Category Archives: Conspiracy

At the federal level in the United States, The third conspiracy by the United States Code is solicitation to commit a crime of violence. Any group that hires, manipulates, or forces another person to commit an act of violence is punishable. An example of this would be a person hired by a crime organization to commit assault or murder. Punishment for this conspiracy charge is a maximum of half the punishment of the crime intended/executed. For example, if the crime was murder, the defendants would be sentenced to half the term of punishment that the murder charge carried. [4]

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.

“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 imposters. 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 statments by telling me that you have the authority to violate my rights 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 webpage 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 WWll 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 Wever 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?

The FBI investigates violations of federal civil rights statutes and supports the investigations of state and local authorities in certain cases. 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 Civil Rights Act of 1964, 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

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.

You can Sue for Civil rights violations!

Federal or State violations of civil rights or constitutional rights

Exposing public corrupt personnel at all levels.

Well this may be against my best interest but at this point what do I have to lose. I am publishing the email of the FBI SA who refused to review my hard copy evidence. Did not look into the financial record of the accused to see if perhaps a bribe has been paid. He accepted hearsay to be evidence. My case did not even get issued a case number. He did not recognize that private property rights are Federally protected rights. He continued to claim that no Federal law has been broken when anyone who has taken the time to review the evidence agrees with me that Federal laws have been violated on more than one occasion. tjreinwart@fbi.gov. He goes by the first name of Thomas.

The AUSA immediately advised me that he would not prosecute giving me three different reasons at three different times. The first three reasons I submitted evidence that he was incorrect as to what the evidence proved he was basing his decision on. Knowing he has been given false information or information based on hearsay by the above named FBI agent. The most recent decision not to prosecute was because he has the authority. I sent him guidelines suggested by the Attorney General but to no avail. The letter states that I am not supposed to contact this AUSA again. They will not put any more resources into my insignificant case. I explained that a civil court order early on in my favor was violated by the local government officials and he callously does not care. Kevin.VanderSchel@doj.gov. he of course goes by the name of Kevin.

There is no record of any citizen being forced to flee from their private property due to unlawful application of toxic chemicals being applied, ongoing for over 5 years. NONE. It seems to me that anyone who would continue an act that he knows is causing anyone else physical harm has some mental health issues. I know I would not do anything to anyone else’s property because it is illegal and immoral. It seems the Federal authorities feel that they can join in this figurative gang rape. I feel they need to be held accountable as well as the locals. There is nothing I have posted that is based on hearsay or based on fabricated information. There is much evidence that I have not posted. If these individuals are satisfied that they have upheld their duty and the oath they took to uphold the Constitution of the United States then they should be proud of their job performance in my unnumbered case. They never showed any real intent to defend my rights given by Federal law. They should be proud of their actions in this case that has multiple violations of Federal law. Anyone who reads my information and feels my Federally protected rights have been violated I urge you to email these individuals and let them know that private property rights are Federally protected rights and any other opinions you may have that Federal law has in fact been violated. Terrorism is not a violation of Federal law I have been told. Only supporters of terrorism are violating Federal law, so clearly the local officials who would not stop this neighbor from applying the chemicals to my property are supporters of terrorism. Yes herbicides and pesticides are considered chemical weapons. I have done all the research to know that violations of Federal law have occured.

If something happens to me it is well documented as to who may be involved. Just saying. Glyphosate is harmful to human beings when not applied as directed on the label. This is what is wrong with our Government today. Covering up and supporting corruption is not what the FBI has the duty to do. I want to know why I am exempt from the same rights that every other citizen takes for granted, as I did when I fled from my home, business and property. There is no justifiable reason any US citizen should have to suffer what I have suffered.

Early writing with supporting evidence of ongoing conspiracy when I did still have possession of my home, business and pursuit of happiness. The chemical were seriously affecting me at this time however. Who does this to another human being?

2002

March 2002, Mark Conlee purchased the property adjoining mine from then Mayor Ron Dinwiddie. Creating a conflict of interest Boatners property is numbered 1-6 in the photo, Conlee property in not numbered. Both properties are equal in size however they are non typical in layout. These are the only 2 lots in Montrose that are legally described as being 6 half lots. running from street to street. Typical lots run from street to alley. Double frontage properties and reverse frontage lots shall be avoided, except where their use will produce definite advantages in meeting special situations in relation to topography, sound site planning, and proper land use. Being long and narrow lots restricted new redevelopment structures.


2003

March 2003 Mark Conlee trucked in tons of fill dirt on lots 1 & 2 of his property (4Th St). He constructed a non-conforming, over sized, 2 story garage. The fact that this building was positioned 90 degreesfrom what would be considered normal and there was no drain tile installed caused me great concern. It was foreseeable that roof surface of this massive structure being directed to my property was going to cause adverse effects by flooding. I assumed he would install guttering and downspouts to divert storm water to the cities open drainage ditch as required by law. Mark Conlee intentionally diverted storm water to my property. He installed a culvert and new driveway which requires a special permit, as do all driveways. I suspect no standard procedure for acquiring the proper permits were followed. Prior to the redevelopment of Mark Conlee’s lots 1 & 2 there were no structures and the grade ran down to the city ditch. Iowa drainage laws state “new construction and property redevelopment stormwater run off to a neighbors land “can not be more than before development”. The amount of runoff onto my property was significant and caused my property to lose value as evident in the County property assessment records.

I spoke to Montrose Chief of Police John Farmer, at that time, about my concerns. According to Officer Farmer, the reason Mark Conlee built the over sized 2 story garage with the intention of making the second story his living quarters. Mark Conlee had recently divorced.

