to address my concerns was replaced by the Lee County Detective and brother of this neighbor. He had no jurisdiction or authority to act as a building administrator. A field investigation was done by the proper authority. The investigator advised me when he saw my skin condition that he knew what was causing it. I did not inquire because I had already use the process of elimination and determine the glyphosate had to be the cause of my condition. My attorney failed to file the complaint against the city, he failed to inform me that he did not file the complaint. This neighbor filed a frivolous complaint against me alleging “loss of enjoyment to his property”, he had no concern that he had been applying chemicals to my property knowing it was causing me health problems. The judge in the civil case cited my right to use my property as I wished. That order was violated without hesitation. The County Attorney and the Detective had a special relationship for 17 years working hand in hand creating a conflict of interest. I contacted US Senator Charles Grassley, he advised me that he would request and inquiry of my case to the FBI. Grassley advised me that the FBI would contact me. I waited for five years. No FBI contacted me. By this time my condition had progress to the degree that I felt my life was in danger. I contacted Senator Grassley again and he requested a second inquiry into my case, he advised me again that the FBI would contact me. He advised me to be patient, it takes time. I felt that ten years of waiting for intervention, suffering severely everyday was not acceptable. I had no protection of the law, this neighbor had a motive to eliminate me from my property and a County Deputy that have ultimate respect for stop at my house advising me that this neighbor had no intention of stopping with the chemicals until he acquired my property. I have followed all the standard procedures to remedy this situation. The government has not, they have fully partnered with this neighbor/council member in violation my rights. I am requesting a legitimate review of the evidence I have collected throughout this taking of my private property by using chemicals as a weapon to cause my person and my property harm.

A legitimate investigation would have determined it was not the city that applied the chemicals to the city easement. It was in fact my neighbor/city council member who took it upon himself to act as a city street department employee. This report was done after three years of the chemical being applied to my 300′ common boundary with this “above the law” neighbor/ council member. The city is liable because they issued fraudulent building permits. But the personal financial gain of the Mayor from selling this otherwise worthless non conforming property was more important that protecting the rights of this resident.

warning to City poison

warning to City poison

Montrose and Lee County, Iowa unprecedented case of corrupt local government officials. Taking private property for personal gain.

Are Private Property Rights Federally Protected?

      I have continuously asked for confirmation if private property rights are Federally protected Rights. I have gotten no confirmation. I can only assume that they are but nobody wants to admit it.

      My neighbor invaded my private property for over five years by applying chemicals on my side only, of our 300′ common boundary. I verbally advised him not to apply anything to my private property on the day I noticed he had done this. That same day I also advised the Chief of Police that I had given my neighbor a verbal notice not to apply anything to my private property and requested an incident report. 

      The chemicals continued to be applied on my private property by my neighbor without hesitation. I repeatedly requested the incident from the Chief of Police. I received a report 16 months after my first request. That report did not represent what I had advised the neighbor. I refused to take it and advised the Police Chief that it was unsatisfactory. Two weeks later I did receive one that was not as I would have like but it did state some of the facts on it. 

       The neighbor continued his assault against my person and my private property. I requested the Police chief file a trespassing complaint against him on my behalf. I was advised by the Police chief that he would not file a complaint against my neighbor because he did not want to make him mad. 

       I confronted the Mayor about the issue. The Mayor advised me that he did not think neighbors filing complaints against neighbors was in anyone’s best interest and refused to manage the  Police Chief in following procedure to remedy the situation. The Mayor also had an existing conflict of interest as he was the seller of the property to my neighbor only two years prior. Public record shows the Mayor stated that legally nonconforming property can not have larger structures built on the lots than the existing structures. The Mayor states on public record that the signature of the builder on a building permit alleviates the city from liability. The building permit is not signed by the builder. A double standard was used when I was the victim of my neighbor’s assault.

       The building permits issued by the City building administrator are fraudulent. They are not completed as required by the State of Iowa building regulations and the drainage of my neighbors redevelopment of the legally nonconforming lot does not comply with State drainage law. When I requested the city building administrator to address my concerns as standard procedure requires he refused. He did continue to issue fraudulent building permits to this neighbor for his legally nonconforming lot. 

      Conflicting with the reason the Mayor would not have the police chief to follow the law in issuing a trespassing complaint against my neighbor I was criminally charged multiple times by the city for fabricated laws based on fraudulent ordinances.

      A double standard was also supported by the County Attorney when I advised him that my neighbor was applying chemicals to my private property. The County attorney took the same stance as the Mayor. He advised me that he did not allow neighbors to file complaints against neighbors. I was criminally charged by the State for violations of fabricated law. I reported to the County Attorney that the City Clerk had fabricated ordinances anonymously over the telephone. He advised that he had a problem with a clerk that would fabricate ordinances. Only when I arrived at his office, and he realized who the parties were did he no longer have a problem with the city clerk committing fraud. 

      This type of behavior continued with every authority that I contacted. Including an attorney I hired to file a complaint against the city which he never informed me that he neglected to file.  I discovered this when I was served court papers by my neighbor. There was a civil court order citing my right to use my private property as I wished. That civil court order was never complied with by my neighbor or enforced by law enforcement. 

      The chemicals caused me to suffer severe chronic skin condition that I continue to be treated for by the University of Iowa Dermatology clinic..

      For five years I paid the taxes on my private property. The deed was in my name.  I had no control what took place on my private property. I was denied protection from harm by law enforcement. I was force to flee from my private property to escape the chemical poisoning. The chemicals caused me to suffer severe chronic skin condition that I continue to be treated for by the University of Iowa Dermatology clinic.. Those who participated in violating my private property rights include but are not limited to the County Sheriff, FBI agent Thomas Rienwart and AUSA Kevin VanderSchel.

 

     Trespassing is a criminal offense. The crime of trespass is commonly found to be charged against individuals in Lee County, Iowa. I was denied that right to protection.

 

     Fraud is a criminal offense. There are numerous individuals who have been charged with fraud in Lee County, Iowa. I was denied that right to protection.

 

 Violations of Federal laws to be prosecuted by the Federal Civil Rights Division

 ARTICLE XIV.

“Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The reasonable enjoyment of one’s real estate is certainly a vested right, which cannot be interfered with or limited arbitrarily. The constitutional guaranty of protection for all private property extends equally to the enjoyment and the possession of lands. An arbitrary interference by the government, or by its authority, with the reasonable enjoyment of private lands is a taking of private [728] property without due process of law, which is inhibited by the constitutions. But it is not every use which comes within this constitutional protection. One has a vested right to only a reasonable use of one’s lands. It is not difficult to find the rule which determines the limitations upon the lawful ways or manner of using lands. It is the rule, which furnishes the solution of every problem in the law of police power, and which is comprehended in the legal maxim, sic utere tuo, ut alienum non lædas. One can lawfully make use of his property only in such a manner as that he will not injure another. Any use of one’s lands to the hurt or annoyance of another is a nuisance, and may be prohibited. At common law that is a nuisance, which causes personal discomfort or injury to health to an unusual degree. As it has been expressed in a preceding section,1 the right of personal security against acts, which will cause injury to health or great bodily discomfort, cannot be made absolute in organized society. It must yield to the reasonable demands of trade, commerce and other great interests of society. While the State cannot arbitrarily violate the right of personal security to health by the unlimited authorization of acts which do harm to health, or render one’s residence less comfortable, there is involved in this matter the consideration of what constitutes a reasonable use of one’s property. At common law this is strictly a judicial question of fact, the answer to which varies according to the circumstances of each case. One is expected to endure a reasonable amount of discomfort and annoyance for the public good, which is furthered by the permission of trades and manufactures, the prosecution of which necessarily involves a certain amount of annoyance or injury to the inhabitants of the neighborhood. In all such cases, it is a question of equity, on whom is it reasonable to impose the burden of the inevitable loss, resulting from this clashing [729] of interests; and independently of statute it is strictly a judicial question, and all the circumstances of the case must be taken into consideration. I was denied that right to protection

 

18 U.S.C. § 229 – U.S. Code – Unannotated Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 229. Prohibited activities

Unlawful conduct. (a) –Except as provided in subsection (b), it shall be unlawful for any person knowingly–

(1) to develop, produce, otherwise acquire, transfer directly or indirectly, receive, stockpile, retain, own, possess, or use, or threaten to use, any chemical weapon;  or (2) to assist or induce, in any way, any person to violate paragraph (1), or to attempt or conspire to violate paragraph (1). 

