29.5 VIOLATION OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS — PENALTY.
- A person, who acts alone, or who conspires with another person
or persons, to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate or interfere
with any citizen in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or
privilege secured to that person by the constitution or laws of the
state of Iowa or by the constitution or laws of the United States,
and assembles with one or more persons for the purpose of teaching or
being instructed in any technique or means capable of causing
property damage, bodily injury or death when the person or persons
intend to employ those techniques or means in furtherance of the
conspiracy, is on conviction, guilty of a class “D” felony.
A person intimidates or interferes with another person if the act
of the person results in any of the following:
a. Physical injury to the other person.
b. Physical damage to or destruction of the other person’s
c. Communication in a manner, or action in a manner, intended
to result in either of the following:
(1) To place the other person in fear of physical contact which
will be injurious, insulting, or offensive, coupled with the apparent
ability to execute the act.
(2) To place the other person in fear of harm to the other
person’s property, or harm to the person or property of a third
- This section does not make unlawful the teaching of any
technique in self-defense.
- This section does not make unlawful any activity of any of the
following officials or persons:
a. Law enforcement officials of this or any other
jurisdiction while engaged in the lawful performance of their
b. Federal officials required to carry firearms while engaged
in the lawful performance of their official duties.
c. Members of the armed forces of the United States or the
national guard while engaged in the lawful performance of their
d. Any conservation commission, law enforcement agency, or
any agency licensed to provide security services, or any hunting
club, gun club, shooting range, or other organization or entity whose
primary purpose is to teach the safe handling or use of firearms,
archery equipment, or other weapons or techniques employed in
connection with lawful sporting or other lawful activity.
via Iowa Code 729.
Due to the fact that after multiple requests from Boatner for the building administrator Mark Holland to come to the location and address her concerns, he refused. A witness was prepared to testify that she asked Holland if he was going to go to the location and address Boatner’s concerns. He replied that he had no intention of going to Boatner’s to address her concerns. Knowing that the expert on this situation would be the local FEMA director Steve Cirinna. Knowing that a conflict of interest exists due to the fact the he is the husband of the city clerk Celeste Cirinna his opinion was not an option. Through a referral from the internet source Boatner contacted Lee County Extension Agent Robert Dodds for an opinion regarding the nuisance drainage issue. Mr. Dodds did come to the location as a professional courtesy. Mr Dodds noticed some discrepancies that I had not, I only noticed that the building permit was not signed by the builder as required by State of Iowa law. The following letter was written to me advising me of his opinion to some questions I had asked him. A copy was also sent to Mayor Dinwiddie along with a copy of the State drainage laws. This letter was never discussed privately with Boatner or at a public council meeting. This letter was not submitted as ongoing business to the next elected administration of Mayor Tony Sciumbato . This expert’s opinion was ignored in this case, yet there are numerous instances unrelated to Conlee-Boatner nuisance drainage issue in which public record shows Mr. Dodds opinion was requested and respected. At this point any reasonable person would recognize a conspiracy to deprive me of my Federal Constitutional Right to Equal Protection of the Law and my Right to Enjoy my own Property at the least of the issues in this case.
Conspiracy Deprivation of Rights under Color of Law.
It has already been established that building official Mark Holland refused his duty to address Boatners concerns, Boatner witnessed Lee County Detective Bob Conlee (brother of Mark Conlee) assisting Mark with a tape measure on 3-22-2005. Bob Conlee has no authority to act as an official of any kind in Montrose, he has no jurisdiction and there is an obvious conflict of interest.
In regards to Mark Conlee stating that he would be at the next Council meeting to request a ditch be dug, it has already been established that Boatner hand dug the City ditches in 1995 when she purchased the property.
Boatner also left copies of this letter on Mayor Dinwiddie and building official Holland’s door. NOTE THE WORD DITCH IS WHAT I REFERRED TO AS WHAT WE NEEDED
This is the damage to my foundation due to the illegal removal of the existing berm by Mark Conlee. I requested multiple times for the building official to come to the location and address my concerns. Conlee’s will claim that the damage was caused by storm water runoff coming from the street. However it has already been established that Boatner hand dug the ditches bordering her property upon purchase in 1995. Prior to repairing all damage caused by the lack of maintenance by the city of many years. This photo is from the basement of Boatner’s home. Shot toward the right front corner, The front of the house facing 5th St is dry, easy to distinguish by the light color. The left side of this photo is the side of the home that faces Conlee’s property. Easy to distinguish this soil is saturated by storm water caused by illegal removal of existing berm by Mark Conlee along with the regrading of his entire lot due to him changing the frontage ¹ of his new home to be toward the alley. He regraded the entire lot downward to drain onto Boatner’s property.