2004

Soon after Mark Conlee finished building his garage he remarried. This was quite surprising since most of the neighbor and I were unaware that Mark had a girlfriend. He never introduced me to his wife when there was an plenty of opportunity. Marks new wife, Linda is co-worker of Mark Conlee. The factory they work at is considered high paying wage. Mark Conlees finances doubled with this marriage. Soon after he married the existing double-wide mobile home burnt in a suspicious nature. The double-wide home and the berm were put in place in 1972. I am certain the cause was arson because Mark Conlee told me and another witness that he “wished the trailer would burn”. Two weeks later his wish comes true.

The fact that the only 4 firefighters were on the scene were Mark Conlee, Mayor Ron Dinwiddie, Fire Chief/ Council member/Appointed building administrator Mark Holland, and Jake Holland(Mark Hollands son) and not at their regular job in neighboring towns that morning.

Mark Conlee went to work as usual that day. He returned home soon after he got to his job at a factory 3 miles from Montrose.

I called Iowa arson hotline, of course, my tip to the hot line was never investigated.

Montrose Chief of Police John Farmer stated he felt the fire was suspicious and warranted further investigation however he was told not worry about it they had it “taken care of”.

Every neighbor with the exception of one approached me stating they thought it was arson. I did not ask for details as to their reason for there suspicion.

One neighbor was curious where Mark Conlee was getting all his money from.

According to a witness several weeks prior to the Conlee fire there was a case of mobile home fire the cause of both fires being the same.

The cause was in a nature that a reasonable trained firefighter as Mark Conlee would not be so reckless.

The morning of the fire I was not awakened by the fire station siren as always, I woke from the noise of Jake Holland hooking up the hose to the hydrant on my corner.

Conlee, Dinwiddie and Mark Holland were doing nothing more than standing on the sidewalk talking. When Jake did get the hose hooked up to the hydrant, one of them told him to put the hose down.

After several hours of waiting on the sidewalk in front of the residence Mark Conlee dressed in the full body firefighters suit and went inside the home. Several minutes later he returned outside. I noticed he was empty handed. It seems unreasonable that someone’s house unexpectedly burns and they are the firefighter that enters. They would try and save a treasured memento or at least one item from inside the home.

The timeliness of this fire is suspicious in itself.

Though none of this information was disclosed to me. After the fire Mark Conlee opted not to build his living quarters upstairs in the non-conforming garage. With his newly acquired financial gains from his marriage and insurance claim from the fire Mark Conlee decided to build a new home. He wanted a large very nice home. The one thing he was unable to make larger was the size of his property lot that he bought from Mayor Ron Dinwiddie. His lot was always going to be 70 X 300′.

Mark Conlee’s grandiose behavior toward me was undeniable. The last time Mark Conlee spoke to me in a neighborly fashion, he stated to me that he wanted to top my trees so he could build his house without the limbs from my trees obstructing his space where he would need to work on the roof of his new home. I replied “I do not have a problem with that.” I wrongly assumed he would clean up the waste in the yard from the limbs and such. It was an elm tree and they do have a lot of small growth that comes with topping them, more than most other types of trees for sure. He hired a group Amish workers to top the tree and clean up the scrap material strewn about in his yard. I assumed the ran out of daylight the first day. The second day my yard was a mess. I could not get to the clothes line without clearing a path. Which I did. The third day I dropped what I was scheduled to do in my business and cleaned up the mess in my yard into 3 large piles of waste. Mark Conlee never offered to assist with any of the mess he made in my yard. I was very offended that I was kind enough to let him top my trees for his benefit and in return I was left with a major cleanup in my yard with no regard or concern that I had a business to run and I certainly did not have cleaning up the massive amount of yard waste in my scheduled customer deadline. Reflecting back, knowing narcissist I understand that when he stated “He wanted to top my trees”, he was not asking permission as a reasonable person would. He was stating that he was going to top my trees. Mark Conlee never spoke a kind neighborly word to me from that point on. He did talk to me. He did communicate with me. At one point he hollered across the yard at me informing me that “his house is over the setbacks required by State Law”. I look at him but had no verbal response.

Mark Conlee had blueprints for his new home in at this time. Standard procedure requires site layout and drainage are determined before anything else in property redevelopment. There is no previous record of complaints that suggest Building Administrator Mark Hollands acted with intentional disregard to perform his appointed duty as building administrator by following standard procedures required by Law. Witnesses were and are available to testify that Mr. Holland studied their blueprints and questioned the layout of building on their plans. Holland’s intentional negligence leaves the City of Montrose liable for Boatners damages.

Legal theories of Liability a manual provided by the State Association for Floodplain Management explains the grounds in detail. Lee County Federal Emergency Floodplain Management officer is Steve Cirinna, Husband of City of Montrose Clerk, Celeste Cirinna.

Mark Conlee’s property redevelopment simply would not fit on the narrow half lots and be in compliance with Uniform Building Laws. He illegally changed the frontage of his property so that now the massive roof surfaces directed storm water directly onto my property. This is a legally non conforming property. Not developable in anyway making the footprint of any new structures larger than the existing structures. Standard procedures require stormwater drainage be directed into the city drainage ditches. The law states that a redevelopment cannot divert more stormwater runoff onto a neighboring property than before the redevelopment. The existing structures the roof surface ran parallel with the property. Boatner received no run off from the existing structures. The adverse effects to her property were foreseeable and intentional. Mark Conlee had fill dirt trucked in and regraded his property so that all storm water was diverted onto my property. He raised the alley as it were his private driveway. General procedure is that alleys are lower than the homeowners property to receive storm water on Boatners behalf. According to Mr. Dodds a developer can not take it upon himself to remove any berm or swale that is protecting neighboring property from flooding and has existed for 10 or more years.

On 7-4-2004 Mark Conlee was putting the finishing touch on his dirt work. His work with the rented uni-loader was meticulously smooth in both the grade and level. On what looked to me to be his last pass I hollered to get his attention over the noise of the uni-loader. I stated to him that we needed a ditch dug on the common boundary because it was foreseeable that my property going to be flooded as a result of his redevelopment. He heard me but never acknowledged me, he just drove on past me without a word. I was devastated. Mark Conlee had not installed drain tile, he had unlawfully remove the berm that protected my home and property from flooding, and he had changed the frontage of his new home and garage to face the alley as his front yard and the rear of his property now was my property to serve the purpose of his alley in regards to stormwater.