Exempted agencies and persons. (b) —

In general. (1) –Subsection (a) does not apply to the retention, ownership, possession, transfer, or receipt of a chemical weapon by a department, agency, or other entity of the United States, or by a person described in paragraph (2), pending destruction of the weapon.

Exempted persons. (2) –A person referred to in paragraph (1) is–

(A) any person, including a member of the Armed Forces of the United States, who is authorized by law or by an appropriate officer of the United States to retain, own, possess, transfer, or receive the chemical weapon;  or 

(B) in an emergency situation, any otherwise non culpable person if the person is attempting to destroy or seize the weapon. 

Jurisdiction. (c) –Conduct prohibited by subsection (a) is within the jurisdiction of the United States if the prohibited conduct–

(1) takes place in the United States; 

(2) takes place outside of the United States and is committed by a national of the United States; 

(3) is committed against a national of the United States while the national is outside the United States;  or 

(4) is committed against any property that is owned, leased, or used by the United States or by any department or agency of the United States, whether the property is within or outside the United States. 

Chemical Weapons

This crime is punishable by any term of years in prison. If the crime results in death, the punishment is death or life imprisonment. Property owned or used by the person is subject to forfeiture. Any property derived from and proceeds obtained from the offense and property used to commit or facilitate the offense is also subject to forfeiture. The statute also imposes an additional fine of up to twice the gross profit or proceeds from the offense (18 U.S.C. 229, et seq.).

A chemical weapon is:

  1. a toxic chemical and its precursors (chemical reactants that take part in producing a toxic chemical) unless intended for a purpose that is not prohibited and the type and quantity is consistent with that purpose,
  2. a munition or device designed to cause death or harm through toxic chemicals that would be released by the device, or
  3. equipment designed for use directly in connection with using such a munition or device.

A toxic chemical is a chemical that can cause death, temporary incapacitation, or permanent harm to people or animals.

The law specifies that it does not apply to self-defense devices such as pepper spray or chemical mace. It also does not prevent uses related to (1) industrial, agricultural, research, medical, or pharmaceutical activity; (2) protection against chemical weapons; (3) unrelated military purposes; and (4) law enforcement purposes such as riot control and imposing the death penalty. I was denied that right to protection

 

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 – Conspiracy Against Rights This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).

It further makes it unlawful for two or more persons to go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another with the intent to prevent or hinder his/her free exercise or enjoyment of any rights so secured.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to ten years, or both; and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years, or for life, or may be sentenced to death. I was denied that right to protection

 

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 – Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law  

This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.

This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.

Acts under “color of any law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under “color of any law,” the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death. I was denied that right to protection

 

Title 42, U.S.C., Section 3631 – Criminal Interference with Right to Fair Housing 

This statute makes it unlawful for any individual(s), by the use of force or threatened use of force, to injure, intimidate, or interfere with (or attempt to injure, intimidate, or interfere with), any person’s housing rights because of that person’s race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin. Among those housing rights enumerated in the statute are:

The sale, purchase, or renting of a dwelling;

the occupation of a dwelling;

the financing of a dwelling;

contracting or negotiating for any of the rights enumerated above;

applying for or participating in any service, organization, or facility relating to the sale or rental of dwellings.

This statute also makes it unlawful by the use of force or threatened use of force, to injure, intimidate, or interfere with any person who is assisting an individual or class of persons in the exercise of their housing rights.

Punishment varies from a fine of up to $1,000 or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results, shall be fined up to $10,000 or imprisoned up to ten years, or both, and if death results, shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life. I was denied that right to protection.

AUSA advises “unless I have a document that specifically states Mark Conlee intentionally applied poison on Melody’s property to hurt her”,

AUSA Kevin VanderSchel wrote in a letter to me that “unless I have a document that

specifically states Mark Conlee intentionally applied poison on Melody’s property to hurt her”, he will not pursue my case.

Is this the standard procedure for prosecuting cases? Prosecutor must have admission of guilt? Evidence beyond a reasonable doubt is not enough?

The fact that I verbally told him the first day I discovered the chemicals to stop and he did not stop, as the evidence supports. It took the police chief 16 months to give me an incident report that I requested as documentation for evidence I told Conlee to stop trespassing, as the evidence supports. The evidence also supports, A criminal conspiracy exists when two or more people agree to commit almost any unlawful act, then take some action toward its completion. The action taken need not itself be a crime, but it must indicate that those involved in the conspiracy knew of the plan and intended to break the law. A person may be convicted of conspiracy even if the actual crime was never committed. It was obvious by looking at my skin I was being harmed, as the evidence supports. There are multiple hard copy evidence documents supporting he and the police chief conspired to violate my private property rights. The fact that a civil court order citing my right to use my private property as I wished supports he never stopped applying the chemicals, as the evidence supports. He admitted in court that he applied chemicals to my property, as the evidence supports. Witness/council member stated that it did not look like he had sprayed the chemicals but rather poured chemicals on my property, as the evidence supports.

The fact that he intentionally used chemicals on my private property and it did cause me physical harm has no relevance to him violating Federal law regarding my right to enjoy private property.

If you or Reinwart would have given a shit about a US citizen who  has a legitimate complaint, that proves without a doubt, violates several Federal laws. Instead of being so determined to protect these rapists of my rights.  You and your colleagues have every reason and duty to prosecute each and every one of these local public impostors. If you had the evidence you would have to pretend to be blind not to recognize Conlee applied chemicals to my property with the intention of causing me harm. It doesn’t not take a law degree to read, does it?

Where in the hell is it written that private property rights are not Federally protected? Where the hell  is it written that you have the authority to violate a civil court order.  It is not written anywhere. You continue raping me of my individual Constitutional Rights. You do not have the authority to violate a civil court order. A civil court judge has authority over you.  Your duty as a Federal prosecutor is not to continue gang raping a citizen because “you can”.  It makes no difference what Federal law has been violated. You have shown you are committed to using attorney discretion no matter the circumstances. I believe you are knowingly making false statements by telling me that you have the authority to violate a civil court order using your attorney discretion. I sent you the guidelines and I think your supervisor would have an issue based on the degree of seriousness that I have been violated. If I have to advise you that the citizens given rights are inalienable then how did you pass the bar? You have a duty to expose public corruption where ever the evidence supports corruption has occurred. That is what Federal law states. You can only convince me, a reasonable person, that you are telling the truth by submitting to me documentation stating that you have the authority to violate a civil court order. Because you advise me of something does not convince me that what you are saying is true, your word is hearsay. Considering the facts of this case, which I know you do not have, and your suggestion that I have not made certain statements on my web page as if it were real time. What you did read you completely misread the facts concerning the timeline as you stated in your first letter to me.

I have no reason to take any government official at their word. Your credibility has always been questionable. I can comprehend what the Bill of Rights gives the citizens. As I told you, my father was a city street commissioner and a WW ll Navy veteran. I was educated by an expert as to what duties the City, State and Federal government must provide the citizens. He had no agenda or intent to violate any residents private property rights.