¹Conlee committed perjury in civil court Conlee vs Boatner Eqeq
This photo shows the soil saturated and the foundation washed out, this is the side of the house that faces Conlee’s property. According to witnesses Tonya Adkins and Stuart Westermeyer both former owners testified that the property never received storm water runoff from the Conlee property. When there was a heavy rainfall because of the berm the front yard of the Conlee property became a pond,the berm held all the water from running onto Boatner’s property. Witnesses were prepared to testify to all this and I have written affidavits stating this as true. Attorney Steve Swan failed to submit affidavits and to question witnesses on my behalf in a civil suit Conlee filed against me for loss of enjoyment to his property. Yes that is a tell tale sign of narcissistic personality disorder. I will post all the court records as the events happened.
I contacted Mayor Dinwiddie, building official Mark Holland and every other council member on this day. I requested each of them come to the location and see with their own eyes the flooding of my property caused by Mark Conlee’s illegal property redevelopment. Only one of the council members had the professional courtesy to answer my request, Cathy Roberts Farnsworth saw the adverse effects my property was having. Building official Mark Holland had the duty to act as the authority. he is the only authorized authority to represent the State building codes for the City of Montrose, Ia. He had been on notice since fall 2004 and had not preformed his duty on my behalf. That is to untimely to consider he is not conspiring with Mark Holland to violate my Federal Right to enjoy and equal protection of the law under color of law.
Here you can see it standing it the level spot that we had the pool set up. This yard has never held water in the past. I may have more knowledge than most about these issues but building administrator Holland has a manual that states the standard procedure required for redeveloping non conforming properties, his lack of concern was not due to ignorance, it was due to conspiracy intent to deprive me of my rights under color of law. Witnesses will testify that he questioned them about site layout when they were issued a building permit for their new home. He refused to answer my concerns and continued to issue Mark Conlee two more building permits. It is noted on public record that Holland did drive by, that will be posted by the date of the meeting.
Conflicts of Interest in Land Use Decision-Making
Elected and appointed officials involved in land-use decision making must not be tainted with prejudice regarding on matters that come before them. Such prejudice exists when the individual finds herself with a conflict of interest. A conflict of interest arises when a public servant is in the position of deciding between public duty and private interests. The three most common conflict of interest situations are (1) when the member is in a position to gain financially from the decision being rendered, (2) when the member is a relative of an interested party, or (3) the member is near, or next to, the property at issue.
The most obvious example of a financial conflict is when a land-use decision-maker has an ownership interest in the property that is the subject of the requested action. A review of court cases from around the country reveals numerous other possible conflict situations:
- The decision-maker is in a business relationship with the applicant.
- The decision-maker is employed by a company that stands to gain from approval of the development proposal.
- The decision-maker owns property near the property in question.
- The member owns a business that would directly compete with the applicant’s business.
The tangle of familial relationships that can potentially give rise to conflict of interest questions is equally broad:
- The decision-maker’s spouse is the Realtor working with the landowner.
- The decision-maker’s close relative lives near the property in question.
- The member’s nephew is an attorney with the firm representing the applicant.
A decision-maker who questions whether he has a conflict of interest should ask for advice from the attorney representing his city or county. If a conflict of interest does in fact exist, the decision-maker must disqualify himself from the case. If a conflict of interest does not exist, it is the decision-maker’s duty to participate and vote, even if the situation may be uncomfortable because it involves a friend or associate.
Many communities, boards or commissions have adopted bylaws or policies that govern conflict, and some state codes require specific action to be taken where conflict of interest may exist. Care should be taken to follow any applicable standards in effect locally. While the advice to confer with legal counsel is always sound, some communities require that potential conflict of interest issues be declared and discussed at an open meeting and a vote taken to determine if an actionable conflict is present. Again, local practice should be followed when applicable. In addition, many local and national planning organizations provide models and standards for resolving conflict of interest issues.
Gary D. Taylor, Iowa State University