2005

My repeated requests for the proper City authority went unaddressed. The drainage issue continued. At this time also Conlee began using what is defined as terrorist acts using toxic chemicals as the weapon unlawfully applied to my property, not his as the photo evidence shows. His intent was to cause me bodily harm or death. The motive for him to eliminate me was because he discovered that he could not get the illegal redevelopment recorded on the county plat map. He simply did not have enough land to set the oversized structures on legally. This is documented in Poisoned by My Neighbor From Hell, Good Old Boy Network From Hell, My Neighbor Poisoned Me.

Feb. 3, 2005 Bob Conlee was promoted to Detective for Lee County Sheriff’s Office. Bob Conlee is Mark Conlee’s brother. He has been employed with the sheriff’s dept for most of his adult life. They actually removed the 6’ height requirement in order to hire him when he got his job as a deputy.


3-22-2005 Lee County Detective Bob Conlee was present at Mark Conlee’s property presenting himself to be the authority of the building administrator on behalf of the City. Lee County Sheriff’s Dept. Detective Bob Conlee being the brother of Mark Conlee acted in violation of a conflict of interest rule. Detective Bob Conlee having no jurisdiction in the City of Montrose acted with Mark Conlee, Mayor Ron Dinwiddie and Building Admin/Council Member/Fire Chief actions support CONSPIRACY DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW.

SA Thomas Reinwart disputed the allegation that I made saying that Bob Conlee was acting as a city building authority. Reinwart suggested that he was merely giving his brother advice. But we know that building official Mark Holland refused to come to the location, so yes Bob Conlee was misrepresenting his authority as a city building official.

Det. Conlee began knowingly making false statements, defaming my character to the general public. On one occasion Montrose Deputy, Mike Smith and I witnessed Det. Conlee say over the police radio in response to a report about my brother “are you sure it is not Melody driving Reggie’s truck? “I (Bob Conlee) know she used to drive Reggie’s truck”. Detective Conlee knowingly made a false statement. There is no evidence that I have ever driven my brothers truck, because I never have. Officer Conlees motive was to associate me with illegal drug activity. Based of the content of that statement it is reasonable to believe that what he is referring to is an incident in 1997 when I was mistaken for my brothers girlfriend at the time due to the fact that my brother and I have the same color truck. He owns a Chevy S10 and I own a Ford Ranger. The task force had my brothers house under surveillance waiting for his girlfriend to pull up. My brother was incarcerated at the time. He and I had not associated since an earlier disagreement in 1995. I arrived on behalf of a phone call from my Aunt, Connie Reuther. She was concerned about some movement at Reggie’s and called me asking if I would come and check on his place. Had Reggie not been incarcerated I would not have been there. Aunt Connie watched out for Reggie’s place knowing it was vacant and she lived next door to his property. When I pulled in the task force surrounded me before I had time to get out of my truck. Senior Officer Tom Crew requested identification, searched my vehicle and cleared me from any wrong doing immediately, Senior Officer Buck Jones was also on the scene and apologized for any inconvenience they had caused me. Lee County Deputy Bob Conlee could identify me on sight and knew I was not the individual who the warrant was issued for. I did not know who the warrant was issued for until a later time. That is what Detective Conlee was referring when he falsely stated he knew I used to drive Reggie’s truck. I have had no other interaction with the drug task force, ever.

Lee County Detective Bob Conlee in his delusional state of mind began defaming my character, claiming I was going to get busted for drugs. He had me under constant surveillance. When Bob Conlee was on duty he never let me out of his sight. I was well aware of his presence. I was unconcerned because I knew I was innocent of any wrongdoing. I was a homebody, I enjoyed staying home and keeping busy in my upholstery shop, yard or the house. When Detective Conlee began psychopathic stalking me I was concerned for my own safety. On two occasions he followed me from my house to my destination point. I was at a service business just out of town using the owners chop saw for a chair frame fabrication I needed. Bob came tearing in the door like a mad man. He came to the back of the building where I was operating the saw. He observed what I was doing and just turned around and left. He didn’t say a word to me or the owner of the business. When he got back in his unmarked car he defamed my character again making false statements on the police radio. He stated that I had hidden my truck at the destination point. That is a complete fabrication.

Before long the entire community knew that I was a drug dealer and my arrest was imminent. Officer Brent Shipman defamed my character by repeating this false information to the general public. Mark Conlee defamed my character at a city council meeting suggesting that I am a drug dealer. After the meeting an witness approached me stating that in her opinion Conlee’s statement was a reaching an all time low view of his character.

My initial complaint in reference to the drainage issue in March 2005. I contacted Mark Conlee, Council member/building admin. Mark Holland and Mayor Ron Dinwiddie via written notes taped to their front doors and leaving messages on their answering machines when my calls were not answered. Having not responded in May, I took the aerial photo with me to Mark Holland’s home. Mark Holland was planting his garden. I showed him the photo and pointed out the berm that Mark Conlee had removed and was causing adverse effects to my home structure. Mark Holland stated “I forgot about that” (the berm). With that I assumed as any reasonable person would, that Mark Holland would follow up or at the least re-access the redevelopment that he had issued the building permits for. He took no action to resolve the problems. He at no time represented my interests as required by the City Authority. He did continue to serve Mark Conlee’s every request with no discretion, Holland issued two more permits to Mark Conlee each for an outdoor structure.

I began having severe panic attacks, the mental anguish of watching my property being taken from any of my control was unbearable.

I knew Conlee committed arson of the existing home on his property

I was terrified that he would burn my house down with me in it.

I believe he to be a psychopath

He has absolutely no conscience.