You should be embarrassed by what you have written to me, really. Where in the hell does a citizen find a government officials who is not a narcissist? Hitler used chemical weapons on civilians and he is referred to as a psychopath. Chemical weapons were unlawfully applied on my private property weekly for over five years with intent to cause harm to my person and my property. The man who did this to me is not viewed by government as a psychopath or to have so much as committed a criminal offense? I can tell you as his victim and a reasonable person this man is a psychopath. I suggest you re-educate yourself about what is described as your duties as an AUSA. I believe you may have put yourself in the position of a co-conspirator and be guilty of obstruction of justice. I am not an attorney, but I could probably hold my own arguing a case against you. I still challenge you to a fist fight in front of the Capitol building. I have been reviewing your history, I am not impressed with what you have achieved in your career. Not at all, in fact I have reason to believe you have probably victimized other citizens. Then after insulting my intelligence, you advised me that you are not the person who would be prosecuting this case anyway.

Where would you get the authority to make a prosecutorial decision since this would not be your case anyway? Sheriff Weber has dirty hands, as the evidence supports. I did not include that information on my website for self protection. You know, these locals, as a group, would have killed me with the chemicals had I not have fled, as the evidence supports. I waited, suffering for over 5 years, for law enforcement to protect me from harm and uphold my State and Federal Constitutional given rights to private property, as the evidence supports. The evidence is indisputable that I have. If I was in your position I would make sure the evidence I was given is based on facts. Not, as in this case, hearsay from the most notorious agency of fabricators in our government, law enforcement. And then to know the information you have came from a third party of an organization of known liars. You are a sad excuse for an attorney of any type in my opinion. Reinwart gave me three different versions of how he actually submitted my case to you, I find that suspicious in regard to his credibility. I am not a trained investigator but I caught that clue of inconsistency in his statements . Had he only done what the taxpayers paid him to do when he came to my home, review the hard copy evidence, he would not have needed to use hearsay. He requested that I give him hearsay evidence. He had three notes on his pad when he left my home. For all I know it could have been a grocery list. It took me six years to chronologically put the evidence in order. He gives me 2 1/2 hours of his time. My witnesses are experts in their own right. He did nothing that would be considered standard procedure for a legitimate investigation. He did not review the hard copy evidence. He did not look into financial records for a suspected bribe. He did not interview any of my witnesses. He did not interview my doctors. He did not share the false information given to him by Sheriff Weber by the third party to give me the opportunity to provide conflicting evidence.

He  predetermined his decision based on no hard copy evidence before he met with me. I received the letter from Washington DC in the mail two hours after he left my home. I used the term “information” literally as no information that has been given to you has any evidence to support a fact. The two of you seem to work well together in  holding no regard to you oaths of office. Not indifferent than these local officials. What is the driving force behind those few cases that are legitimately investigated as public corruption? The FBI works closely with local law enforcement covering up crimes committed by locals officials, I get that. Iowa has no cases of public corruption that I can find. The only State in the Nation with zero cases of public corruption. Reasonable citizens recognize we only have honest public servants in Iowa. They read my case and they will have an eye opening sense of reality.

Also, you should know there is a criminal and a civil division of FBI. Referring me to obtain private council for a civil case is not an option. I have no assets or credit that I had before the taking of my private property that allows me the financial ability to obtain an attorney. I only survive, I have financial difficulty making it to my medical appointments at the University of Iowa dermatology clinic that I am regularly scheduled as a patient. I have the right to be made whole, to have my day in court. That is impossible. My life cannot be returned to me as it was.

How does the FBI protect the civil rights of people in the United States?

Federal civil rights violations fall into several categories:

  • hate crimes motivated by bias against such characteristics as race, religion, national origin, and sexual orientation;
  •  color of law crimes involving law enforcement and related criminal justice professionals’ misuse of their right to discretion, such as use of excessive force or police misconduct; 
  • involuntary servitude or slavery;
  • violations of the Voting Rights Act of 1965,
  • the Equal Credit Opportunity Act,
  • the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act;
  • the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act;
  • the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act;
  • and violations of human trafficking statutes included as part or the Trafficking Victims Protection Rights Act.

The FBI’s civil rights investigations are separate from Equal Employment Opportunity Commission investigations, although EEOC regulations are enforced within the agency.

Until my evidence is competently reviewed you and your government agency have no right to disregard me or my complaint. I am a natural born citizen of the US, deserving of all the rights guaranteed to all citizens.  

Using chemical weapons against civilians is a war crime, a crime against humanity.  The law does not differentiate between one victim or an entire race. Those are universal international laws.

So how many citizens have been eliminated from their private property by local government officials using glyphosate as a weapon, unlawfully applied to your property?

Let me tell you how many. NONE. So this FBI agent refused to review my evidence, never checked financial record to see if a bribe has been paid. I believe an investigation into the financial records would show a bribe being taken in the amount of $4000.00. The Assistant US Attorney advised me that no matter what the evidence proves he will use attorney discretion and not prosecute corrupt local officials who used chemical weapons to eliminate me from my private property. He also advised that unless this trespasser states that he intentionally used chemicals to harm me, he would not prosecute. The evidence shows he admits that he applied chemicals to my property, in violation of a civil court order and the medical records show the chemicals caused me serious injury. Who in the hell do they think they are to have the authority to violate a civil court order. Who the hell do they think they are to violate my Constitutional right to private property. Senator Grassley has been advising me since 2007 to be patient, the FBI would contact me, he said. It takes time. Senator Grassley did this over a period of ten years. Clearly if he would not have assured me that there would be a competent investigation I would have found other sources. Senator Grassley don’t be telling your constituents that you can assist with authorities representing Federal law because in this case you have only clearly misunderstood the significance of this violation of Constitutionally guaranteed right to enjoy private property. Somebody needs to pay attention because if you think that I am willing to take this on the chin you better think again. I don’t calm down with everyday that passes, I get more angry. I am pissed off why would you assume my evidence does not fall within the guidelines for public corruption. John Kaufman continued to advise me that you are not an attorney. Well this is so simple to recognize as being a terrorist act that you do not need to be a damn attorney. What happened to the evidence I sent per your special instructions to Penny. Had you of acted on that at that time I would still have my home, business and property. I have asked John multiple times. He simply says that would be to difficult to access. Well this is my life and I believe my freedoms are equally important as you all do. Do not ignore me Senator Grassley I will am not going anywhere until I am confident that you know the facts of this case. You should just go ahead and contact me now so we can get on with this. If not you will succumb to bad karma spirits. You can’t treat a human being like this government, your government has done to me. It is a violation of international law. It is a  crime against humanity. You were on that committee when this began and you don’t know what laws you were representing? The actions against me can be considered nothing less that war crimes. Everyone of you took an oath to uphold the Constitution. Everyone of you recognize that using chemical weapons is a war crime. Everyone of you that turn a blind eye instead of looking into my allegations are guilty of committing war crimes. And you have no compassion for committing these crimes against a fellow American? And the victim is what we are seeing as becoming the typical person attacked being a single middle aged female. You would not commit these acts against a man because a man would defend his property by taking up arms. I would have if you would not have continued to assure me that the FBI would investigate. You find me one other case with these circumstances, a person’s private property is taken control of by a neighbor using chemicals as a weapon with intent to eliminate that person. You find a case and I will go away. You will not find a case with these circumstances because every reasonable person knows it is illegal to trespass on the private property of another. Why was I denied filing a trespassing complaint. I have a list of these charges in this county but I was denied by the city and county attorney. Bullshit. You have to attack a single middle aged woman that has more dignity in her little finger that you have in your entire corrupt bodies. Get freshened up on your hate crimes because I can feel any compassion I have had for fellow man has dissipated. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FkbzNnnPg4

Letter I wrote in 2011, got no response from State and Federal officials.