He is a habitual liar

I knew he had no fear of being held accountable by the law for any criminal act against me.

I contacted every council member and requested they come and look at the situation. Cathy Roberts Farnsworth was the only council member having the professional courtesy to respond to my request. Cathy witnessed my property flooded as a direct result of Mark Conlee’s property redevelopment. She also told me that she asked Mark Holland if he was going to address my concerns, Mark Holland stated to her that he was not. I called Mayor Dinwiddie several times, one of which he did come to my property. I expected Mayor Dinwiddie to follow some type of standard procedure and together would walk the property line visually and discuss the drainage issues that were so prominent. He got out of his vehicle and stood near the sidewalk long enough to tell to me “he (Conlee) can’t do that (divert storm water onto my property), but its a private issue”. He returned directly to his truck and left with no intent of being open to my opinion or further discussion. Certainly not the character I know Ron Dinwiddie to be.

I have known Ron Dinwiddie personally since I was a teenager. He and his family have been like my second family since I was young. His sister and I have been best friends throughout our youth. His mother made it a point to tell me she loved me when she became ill prior to her death. I can visualize Dinwiddie’s mannerisms as he would and should have stated at the City Council meeting advising them and Holland that “he can’t do that”. Ron Dinwiddie knew he was telling me a lie when he made that statement to me.

According to City of Montrose Code of Ordinances (Code of Iowa, Sec. 380.5 & 380.6[2])

6. Negotiations. Represent the City in all negotiations properly entered into in accordance with law or ordinance. The Mayor shall not represent the City where this duty is specifically delegated to another officer by law, ordinance, or Council direction.

Dinwiddie had no authority to act as building administrator, Dinwiddie had the duty as Mayor to manage the City officials and had the duty to direct my issue to the proper authority, Mark Holland.The following day I went to City Hall and got copies of the building permits issued to Mark Conlee by appointed building administrator Mark Holland for Mark Conlee’s garage and new home. By this time Holland had issued 2 more permits to Mark Conlee for out buildings. Dinwiddie and Holland were both co-conspirators with an existing conflict of interest on Mark Conlees behalf.

I was denied equal protection of the law.

My attention was focused on the permit issued for the new house. Conlee’s entire property redevelopment increased stormwater run off on to my property. But it was Conlees new home that was causing adverse effects to structure of my home. The permit is not completed according to general procedure. The permit was signed by building administrator Mark Holland, but not signed by the builder Mark Conlee. The authority is Mark Holland. His intentional negligence to disregard his duty to address my concerns on behalf of his special relationship with buddy there leaves no oversite or accountability, this is unacceptable. Hence, the purpose of uniform building codes and the issuance of building permits as noted on public record by Mayor Dinwiddie

I contacted State Rep. Phil Wise requesting some assistance, he called City Hall and requested I be added to the agenda so I could direct my questions to building admin Mark Holland. With in minutes of Mr. Wises phone call to City Hall, Lee County Detective Bob Conlee arrived at his brother Mark Conlee’s home. Mark Holland did not respond. It was no surprise that at the City Council meeting in which Mr. Wise requested I be added to the agenda Holland was absent, a rare occasion according to his history. I did address the council and public record shows Mayor Dinwiddie implicated the City of Montrose as being liable by interrupting me when I following procedure had the floor to speak to Council. When Mayor Dinwiddie finished what he interrupted me to say I submitted the building permit in question showing that Mark Holland representing the City has signed it but Mark Conlee the builder had not. There was no discussion as to Mayor Dinwiddie’s acknowledgement of liability was obviously on the City after I submitted the unsigned permit. There was no response from Mayor Dinwiddie to me privately either. I followed up with an email to State Rep. Phil Wise. Mr. Wise did not respond. I am aware that Mr. Wise did not have any real authority to rectify my problem. He was up front with that information, out of professional courtesy he used his political influence to contact City Hall on my behalf. Also this was just prior to Mr. Wise’s retirement I am sure he felt the City would address my concerns when I presented the questionable document. Mayor Dinwiddie’s own statements at that public meeting implicate himself in CONSPIRACY DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW.

July 2, 2005 My skin condition is spreading Mark Conlee continues to unlawfully apply chemicals to my property on a regular basis when he maintains his yard. Officer Shipman still denies my request for an incident report as requested in May.

July 7, 2005 Council minutes state Mark Holland and Jeff Junkins are both are looking for nuisance violations. Both have a special relationships with Mark Conlee, evidence supports an existing conflict of interest. This meeting also includes evidence that the City was uncooperative in submitting documents to the Ombudsman on behalf of my allegations in a complaint I filed with them. It is unreasonable behavior for the City Clerk not to cooperate with the ombudsman’s request. I find it more unreasonable the Ombudsman determine to drop the case based on hearsay from Cirinna and it is beyond suspicious as to why the City would not submit the request for documents, yet the Ombudsman dismissed  my complaint stating they found no wrongdoing, without viewing the questionable documents. I am offended that the ombudsman was negligent in investigating the evidence I had supporting my side of the case. I am offended that this City finds no duty to follow standard procedure on behalf of one individual.

Still searching for a solution to rectify the drainage situation, I joined cyburbia forum on the internet. I was desperate for some assistance as my property was being washed away due to uncontrollable flooding. One individual on the forum was particularly interested in my situation, he advised me to contact Lee County Extension agent, Bob Dodds.  Mr. Dodds had no duty or authority to rectify the situation. Mr. Dodds did come to my property to access the situation. He took photos and wrote a letter to Mayor Dinwiddie on my behalf, including a copy of the State of Iowa Drainage Law Manual. Mr. Dodds happened to live in Montrose. In reviewing the building permit issued by Mark Holland for Mark Conlees new home, Mr. Dodds noted a few discrepancies. One being that Mark Conlee had not been required to paid the fee for the permit. There was no response from Mayor Dinwiddie in reference to the letter written on my behalf by Robert Dodds. Mayor Dinwiddie was intentionally negligent in his duty as Mayor to manage and direct appointed to Mark Holland to perform his duty. I have found no case in which the building administrator was allowed by a Mayor to refused his duty to represent the State building code. This is unreasonable professional behavior by all these officials by any standards.