To whom it may concern,
I have followed every procedure available to me in the civil court system. Elected City officials and City police officers have publicly defamed my character over a period of over 4 years. County law enforcement officers have publicly defamed my character by knowingly making false statements about my character over the police radio heard by any citizen with a police scanner in their home. I have been denied my right to enjoy my own home, business and property for a period of over 4 years.I have been denied equal protection of the law for over a period of 4 years. I have been denied the right to file criminal complaints against the perpetrators by law enforcement officers for over a period of 4 years. I was a victim of domestic terrorism by being intentionally exposed to toxic chemicals applied on my property by the owner of the property adjoining mine and in violation of EPA regulations by the City for over a period of 4 years. The city official refused his appointed duty to address the concerns of a resident in reference to the nuisance drainage issue, there is no record of this long time or any other appointed building administrator refusing his duty in a private manner by going to the site in question and answering questions of the property owners involved. I contacted a local elected State Representative. He having never heard of a situation as I described being treated contacted City Hall on my behalf requesting I be put on the agenda, in an effort to force the appointed council member to answer my questions. Public records shows it a rare occasion that particular council member having served 15 years that I lived in town and many years prior to my moving into City limits was absent at this meeting. His absence was an intentional act to avoid his duty to address my concerns. Local law enforcement officers have refused to investigate my allegations by refusing to review the documented evidence or question the list of witnesses I have provided to the officer and the County Attorney. The City officials have continuously refused their duty enforce compliance of State laws pertaining to property redevelopment that protect adjoining property from nuisance drainage, required set backs of new structures. The adverse effects to my property were foreseeable and preventable. The City acted intentionally negligent and the redevelopment of this property caused a loss of value to my property according to the assessor due to the excessive increase of storm water diverted directly on to my property. The fact the criminal acts against me were perpetrated by the Mayor (who was also the seller of the property being redeveloped adjoining mine), several council members, City police officers, the County Attorney and 2 County deputies violated their duty to protect and chose to conspire in criminal and unethical offenses. No where in the Constitution or Bill of rights either State or Federal that states a government official is allowed to opt out of his sworn duty. Now the Federal Government officials has the duty investigate my evidence, defend and protect my individual rights given by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Nor does the fact that these individuals being government officials exempt them from being held accountable and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law in a Federal Court. These same individuals have a history of unethical behavior in the past. Using their positions in a self-serving manner. I am unaware of any so brutal to cause personal injury to another human being as has happened to me. My case is unprecedented. I am a victim of domestic terrorism by the use of toxic chemicals, chemical warfare. No different than anthrax or any other dangerous chemical. When reports of anthrax being sent by mail to government officials or other individuals of notoriety it is taken very serious by the Federal Government, The FBI is investigating the evidence of every allegation immediately. I was selected to speak to a Congressional committee on capitol hill in the past. My testimony helped provide many poor family acquire the assets to become productive members of society. I owned my own home, owned a highly reputable self-employed business and a substantial size piece of property for 15 years. I was debt free and had an excellent credit rating. Does that qualify me as being worthy of at least the professional courtesy of my simple request of an investigation? An  investigation by the FBI should be acted on immediately on behalf of any citizen who’s allegations are as serious in nature as what I have been the victim of. Physical injury due to ongoing intentional exposure to toxic chemicals. I will continue my quest for answers as to why this happened to me by continuing to contact every resource available, repeatedly until someone investigates my story, be it a Government agency or the media. If you can advise and assist me as to how I can and file a criminal complaint of perjury and contempt against this councilman/neighbor without the assistance of the County Attorney I will anxiously proceed to do so. If I can only access the State criminal court system though the County Attorney then I want to file a Federal complaint against the County Attorney and local law enforcement officers for violating my Constitutional Rights, intentional negligence, official misconduct and any other charges that may apply. I have over 400 documents of evidence that prove what I am claiming is completely true, due to the fact that this criminal attack on me has been ongoing and continuous beginning in 2005. I am also requesting to correspond with only 1 investigator because I am very timid and it is very difficult for me to speak openly with a complete stranger. The documents and photos evidence is contained in an several 3 ring binders by date of event. I have a couple basic questions I would like to know if you have ever heard other cases similar to what I have experienced. For instance the EPA field investigator advised me that what the City did with chemicals to an easement in the manner in which was done to my property was “unheard of”.
A couple questions for you. Have you ever hear of a case in which when I contacted the county attorney in requesting that I wanted to file a contempt of court charge against the opposing party in a civil trial his response was “I frankly don’t care what Judge ____. ruled”. 
Have you ever know of a case in which a pastor went to City Hall to pay on my water bill her payment was not accepted.  She was told that the payment have to come out of my pocket. She expressed to me that she became irate when she was told that. She stated that she recognized at that time the degree of oppression I had suffer. She was treated so disrespectful, absolutely unacceptable behavior of the City officials. 
Please, I believe my case is the most brutal and vicious that has ever occurred in the Country. If you can find one that is comparable I desperately need to see it. I am sure I will find comfort knowing that I am not the only person that has suffered severely at the hands of local government officials extreme continuous criminal, unethical and immoral behavior. These are dangerous individual capable of causing  the death of another human being. I don’t know if I can handle the emotional turmoil inside of me. At what point does a person decide his only option is the 2nd amendment. How can you help me get justice for the crimes committed against me?  
I have evidence of numerous serious criminal and unethical acts against me. The following describes the most physically and mentally damaging. This was an act of domestic terrorism. I have been advised by the State Attorney Generals office that they can only get involved in a case if a case is referred to them by the County Attorney. I believe anyone has the right to investigate my local government officials. I believe the Government has the duty to investigate citizens being oppressed and violated of their given rights.I am requesting an investigation based on my evidence and witnesses that support my allegations. It will shock those who have no conscience. An investigation by a reputable National media source could certainly be embarrassing to the Government. The evidence that this chemical is toxic and was also unlawfully applied by the City comes from an investigation by EPA. Evidence supporting other offenses including arson, knowingly making false statements, defamation, harassment, perjury, contempt and document fraud. All of which are by admission of the offender and indisputable. The witnesses on my behalf being immediate family members or fellow law enforcement officers. The repercussions have proven to be severe to those who have attempted to speak on my behalf. This County has a history of corruption that has only been exposed by outside sources. I believe my life could be in danger.   
In May 2005 my neighbor applied chemicals to my property without my knowledge. I then advised him and law enforcement that I had developed a rash and did not want anything applied to my property. I requested an incident report from the police officer. The officer would not give me an incident report or file a complaint against this man on my behalf. The officer stated that he did not want to make the councilman/neighbor mad. He continued to apply chemicals to my property on a regular basis throughout the summer. My rash progressed to a full body skin disorder, causing me to repeatedly seek medical attention at the ER. The pain and suffering was excruciating. I continue to suffer extreme mental anguish because the officer would not intervene. He presented an incident report in Sept. stating that he could not remember what my complaint was in reference to. I told him that I wanted a report based on my initial complaint. A week later he gave me a report with the relevant information. The officer failed to protect my right to enjoy my property. The officer failed to provide me equal protection of the law. That officer was forced to resigned due to unrelated unethical behavior, The new officer hired by the City continued the same type of behavior. The neighbor continued to apply chemicals to my property. My skin disorder continue to progress. I could not work, I could not function. I could not control my emotions. I could not bear to wear clothes. I was in severe pain 24/7. The new officer advised me that I should move. A civil court ruled against the neighbor citing my Constitution Right to enjoy my own property.  The neighbor acting in contempt continued to apply chemicals to my property with no concern of being held accountable. I did sell my home and business in an unsuccessful to date effort to regain any quality of life. I have always been of the opinion that it was the actions of the councilman/neighbor that caused injury to me. But it is the liability of the City and County Attorney due to the intentional negligence. Do you agree that this is a matter of violation of my Constitutional rights? There exists a conflict of interest between the County Attorney and the City preventing any contempt of court proceedings. The evidence and witnesses I have prove without a doubt my allegations. I have been constantly harassed and my complaints ignored. My character has been defamed and these authorities have knowingly made false statements from the beginning of this nightmare,. My allegations are absolutely outrageous but completely true and provable. I have lived in a state of terror with no protection of the law. There has been no investigation into my allegations. In fact, if any outside source would give me the benefit of the doubt and review my evidence and question my witnesses they might conclude that there needs to be more oversight and criminal prosecution of local government authorities. I contacted many of you previously when I was clearly in a state of despair and there was no response. Perhaps I was not clear with my explanation of what had transpired. I had severely impaired eyesight that hampered my ability to communicate adequately for an extended period of time. Unfortunately the corrective surgery has not been completely successful and the I can not get further medical attention until April.  I have contacted every State Government resource available, with no response regarding my request into an  investigation of my evidence. Some one needs to be the hero here. I am a victim and a witness of serious criminal acts by local government authorities. I can understand now how a person can be so personally violated, beg for help, be ignore, lose control, labeled as deranged to satisfy the public the facts never disclosed to the public. That in my opinion is a tragedy. I will continue to this forum as my weapon for justice until the day I die. Do not dismiss me as crazy until you review my evidence.  Please respond.sincerely,
Melody Boatner