With all the written laws, rules and regulations in place to protect citizens from being forced to sue City’s and neighbor’s being ignored on behalf of Mark Conlee. The City’s intentional negligence left no other recourse but for me to sue them.

I was looking for an attorney. John Farmer suggested Steve Swan. John briefed Steve Swan as to the case and our initial meeting 6-21-2005. Steve Swan advised that we would sue the City of Montrose and Mark Conlee adding the comment, (that I was already aware of), that the City is where the money is. Mr. Swan was quite taken when I submitted my list of witnesses, he said he felt the list itself was quite compelling, another fact (that I was already aware of). Mr. Swan made a comment that in hindsight I now question in regard to his ethical behavior. He told me that Bob Conlee had already lied to him, stating that his brother Mark had not altered the grade or elevation of the lot located at 105 N 5th St. Swan also said that officer Farmer told him that I did not have money for such an unnecessary expense and agreed that we would barter upholstery service for his representing my case. On the way home I had to pull over because I was literally sobbing, so grateful that Steve Swan was going to submit my evidence to the court. He sent a letter of intent  to Mark Conlee on my behalf that afternoon.

The unexpected attack on my property also caused adverse effects to my business. This was the first time in 15 years in business I had failed to meet a customers requested delivery date. I bought 28 railroad ties and placed them down the non typical 300′ common boundary to divert the storm water from Conlee’s to the City ditch. Typical psychopathic traits began to emerge from Mark Conlee. He was upset that I had diverted the storm water. According to a witness, Mark Conlee contacted Building Admin Mark Holland requesting that Holland find a code or ordinance that would require me to remove the diversion. Mark Holland could not find a loophole to overrule my Federal Right to defend my property. Mark Holland should have followed standard procedures as he had always done in the past and all my damages could have been avoided.

I lost the enjoyment of my property due to the fact that every time I would go out in my yard Mr. Conlee would make his presence known. He would make his presence known, then just glare at me and anyone accompanying me. The day that he hollered across the fence that he was over the setbacks required by state law I decided to install a privacy curtain. Fully within my legal right, allowing for the encroachment, I erected a conduit frame and stretched industrial landscaping fabric down the property line to serve as a privacy curtain. My technique was bare bones conduit and pipe clamps but it served my purpose well. Welcome to the City of Montrose, Iowa . MINUTES10-6-05 evidence supporting Mark Conlee has a vendetta against me. A vendetta that has no end to it until he acquires my property, at any cost. He knew he had to have my property to ever get his illegal redevelopment recorded on the county plat map. Conlee is not completely liable, the City of Montrose allowed and assisted in every criminal act committed against me. There are many court records in which a noncompliant structure is ordered to be removed, there are no other cases in which a person has been allowed to unlawfully apply chemicals to a neighbors property ongoing for 5 years, until the neighbor has only two options to remedy the situation themselves.

The unlawful use of chemicals applied to my property caused severe pain and suffering that rendered me disabled, completely unable to function.

Defamation of my character referred to as “crazy” by Mayor Dinwiddie as told to me by a witness was taken to be a truth by the local community in general. Dinwiddie’s wife Sue Kearns Dinwiddie and a former friend of mine sent me email stating everyone, “thinks your crazy, Mel”. I felt no duty to explain to either of these people my situation. I did want to preserve my friendship with Sue Kearns Dinwiddie. I invited her over to my house to talk. She arrived with her granddaughter, the conversation was minimal. Not directly addressing my mental stability, I assume she was observing the severity of my skin condition. In hindsight, when she was leaving Sue walked around to the side of the house facing Conlees property. She indicated that my sidewalk has sunk. I did not respond at the time. I will now state that my sidewalk sloped away from my house in a manner of directing stormwater to the existing swale, besides the house. Was Sue Kearns Dinwiddie acting on behalf the City of Montrose Building Administrator? She did not announce that she was, but I believe her intent was doing exactly that. She has no authority to do anything on behalf of the City of Montrose. According to what Sue had told me when I rented her garage in 1995 she has used her position as the Mayor’s wife to influence former City employee Police Chief John Farmer. In 1995 one of Sues identical twin boys had been caught by Officer Farmer in a moving violation of some type. She was concerned that the twin would lose his driving privileges. She told me that she was going to contact Officer Farmer, as she didn’t need a problem like that affecting her sons driving privileges. I am sure she did contact Farmer, I do not know if he dismissed the complaint or not. I assume he did if Sue Kerns Dinwiddie directed him to do so as a threat to his employment. Sue Kearns Dinwiddie took her position as the Mayor’s wife to a position of authority when in fact she had absolutely no power of authority. The State Representative following behind Phil Wise has been Jerry Kearns, relative to Sue Kearns Dinwiddie. He has failed to respond to any of my attempts to get answers from him. No response at all. There is an option of recusal for anybody with an existing conflict of interest, not an option for any of these criminal supporters.

2006

Mayor Dinwiddie gave up his seat in the 2006 election after 8 terms, he was busy building himself a beautiful new home on the river. Mark Holland did not get re-elected. Mark Conlee ran and was elected as council member.

REGULAR MEETING

January 5, 2006

Tony Scumbaito running unopposed was elected to Mayor. John Geyer who held his position in the past was elected council member, and appointed building administrator. Chief of Police John Farmer resigned taking a job with the LCSO. The City hired Brent Shipman to be Chief of Police. Brent was not from Montrose, he was 20 years old and he was all ears and mouth in listening to Bob Conlee‘s false allegations about me, repeating the false information publicly.