This was sent to mhorvit@ire.org, non-attorney Staff <legal.program@aclu-ia.org>, Congressman Dave Loebsack <Rep.Loebsack@mail.house.gov>, dateline@nbcuni.com, Jason Hancock <jason@iowaindependent.com>, IDCI Gerard Meyers <meyers@dps.state.ia.us>, Omaha@ic.fbi.gov, usa@mediacom.com

Recently there was an imposter sent to my home perpetrating an FBI agent. The intent was for him to review the hard copy evidence I have supporting my allegation. He arrived advising me that he had no intention of reviewing any hard copy evidence. He ordered me to verbally tell him the story. I advised him that it was not possible to tell this story because it is to complex. I had the option of verbally telling him or I suppose he would have left with nothing. He gave me 2 1/2 hours to attempt to tell the facts of a case of pubic corruption that had gone on for years. That same day two hours later I received in the mail a letter from FBI Washington, DC. The letter stated that the imposter agent had determined no violation of Federal law had occurred. The letter was signed by J.C. Hacker. This letter was obviously was based on a fraudulent investigation. Predetermined by the imposter that came to my home. He admitted that he had been given verbal information that came from the County Sheriff. He somehow was so professional that he believed the fabricated story of a know dirty cop over my story. He had the opportunity to review the evidence himself. He knew if he had followed procedure for investigations he would have no option but to bring criminal charges against these corrupt local officials. So where the hell is justice in this. This only expanded the conspirators violating my Constitutional Rights. Deprivation of Rights under color of law, Discrimination, Fraud, and I guess these people want me to commit a crime to get a response from them. What crime would it be to force someone to defend themselves by taking up arms? Do they think I am just going to walk away and let this psychopath have my assets? Hell no I am not. There are laws that protect citizens from trespassing. Criminal laws, laws that force compliance to court order, contempt of court. Glyphosate is a poison, I was intentionally expose to this toxic chemical by my local public officials. What the hell are public corruption laws written for if not to protect the rights of the citizens. Statute of limitations does not apply in cases of torture. Domestic terrorism is real.

Statute of Limitations on torture? FBI refusing to address my concerns. #Bullshit #ViolationsofFederallaw #Iwillfistfightyourightnow

My local government officials used glyphosate unlawfully applied to my private property ongoing for over 5 years routinely. Their purpose was to eliminate me from my private property so one of their own could acquire my private property. This special protected citizen needed my private property or a court would have ordered him to remove the noncompliant structures from his new illegal property redevelopment. He purchased the non conforming lot from the mayor. The building administer issued fraudulent building permits for the illegal structures. After five years the affects the chemicals had on my skin were chronic severe skin condition. It was unbearable to wear clothes, I was blind and homeless for the following four years. My property was my largest investment as most other citizens. I traveled to Washington DC to change the laws allowing me to get out of poverty to acquire ownership of my property. This property not only contained my home but my business and my pursuit of happiness. I was denied any protection of the law. I made a complaint about the nuisance drainage issue caused by the illegal redevelopment and the building administrator refused his duty to address my concerns, he continued to issue fraudulent permits to this special resident. The structures were the size that would legally fit on an acre of ground. He tried to squeeze them onto a 70′ W X 300’L nonconforming lot. A civil court order citing my right to used my property as I wished I thought would stop the illegal exposure to glyphosate. It did nothing by make this neighbor and the government officials more aggressive in eliminating me from my private property. Senator Grassley requested two inquires into my case. The FBI would contact me he advised. After five years I contacted Grassley again and he put in another request, five more years pass and I am advised by Grassley to be patient. The FBI never contacted me as they are required to do. I reached out after ten years of severe suffering, my life forever changed from my plan for my own destiny, to the local FBI. This agent was so incompetent that it took 14 months for him to come to my now rental home. His purpose was specifically to review the hard copy evidence that proves without a doubt Federal law has been violated. He arrived advising me that he had no intention of reviewing my evidence. I could just tell him the story and he would take notes. He gave me 2 1/2 hours of his time to tell a story that was ongoing for well over ten years in violation of Federal law. He had three notes written on his pad when he left. Two hours after he left my home I receive in the mail a letter from Assistant Deputy Director JC Hacker a letter stating that the agent had determined no violation of Federal law had occurred. It is not possible for this incompetent agent to accomplish an investigation and have a decision in the mail from Washington DC two hours after he left my home. He never investigated financial records to discover a bribe had been taken. He never interviewed any witnesses on my behalf. He never followed standard procedure to assure my allegations were valid. This in itself is an act to deprive me of my rights under color of law. This is not acceptable by any government standard. My allegations are completely supported by the hard copy evidence. For anyone to claim that the statute of limitations has expired is ludacris. Any negligence has been intentional of the part of government officials who have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution and have the duty to hold corrupt government accountable for their violations of Federal law. I am one mad single middle aged female. Discrimination against housing has been committed by all levels of government and I am demanding that a full independent investigation be done. The evidence used was not based on facts. It was based on hearsay. I want compensated for the damages that have intentionally been done to me. This is not a joke. My father did not spend his military service in the South Pacific on a ship taking on bombs and kamikaze pilots for me or anyone else to be denied their freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. Drain the Swamp. Here are the facts https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/18mtF3_4WB2u3mEe1OoSb2QpwlgvI25ulAS5BheCPq4Q/edit?usp=sharing

FEDERAL COORDINATION OF TITLE VI AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

Title VI:

A Powerful Tool to Address Discrimination and Advance Environmental Justice

“Title VI’s breadth of coverage is extensive and it can address a huge array of injustices: from environmental racism…to disparities in basic health care and basic services to inequities in transportation, housing, and education.”

August 19, 2010 Memorandum from the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights to the Federal Funding Agency Civil Rights Directors.

Environmental justice and Title VI are both rooted in the same basic principle that no person should bear an unfair share of harm on account of their race, color or national origin. At its core, Title VI requires recipients of federal funding to ensure that their programs operate in a nondiscriminatory manner. Indeed, the central tenet of environmental justice – that programs benefiting a community as a whole not disproportionately allocate their adverse environmental and health burdens – flows directly from this underlying principle of Title VI.

Where federally funded programs – like transportation agencies, state agencies responsible for environmental permitting, hospitals and health clinics, and countless others – affect human health or the environment, Title VI enforcement may resolve problems that other laws cannot.

Discriminatory Effects under Title VI. Most federal agencies have regulations implementing Title VI, which prohibit funding recipients from “utilizing criteria or methods of administration which have the effect of subjecting individuals to discrimination because of their race, color, or national origin….” See, e.g., 28 C.F.R. 42.104(b)(2) (DOJ regulations). This prohibition on unjustified discriminatory effects was first established nearly 50 years ago, just after passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964. Individuals must turn to the administrative complaint process to secure the protections afforded by these regulations. Federal funding agencies play a vital enforcement role because individuals must turn to the administrative complaint process to secure the protections offered by these regulations. The Attorney General has directed federal agencies to fully utilize these provisions and the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights has emphasized the need for their vigorous enforcement. Federal agencies must recognize their crucial role in addressing discriminatory effects and work to further environmental justice though Title VI enforcement.