A witness advised me on a Monday that Mark Conlee had been at City Hall reading the codes and ordinances. I drove past City Hall the rest of the week and, Mark Conlee was at City Hall from 3:30 until 5:00 p.m. every evening. Soon after he and City Clerk studied the City Code he announced he was running for City Council. Witnesses were and are prepared to testify that their family member was aware that his intent was to use his position to “get me back”. His narcissistic personality disorder he could not control  

Mark Conlee was elected to council. His intent was clearly to use his position to act on the vendetta he has against me. Mark Conlee appointed himself to a community development committee that never existed prior to his election. He obviously decided that he would get me back by using nuisance weed ordinance against me. He was, like his brother, literally consumed by making me out to be something I am not. Filing frivolous complaints was a constant vehicle to harassment me. According to my research psychopaths is known to be a genetic disorder.

MONTROSE COUNCIL MEETING

NIMS TRAINING

PUBLIC HEARING

REGULAR MEETING

March 2, 2006

MONTROSE COUNCIL MEETING

SPECIAL MEETING

MARCH 13, 2006

MONTROSE COUNCIL MEETING

REGULAR MEETING

April 6, 2006

About City Clerk Celeste Cirinna conspiracy deprivation of rights under color of law, intent to cause financial harm

At this time Mark Conlee acted as an authority on the City Street Dept. which he had no authority to do. The City insurance does not cover him as an employee. Mark Conlee unlawfully applied toxic chemicals to the City easement on my property along 4th St. A neighbor/witness Sally Fowler Sandquist contacted the Epa, The investigation determined Glyphosate a toxic chemical in Roundup by Monsanto had been unlawfully applied to my property and had washed downstream to the next two property, killing all living plant life.

Compelling list of witnesses  whose testimony was suppressed from the courts and affidavits were not submitted as ethically obligated by Attorney Steve Swan

Evidence relevant to deprivation of rights under color of law

Conspiracy

Suppressed evidence

Evidence supporting severe pain and suffering from exposure to toxic chemicals

This evidence was available but never reviewed by an investigator as it should have been.

3-5-2009 City Council Meeting Minutes. Offer Judge a bribe to find me guilty on fabricated laws and ordinances?

This is typical of the good old boy network. I had been charged multiple times with frivolous charges by the City of Montrose, all charges were alway dismissed that were brought against me. This is typical of how the good old boys went over and above on Mark Conlee’s behalf. The judge had always followed the letter of the law in my cases. This is nothing less than Mark Conlee advising Mark Holland to offer the judge a bribe to find me guilty of a municipal offense. He was so angry when he lost the civil case he filed against me for “loss of enjoyment of his property”. He could not stand the fact that I had broken no law. The charges brought against me were on fabricated laws and ordinances, how the hell does a reasonable person thing a judge is going to rule when the charges brought against me do not exist? Typical psychopathic behavior. He whole purpose for running and getting elected to city council by election fraud was for the purpose of making me take down my privacy curtain and to attempt to cause me financial harm by trying to get me fined. It wasn’t enough for him that the chemicals he had unlawfully applied to my property had me to a state of total inability to function, I found myself in court all winter. Anything he would come up with the rest of them all supported but they implicated themselves when the issue was not about me. I don’t care who you are, nobody has the right to do anything to another person’s property. Not even Mark Conlee according to the real law. Not “Mark Conlee says” law. For the record Mark Holland was not a city council member at this time. Why is council member Conlee asking Mark Holland to ask the judge anything?

PAGE 88

MONTROSE COUNCIL MEETING

REGULAR MEETING

MARCH 5, 2009

PUBLIC HEARING

The Montrose City Council met for Public Hearing at 6:45 p.m. on the 5th day of March 2009.  Council met at City Hall, 102 S. 2nd St. pursuant to law with Mayor Gregory Ruth presiding and the following Council members present: Conlee, Geyer, Hawk, Slater and Van Pelt.

REGULAR MEETING

The Montrose City Council met for Regular Meeting at 7:00 p.m. on the 5th day of March 2009.  Council met at City Hall, 102 S. 2nd St. pursuant to law with Mayor Gregory Ruth presiding and the following Council members present: Conlee, Geyer, Hawk, Slater and Van Pelt.  

Call to Order.  Meeting called to order at 7:00 p.m.Public Forum.  Gary Johnson, 405 Pine Alley said he applied for an Army Corps of Engineers permit to put in a mooring ball at the riverfront.  He said the Corps may call the city for information.

Steve Fraise, 205 Locust Street spoke with David Hawk about the mud that washed off the hill in front of his house.  He said he wants the ditches cleared before another rain. He said David Beelman, owner of the property, will install erosion control devices.

Tony Sciumbato, 110 S. 10th Street said he has been asked to address Council about the problem regarding the 10th Street and Cedar Street drainage problem. He said he cleans the drains about five times per year.  He also said the street is deteriorating and he is willing to pay $100.00 toward moving the drain.

Council Member Conlee told Mr. Holland to ask the Judges about their decision regarding certain properties in the City.

Mark Holland, 501 Locust spoke about road drainage and the 5th Street Bridge will deteriorate if ditches are not dugout.He also said the City should hire another part-time person because Public Works Director Hoenig needs help.  This also goes back to the $25,000.00 the City will spend on Ameren-UE property. Mr. Holland also said cleanup has gotten worse. Council Member Hawk asked Mr. Holland how many years it took to get this way. 

Ron Dinwiddie, 1 Great River Road said he still can’t understand why the City is abandoning water on the hill.  It was explained that there would be archaeological studies in Bluff Park that will likely hold up the project much longer. He said it goes against common sense to bring water downhill and then pump it up.

FY2010 City Budget.  Moved by Geyer, seconded by Slater to approve the FY2010 City Budget. Roll call voting 5-0 aye.  Motion declared carried.

Comments.  