Intersection of Title VI and Environmental Justice. Many types of Title VI cases involve environmental justice issues and could be resolved through the administrative complaint process. Some factors to consider in determining whether specific situations raise environmental justice concerns include whether individuals, certain neighborhoods, or tribes:

  • Suffer disproportionately adverse health or environmental effects from pollution or other environmental hazards;
  • Suffer disproportionate risks or exposure to environmental hazards, or suffer disproportionately from the effects of past under-enforcement of state or federal health or environmental laws;
  • Have been denied an equal opportunity for meaningful involvement, as provided by law, in governmental decision making relating to the distribution of environmental benefits or burdens. (Example: permit processing and compliance activities)

Where a federally funded program may be responsible for these harms, a Title VI investigation may help determine whether  the harms have a discriminatory effect on persons identifiable by race, color, or national origin.

Federal Coordination of Title VI and Environmental Justice

The Department of Justice is charged by Executive Order 12250 with ensuring the government-wide consistent and effective enforcement of Title VI, which includes nondiscrimination in programs and activities that affect the environment and human health:

  • The Title VI Committee of the Federal Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice (EJ IWG), which is chaired by DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, acts as a resource to help agencies connect their civil rights enforcement responsibilities with their efforts to achieve environmental justice. In 2014, the EJ IWG launched its Title VI webpage with the goal of ensuring consistent enforcement of Title VI across the federal family and encouraging the use of this critical enforcement tool to address environmental justice issues. go.usa.gov/3BYf5
  • The Civil Rights Division’s Federal Coordination and Compliance Section runs a robust program of technical assistance and legal counsel to civil rights offices across the government. A significant part of the Division’s environmental justice work is providing targeted technical assistance to federal agencies that receive complaints alleging Title VI violations in programs that effect the environment and human health. The Division helps many agencies in addressing matters involving intentional discrimination as well as discriminatory effects in matters involving environmental permitting and enforcement, transit equity, municipal services, emergency management, access to federal benefits, and more. Read more about our Title VI Coordination Initiative here: go.usa.gov/3BYfV).
  • The newly launched Title VI training program for federal civil rights staff includes a segment on environmental justice. This training component emphasizes the ability of agencies that fund activities that affect human health and the environment to use their Title VI compliance efforts to achieve the environmental justice goals of Executive Order 12898.
  • The revised Title VI manual will be issued in 2015. The update will provide detailed guidance to agencies analyzing, among other issues, discriminatory treatment and discriminatory effects under Title VI. Over time, the manual will address the application of Title VI in a range of areas, including environmental justice, transportation equity, and school discipline.
  • DOJ’s public outreach on environmental justice issues has included moderating a panel on federal Title VI enforcement during the annual Environmental Justice Conference and Training Program held in Washington, D.C. as well as holding listening sessions to learn about various civil rights issues of concern from stakeholders.

Highlights of Agency Efforts to Advance Environmental Justice through Title VI Enforcement

Approximately 30 federal agencies investigate Title VI administrative complaints alleging discrimination in federally funded programs affecting human health or the environment. Additionally, many of those agencies publish annual environmental justice progress reports. Below we highlight several agencies’ Title VI enforcement activities involving environmental justice issues.

Department of Transportation. DOT has a well-established set of environmental justice (EJ) and Title VI policies, including the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) two companion circulars that help recipients understand and comply with environmental justice principles through both Title VI compliance and the environmental justice executive order. Notably, the Title VI circular requires, among other things, that certain recipients conduct an equity analysis of the impact on minorities of certain actions and decisions. Both circulars and related materials are available here.

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) also directs recipients to address environmental justice issues in their federally funded activities. It is currently developing a number of resources, including the EJ Reference Guide, which is intended to be a resource for staff to ensure compliance with EJ requirements, and the EJ Booklet highlighting recent policy changes and initiatives. The Guide will aid staff and stakeholders in identifying and addressing disproportionately high and adverse effects of agency programs, policies and activities on minority populations and low-income populations. The Reference Guide clarifies existing requirements and is available to the public on the FHWA EJ website, and can be accessed under “Recent Updates” or “References.” The FHWA has also formed an EJ Workgroup, which includes other DOT modes, and collaborates with the National Highway Institute. The workgroup is developing an EJ Analysis Course as part of the EJ Reference Guide. In order to register for the webinar, participants external to US DOT will first need to request an account here, then register here. FHWA’s civil rights office has conducted a national Title VI Program webinar that includes a component on EJ requirements for state transportation agencies and monitoring responsibilities of FHWA Division offices.

DOT components also address environmental justice issues through investigation and resolution of Title VI complaints. For example, in one case, FTA found two cities in south Florida non-compliant with Title VI requirements when the cities failed to assess the potential adverse disparate impacts stemming from relocation of a trolley maintenance facility to a historically Black neighborhood. As a direct result of FTA’s involvement in the matter, city officials agreed to keep the facility near its current location. Read more here. Similarly, in another Title VI investigation, FHWA found that an Ohio city’s denial of expanded bus service to a large medical center, as well as other essential services, caused disproportionate harm to African Americans. The case ultimately resulted in the construction of three new bus stops. Read more here.

Environmental Protection Agency. In accordance with Title VI, EPA’s office of Civil Rights (OCR) maintains a program to ensure that recipients of Federal financial assistance from EPA do not operate their programs or activities  in a way that discriminates on the basis of race, color, or national origin, including on the basis of limited-English proficiency. Consistent with EPA’s ongoing efforts to strengthen its external civil rights compliance program, earlier this week OCR released a report that outlines its progress on specific deliverables related to Title VI compliance efforts, as a supplement to Plan EJ 2014.  Read the full report for more information about EPA’s accomplishments regarding specific Title VI deliverables over the past four fiscal years, including: OCR’s renewed commitment to (1) strategic management of its Title VI complaint docket; (2) successful resolution of complaints; and (3) settlement of significant Title VI matters.

In addition, this week OCR released a policy paper entitled “Issue Paper on the Role of Complainants and Recipients in the Civil Rights Complaints and Resolution Process.”  The purpose of this paper is to promote greater participation by complainants and recipients in the civil rights complaint and resolution process, including Title VI complaints, by clarifying existing practices and identifying opportunities for greater participation within that framework.

Several agencies’ civil rights offices, such as the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Homeland Security, have committed to review environmental justice issues and allegations that arise in programs and activities they fund. To learn more about other federal agencies’ environmental justice and Title VI efforts, visit the home page of the Federal Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice here and its Title VI page here.

Ignorance of the Law is no excuse. Intentional serious injury at the hands of my government officials. What is your intent?

Well I can testify that the chronic skin condition resulting from intentional exposure to glyphosate for an extended period of time is once again seriously severe. I have never been prescribed a higher dose of methotrexate and had the condition to become increasingly severe. I am at the point now that it is unbearable to wear shoes. This pain and severe itching is 24/7. To know that an FBI agent claims to have done and investigation and has found no violation of Federal law based of hearsay stated by the County sheriff to a third party is about to piss me off more than I have ever been pissed on. SA Thomas Reinwart has proven to be incompetent and not qualified to investigate my case. He does not have the knowledge that every reasonable American takes for granted. He does not know that private property rights are Federally protected. His ignorance has proven he had no business being involved in my case that encompassed in violations of Federal laws. His ignorance and incompetence is going to have significant effects to the outcome of this case. Who to whom it may concern that has a connection be it by a third party or via any damn way, needs to extend this message to a high authority. FBI Agent Calvin Shivers signed the most recent letter stating that they have determined no violation of Federal law has occurred, he has completely avoided any contact with me. Tell him he is participating in a crime that is causing serious physical injury to an American citizen. He is knowingly refusing to protect me from harm based on fabricated information. He being the most recent signator of a letter that further violates my individual rights. Has made the choice to protect the blue wall of silence. Do not send any law enforcement to my home, inquiring as to whether I have threatened anyone. Send them to those who have repeatedly attempted to murder me using chemical weapons. It’s in everyone’s best interest. Get these maniacs that have proven to be a danger to society off the streets before they do kill an innocent human being!