Adjournment.  Moved by Van Pelt, seconded by Conlee to adjourn at 9:09 p.m.  All ayes. Motion declared carried.

Respectfully Submitted,

Gregory R. Ruth, Mayor

Attest:

Celeste L. Cirinna

Clerk/Treasurer

Governmental Conspiracies to Violate Civil Rights: A Theory Reconsidered

Source: Governmental Conspiracies to Violate Civil Rights: A Theory Reconsidered

If this is not true I would be afraid of defamation charges being brought against me, naw that isn’t going to happen. Lets just ignore this crazy person.

 

My witnesses are dying, my hope is fading, my destiny is being made for me. I have no control of how this story ends. I do know that it will be ending soon.

 

Sheriff Weber recently told me there has been an investigation into my allegations since April. The only thing that I am aware of that has happened is the city clerk still participating the conspiracy to cover up the evidence of the City officials implicating themselves by taking down the City’s webpage that had the min of the meeting since 2005.
This situation is not difficult to understand.
Mark Conlee, brother of a Lee County Detective purchased the legally non conforming property from Mayor Dinwiddie. He began redeveloping the property by tearing down the existing single car garage, trucking in enough fill dirt to elevate the property in some areas 10′ high that before, he constructed a nonconforming 2 story oversized garage. He altered the roof surface from standard procedure by turning it so it diverted storm water runoff directly onto my property, he changed the grade of the fill dirt so all storm water ran onto my property. My property lost value of $10,000 just because the drainage was foreseeable going to cause my property uncontrollable flooding. In questioning this illegal structure I was advised Conlee intended to build a living quarters in the upper level. Standard procedure requires drain tile to be installed around the base of the slab, it was not. Standard procedure requires gutter and downspout to be installed and directed to the city drainage ditch, it was directed directly to divert storm water from the massive roof onto my property.
The following spring there was a suspicious fire that supposedly destroyed the existing trailer. Suspicious because the only firemen on the scene were Mayor Dinwiddie, building official/fire chief Mark Holland, Mark Conlee and the son of Mark Holland. The son Jake was a former resident of the Conlee property, we discussed the fire after the fact. He advised me that only 2 weeks prior there was a trailer fire at a nearby mobile home park that was caused by the same M.O. I understand my testimony is not acceptable but several weeks prior to the fire after his new garage was finished he came over to my yard and gave a friend who was with me a message from his brother in Fla. At that time I asked him, “now that you have that nice new garage what are you going to do with the trailer, he said he wanted it to burn. I was still understanding he was going to build a living quarters in the second level of the garage. The morning of the fire, there was no fire alarm that went off, being 1 block from my house I was woke by the siren. That morning I was awaken by the clanging of the fire hose being connected to the hydrant on my corner of the street. The only fireman who acted in an attempt to extinguish any fire was the son, Jake Holland. The other 3 on the scene did nothing but stand on the sidewalk the entire time and chat. Jake got the hose connected and was motioned to lay it down. There was no action to extinguish any fire. After some amount of time an hour or so Mark Conlee puts on the hazard uniform and enters the home. He exits about 5 minutes later empty-handed and gives the others still on the sidewalk a nod. They continue to stand on the sidewalk for another hour or so. Jake puts the equipment away and they go on about their day. I find it suspicious that Dinwiddie and Holland did not go to their regular job that morning. Conlee went to work and was called home. There was no smoke coming from the building, there was nothing telling that a fire had happen to the building after it was over.
Conlee almost immediately builds a new home. There is no question that the building permit is illegal. He changed the frontage of the home to now be the alley, that is illegal. The roof surface is also altered from standard procedure just as the garage and directed to divert storm water directly onto my property. I advised Conlee that we needed a ditch, reasonably to run directly down the common boundary since he was the one who had the new redevelopment that caused the problems to my property. He was unwilling to have it on his property, the man I was going to barter upholstery for excavating a ditch backed out fearing a liability if he happened to get on Conlee property since there had been no survey, only a verbal agreement on the common boundary.  Conlee illegally removed an existing berm that had been put in place by the original owners of both property for the sole purpose of protecting my home structure from storm water runoff from the Conlee property when the original home burnt prior to 1972 when they brought in the mobile home. Berm and swale were commonly used at that time for this purpose. The berm was on the Conlee side of the common boundary, the swale was on my side of the common boundary. The building officials refused to address my concerns, his duty is to oversee property redevelopment is in compliance with State building and drainage laws. When he refused to come to the location I contacted Lee County Ext, agent Robert Dodds, he did come to the location and took some photos. I had many questions I showed him the building permit which lacked the signature of the builder Mark Conlee but was signed and approved by the building official. Mr. Dodds noticed some other discrepancies on that building permit. He questioned why years before when he built a garage he had to pay a pretty significant amount for the fee charge of his building permit. Mark Conlee had paid no fee according to the permit. He explained that in regards to storm water drainage and property development you are not allowed to divert more storm water to the neighboring property than before the redevelopment. He sent a copy of the letter to Mayor Dinwiddie allow with drainage laws. Dinwiddie had no regard for this expert opinion. When all other times any opinion from Mr. Dodd has held high regard with the city of Montrose.
I hired attorney Steve Swan to sue the city of Montrose, retired Sheriff’s officer John Farmer referred him to me. John worked for the city of Montrose prior to moving up to the sheriff’s dept. He is well aware of the characters who hold positions in Montrose. I met with Swan and he advised me that John Farmer had briefed him on the case, John told him that I did not have many financial resources. I had been self-employed as an upholsterer since I purchased my property in 1995. I was never without work, but I basically charged what I needed to pay my bills, explains why I had a backlog of work for over a year at all times. Swan also advised me that he had spoken to Lee County Detective Bob Conlee, Bob had already lied to him when he told him his brother never trucked in any fill dirt but poured the new slabs just as the property existed. He advised me that my case was a tort case and we would sue both parties, Conlee and the city. He asked if I would be willing to barter upholstering his vehicle for his service. I willingly took him up on that offer, I was so moved by his kindness I had to pull over on the highway because I was crying with gratitude. The following day I received a copy of a letter of intent he sent to Conlee the following  afternoon. The letter demanded Conlee remedy the nuisance drainage problem in 10 day or he would file an injunction against him. Conlee began removing the existing evidence of the berm and its height. He built a little roof over the door on the side of his house as if he had not changed the frontage of his property.