Dead End

In response to AUSA VanderSchel’s opinion that my evidence is assumptive.

AUSA VanderSchel,

In regards to you email stating that my evidence is assumptive. What in this linked file do you find assumptive? You must be assuming the information given to you by SA Reinwart is evidence. He refused to review the hard copy evidence, The purpose for him to come to my home on tax payers money was to review the hard copy evidence I have in my posession. There is no other person who has this hard copy evidence.

 When he arrived he advised that he did not intend to review any evidence, he asked that I just tell him the story and he would take notes. After 2 1/2 hours of him, steady checking his watch and me, trying to verbally explain a story that has nothing similar with compliance to any State or Federal laws regarding private property rights. I believe he had a total of three notes written on his notepad.  The point is that you have been given assumptive information in spite of the indisputable evidence I had prepared for SA Reinwart to review. Have you ever prosecuted a case of public corruption?

 I recently read that the FBI places high scoring academy graduates in areas that have the highest rates of crime, the lowest scoring graduates in the lowest crime areas around the Nation. I am curious if that is the process the DOJ uses in placing AUSA’s? Reinwart repeatedly stated that no Federal law has been violated. I advised him that private property rights are Federally protected rights. He had no change of expression. Perhaps he really does not know that private property rights are Federally protected rights. I can tell you that had he have reviewed the evidence, he or you would have determined that the following violations of Federal law have also occurred and hard copy evidence supports these allegations. The citizens know all too well about the blue wall of silence. In this case the perpetrators are not your “run of the mill” self serving government officials. These perps could have cared less whether it would cost me my life to achieved their goal of acquiring my private property. There is a “special kind of corruption” in the character of these government officials.

You stated that you have the authority to violate a civil court order, with no type of process. You need to submit evidence supporting that is a fact to me, I do not believe you are telling the truth. I believe you are abusing your authority with intent to violate my Federally protected civil rights. If you have no documented evidence supporting your statement then I would have to presume you are conspiring with SA Reinwart to deprive me of my Constitutional Rights under color of law. I do not take anyone’s word to be evidence of any fact. Not Reinwarts, not yours and certainly not Sheriff Weber’s. I know for a fact that his hands are dirty in this case. He in fact has received stolen property that belongs to me. I have no way to prove that but I do have correspondence with him in which he does implicate himself in criminal violations of the law. You suggested that since I had no information on my web page from recent dates the statute of limitations has expired. AUSA VanderSchel, I know that this group of government officials has been willing to sacrifice my life for the purpose of Mark Conlee acquiring my property. Do you really think it would be in my best interest to post evidence of the Sheriff violating State and Federal laws in acts committed against me on a public web site?  Would you mind sharing with me what level of your graduating class you rated. It would be my opinion that you would have been one of the lower level graduating students. You are not considering what is in my, a citizens, best interest are you AUSA VanderSchel. I am requesting evidence from you that supports your claim that you have the legal authority to violate a civil court order.  I do not believe you can use attorney discretion to violate an order made by any judge as you assured me you intended to do.

In speaking with Reinwart about public corruption, he advised that a bribe is taken in a case of public corruption. I argue that the law does not specify that has to be a factor. I also question how can Reinwart assume a bribe has not been taken in this case since he has not reviewed any financial records. There most likely has been favors at least given and taken in this case. There is no question that Mayor Dinwiddie did receive a financial gain being the seller of the property to Conlee. So right there is without a doubt a conflict of interest. That is a fact. That fact supports a public corruption complaint.

Reinwart told me three different versions of how he submitted my complaint to you. Three different versions causes me question his credibility. I have advised you that the information he has given you is based on hearsay. You should be questioning his credibility at this point, don’t you think?

Here are more but not limited to violations of Federal law that has been committed by these corrupt public officials.

Public corruption and civil rights

Corruption

In general terms, corruption cases arise when a local, state, or federal public official receives things of value in exchange for performing, or failing to perform, official acts contemplated by the authority of their position. The public grants authority to officials and, in return, is entitled to receive honest services from all who serve in the government. The prosecutors and professional staff in PCCRS prosecute officials – such as politicians, law enforcement officers, government executives, and correctional officers — who violate the public trust for the sake of self-enrichment.

Civil Rights

PCCRS also prosecutes individuals, whether they be private citizens or public officials, who criminally violate the constitutional rights of individuals. The use of excessive force by law enforcement under the color of law is an example of how public officials can violate an individual’s civil rights. Private individuals who commit violent crimes motivated by bias – commonly known as hate crimes — also violate federal civil rights laws. Hate crime laws recognize and defend the rights of all individuals, regardless of their race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.

18 U.S.C. § 229 – U.S. Code – Unannotated Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 229. Prohibited activities

Unlawful conduct. (a) –Except as provided in subsection (b), it shall be unlawful for any person knowingly–

(1) to develop, produce, otherwise acquire, transfer directly or indirectly, receive, stockpile, retain, own, possess, or use, or threaten to use, any chemical weapon;  or (2) to assist or induce, in any way, any person to violate paragraph (1), or to attempt or conspire to violate paragraph (1).

Exempted agencies and persons. (b) 

In general. (1) –Subsection (a) does not apply to the retention, ownership, possession, transfer, or receipt of a chemical weapon by a department, agency, or other entity of the United States, or by a person described in paragraph (2), pending destruction of the weapon.

Exempted persons. (2) –A person referred to in paragraph (1) is–

(A) any person, including a member of the Armed Forces of the United States, who is authorized by law or by an appropriate officer of the United States to retain, own, possess, transfer, or receive the chemical weapon;  or

(B) in an emergency situation, any otherwise non-culpable person if the person is attempting to destroy or seize the weapon.

Jurisdiction. (c) –Conduct prohibited by subsection (a) is within the jurisdiction of the United States if the prohibited conduct–

(1) takes place in the United States;

(2) takes place outside of the United States and is committed by a national of the United States;

(3) is committed against a national of the United States while the national is outside the United States;  or

(4) is committed against any property that is owned, leased, or used by the United States or by any department or agency of the United States, whether the property is within or outside the United States.

Chemical Weapons

This crime is punishable by any term of years in prison. If the crime results in death, the punishment is death or life imprisonment. Property owned or used by the person is subject to forfeiture. Any property derived from and proceeds obtained from the offense and property used to commit or facilitate the offense is also subject to forfeiture. The statute also imposes an additional fine of up to twice the gross profit or proceeds from the offense (18 U.S.C. 229, et seq.).

A chemical weapon is:

  1. a toxic chemical and its precursors (chemical reactants that take part in producing a toxic chemical) unless intended for a purpose that is not prohibited and the type and quantity is consistent with that purpose,
  2. a munition or device designed to cause death or harm through toxic chemicals that would be released by the device, or
  3. equipment designed for use directly in connection with using such a munition or device.

A toxic chemical is a chemical that can cause death, temporary incapacitation, or permanent harm to people or animals.

The law specifies that it does not apply to self-defense devices such as pepper spray or chemical mace. It also does not prevent uses related to (1) industrial, agricultural, research, medical, or pharmaceutical activity; (2) protection against chemical weapons; (3) unrelated military purposes; and (4) law enforcement purposes such as riot control and imposing the death penalty.

 

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 – Conspiracy Against Rights This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).

It further makes it unlawful for two or more persons to go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another with the intent to prevent or hinder his/her free exercise or enjoyment of any rights so secured.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to ten years, or both; and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years, or for life, or may be sentenced to death.

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 – Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law

This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.

This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.

Acts under “color of any law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under “color of any law,” the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Title 42, U.S.C., Section 3631 – Criminal Interference with Right to Fair Housing

This statute makes it unlawful for any individual(s), by the use of force or threatened use of force, to injure, intimidate, or interfere with (or attempt to injure, intimidate, or interfere with), any person’s housing rights because of that person’s race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin. Among those housing rights enumerated in the statute are:

  • The sale, purchase, or renting of a dwelling;
  • the occupation of a dwelling;
  • the financing of a dwelling;

contracting or negotiating for any of the rights enumerated above;

applying for or participating in any service, organization, or facility relating to the sale or rental of dwellings.

This statute also makes it unlawful by the use of force or threatened use of force, to injure, intimidate, or interfere with any person who is assisting an individual or class of persons in the exercise of their housing rights.

Punishment varies from a fine of up to $1,000 or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results, shall be fined up to $10,000 or imprisoned up to ten years, or both, and if death results, shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life.

 ARTICLE XIV.

“Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The reasonable enjoyment of one’s real estate is certainly a vested right, which cannot be interfered with or limited arbitrarily. The constitutional guaranty of protection for all private property extends equally to the enjoyment and the possession of lands. An arbitrary interference by the government, or by its authority, with the reasonable enjoyment of private lands is a taking of private [728] property without due process of law, which is inhibited by the constitutions. But it is not every use which comes within this constitutional protection. One has a vested right to only a reasonable use of one’s lands. It is not difficult to find the rule which determines the limitations upon the lawful ways or manner of using lands. It is the rule, which furnishes the solution of every problem in the law of police power, and which is comprehended in the legal maxim, sic utere tuo, ut alienum non lædas. One can lawfully make use of his property only in such a manner as that he will not injure another. Any use of one’s lands to the hurt or annoyance of another is a nuisance, and may be prohibited. At common law that is a nuisance, which causes personal discomfort or injury to health to an unusual degree. As it has been expressed in a preceding section,1 the right of personal security against acts, which will cause injury to health or great bodily discomfort, cannot be made absolute in organized society. It must yield to the reasonable demands of trade, commerce and other great interests of society. While the State cannot arbitrarily violate the right of personal security to health by the unlimited authorization of acts which do harm to health, or render one’s residence less comfortable, there is involved in this matter the consideration of what constitutes a reasonable use of one’s property. At common law this is strictly a judicial question of fact, the answer to which varies according to the circumstances of each case. One is expected to endure a reasonable amount of discomfort and annoyance for the public good, which is furthered by the permission of trades and manufactures, the prosecution of which necessarily involves a certain amount of annoyance or injury to the inhabitants of the neighborhood. In all such cases, it is a question of equity, on whom is it reasonable to impose the burden of the inevitable loss, resulting from this clashing [729] of interests; and independently of statute it is strictly a judicial question, and all the circumstances of the case must be taken into consideration.

respectfully,

Melody Boatner

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B1Pxuwsos4l_U2J6YU1RSDdobVE

I really have to repost this letter, how many criminals admit to intentionally causing someone harm.

Really you people who have not read this letter I received from the AUSA read it. The prosecutor’s job is to take the hard copy evidence (not hearsay) and use it to convict the criminals. Using hearsay is not evidence!!! There has never been an authority that has taken the time to review my evidence. He may be assuming my evidence is assumptive, because the SA refused to review my hard copy evidence. This guy needs to resign if he does not know that private property rights are Federally protected. Here are the Federal crimes that my evidence supports beyond a reasonable doubt. These Federal imposters are protecting some of the most hardened organization of crime I have heard of. They nearly killed me. This guy really thinks I should have evidence posted that will implicate the highest ranking law enforcement of the county. Yeah that would be real smart on my part.

10-3-2018 Kevin VanderSchel pg 2

This is a guy who has the duty to prosecute public corruption, he shows himself to be a participant. Regardless of any issues he intends to participate in the violation of my rights.

Proof that this violation of Federal law cannot be disputed, the evidence proves this did happen. There is no assumption of any kind. The neighbor admitted to it in a civil court trial. I asked this AUSA if he had the authority to violate a civil court order, he said he did. I do not believe that for a minute. If that were the case why would people bother with having a civil court trial? Liars and thieves are the only thing I recognize from these government officials. I want to see hard copy evidence that he has the right to violate a civil court order. I will not take hearsay to be a fact. I am not suppose to contact his office anymore, He can kiss my butt. He works for me and he will pay the price for lying and conspiring to violate my Federal rights. He won’t take me up on my challenge to fist fight. He must be a puss.

18 U.S.C. § 229 – U.S. Code – Unannotated Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 229. Prohibited activities

Unlawful conduct. (a) –Except as provided in subsection (b), it shall be unlawful for any person knowingly–

(1) to develop, produce, otherwise acquire, transfer directly or indirectly, receive, stockpile, retain, own, possess, or use, or threaten to use, any chemical weapon;  or (2) to assist or induce, in any way, any person to violate paragraph (1), or to attempt or conspire to violate paragraph (1). 

Exempted agencies and persons. (b) 

In general. (1) –Subsection (a) does not apply to the retention, ownership, possession, transfer, or receipt of a chemical weapon by a department, agency, or other entity of the United States, or by a person described in paragraph (2), pending destruction of the weapon.

Exempted persons. (2) –A person referred to in paragraph (1) is–

(A) any person, including a member of the Armed Forces of the United States, who is authorized by law or by an appropriate officer of the United States to retain, own, possess, transfer, or receive the chemical weapon;  or 

(B) in an emergency situation, any otherwise nonculpable person if the person is attempting to destroy or seize the weapon. 

Jurisdiction. (c) –Conduct prohibited by subsection (a) is within the jurisdiction of the United States if the prohibited conduct–

(1) takes place in the United States; 

(2) takes place outside of the United States and is committed by a national of the United States; 

(3) is committed against a national of the United States while the national is outside the United States;  or 

(4) is committed against any property that is owned, leased, or used by the United States or by any department or agency of the United States, whether the property is within or outside the United States. 

Chemical Weapons

This crime is punishable by any term of years in prison. If the crime results in death, the punishment is death or life imprisonment. Property owned or used by the person is subject to forfeiture. Any property derived from and proceeds obtained from the offense and property used to commit or facilitate the offense is also subject to forfeiture. The statute also imposes an additional fine of up to twice the gross profit or proceeds from the offense (18 U.S.C. 229, et seq.).

A chemical weapon is:

1. a toxic chemical and its precursors (chemical reactants that take part in producing a toxic chemical) unless intended for a purpose that is not prohibited and the type and quantity is consistent with that purpose,

2. a munition or device designed to cause death or harm through toxic chemicals that would be released by the device, or

3. equipment designed for use directly in connection with using such a munition or device.

A toxic chemical is a chemical that can cause death, temporary incapacitation, or permanent harm to people or animals.

The law specifies that it does not apply to self-defense devices such as pepper spray or chemical mace. It also does not prevent uses related to (1) industrial, agricultural, research, medical, or pharmaceutical activity; (2) protection against chemical weapons; (3) unrelated military purposes; and (4) law enforcement purposes such as riot control and imposing the death penalty.

What statute was violated?

In my case eminent domain was not used to take my private property. The way this happened was my neighbor took control of my property from me. He unlawfully applied glyphosate to my property. The evidence suggests that this was his intent. I verbally told him no to do anything to my property the day that I saw the chemicals had been applied, he could have care less about what I told him. I requested an incident report that I had told him not to do anything to my property. By intent the Police chief waited 16 months before he gave me that first report. It was completely inadequate as to the facts of the incident. I gave that one back and told him to give me one that explains what when and why I requested one, he gave me a report that was substandard according to the accurate information. If did not make a difference if I ever got one because my attorney did not submit any evidence that would allow the judge to recognize the degree of inhuman treatment. So if control of my property was taken the only statue I can come up with is conspiracy against rights, deprivation of rights under color of law, and assault with intent causing serious injury. I believe the statute of limitations does not apply in cases of torture and serious injury to a person. It isn’t going to in this case. There is no precedence to make it simpler for a pro se case.