I emailed Swan multiple times on the 10th day telling him to file the injunction. I never heard another word from him and he filed no injunction to stop work as he claimed he  would at our first meeting.
Soon after this a rash developed on my shins, I referred to it as a rash because that was what it appeared to be to me. I thought perhaps an allergic reaction to something. I had never had any problems prior to this with my skin, I had never even have poison ivy. The itch was intense, nothing similar to a bug bite. I had used a push lawnmower since I purchased my place, I did that for cardio, In fact I never wanted a riding lawn mower. The next time I went out to mow I noticed that the neighbor had applied something to my side of the 300’ common boundary. I had never been exposed to what I assumed was weed killer. I had not changed my routine for over ten years. I did some research about medical issues, skin conditions seemed reasonable that whatever this neighbor was applied to my side  of the common boundary to be the most reasonable cause of this suddenly developer skin condition. had now rapidly spread over other parts of my body. I told him and the new police chief the day I discovered it not to apply anything to my property and explained I thought it could be the cause of my skin eruptions. I requested an incident report from the police chief directly after I located Chief Shipman.
By this time my opinion of Mr. Conlee’s character was undesirable. He knew my property was flooding, my foundation had been damaged and he was unwilling to allow me to have a ditch dug down the common boundary. He continued using the chemicals without hesitation as routine yard maintenance. I kept requesting the incident report from Chief Shipman and he kept coming up with excuses as to why he did not have it for me, a witness says he was lying about the reason he did not have it. When I did receive it 16 months later the first on was not satisfactory in detail, I told him no that I wanted one with the details. A week later he gave me a half-hearted report. By this time my rash had become a severe skin condition. My entire body was raw. The pain was excruciating, it was unbearable to wear clothes.
I had requested a trespassing complaint be file on my behalf early on. Every request denied by the City and Lee County Attorney. The chemicals now had become a weapon with intent to cause me serious injury. The fact that I was denied equal protection of the law and access to the courts make this a conspiracy deprivation of rights under color of law.
It became clear to me the reason Conlee would not stop applying chemicals to my property when I realized he was unable to get the illegal redevelopment recorded on the county plat map.
Lee County attorney Mike Short suggested mitigation two years in a row, I was willing, however Mark Conlee was not. He knew his illegal redevelopment would be order to be removed. Taken back to the original state. His excuse the first year was because he had paid an attorney to represent him in a civil case he filed against me. He violated that court order as if it never happened. There is nobody willing to grab this man and put him to the ground like they do on COPS. That is exactly what it would take for him to ever abide by any authority.  In that case the judge dismissed his case citing my right to enjoy my property. I put up a privacy curtain and Mr. Conlee believing my backyard was his backyard because he changed the frontage of his home to face the alley was offended by the curtain. I knew I was well within my rights. I always know the law before I ever act. I felt a sense of relief by the judge’s ruling, my right to enjoy my property in my mind meant no more chemicals on my property either. I was wrong about what the ruling meant to Mark Conlee and Police Chief Brent Shipman, they approached me in my yard one day and Conlee advised me he was going to my the railroad ties I had legally placed down the common boundary to divert the storm water to the city drainage ditch. I advised him if he had a problem with the boundary line he would need to file another civil complaint. I question what Brent Shipman was doing by being with Conlee. He advised me that he was acting as a witness that Conlee was telling me ahead of time that he was going to alter my property. At that point I advised them both that I intended to invoke my second amendment right. I advised Chief Shipman never to knock on my door again. I headed to the house to get my weapon, you never saw two adults run up a hill so fast.
Imagine now, that here I am, my body completely raw, trying to meet deadlines for my upholstery clients and having to defend my property every evening beginning at 3:30 pm  every night.
I retrieved my weapon, a single shot long arm pellet gun and stood guard on my property till way past dark. I had to have some rest, I had other responsibilities so I went in the house and laid down to sleep a bit.  When I woke up the next morning I went out to check the boundary line. Sure enough Conlee had moved the railroad ties I placed to protect my property. I had them held in place with stabs. I had new lawn edging put in place and the railroad ties were pushed every which way. The stab’s were broken off, the edging pull out of the ground and just laying there. My skin condition was full body, I was terrified to go near that boundary in the first place, I have never felt so violated in my life. This was done in contempt of a court order. I called the only authority of the law available Chief Shipman and told him I wanted to file a trespassing complaint against Conlee. He asked me if I saw him do it.  I told him he was the witness that Conlee was going to do it. It was complete violation of my rights. It was a conspiracy.
I again contacted Lee County attorney Mike Short, he advised me that he doesn’t let neighbors file complaints against each other because it never stops. Yet I was charged by the State and City several times on fabricated laws and ordinances, I never even got into the courtroom. Conlee did not even show up, I was told by Montrose Deputy Judd that Conlee was on vacation in Fla. What kind of people are these. What kind of people conspire with intent to cause serious injury to anyone? How is it that I was cited on two different occasions by the State of Iowa for violating fabricated lies. The same excuse was given by the Mayor of Montrose, how is it then that I got cited many times for violating fabricated ordinances and the same issue that was decided by a judge had already been determined in another case.
Well the reality set in after 5 years of being abused by my local government officials, committing criminal acts against me. I had by this time lost me eyesight, unable to read, unable to recognize people, I was terrified. Using chemical weapons with intent to cause serious injury is defined as terrorist acts. These government officials conspired to commit terrorist acts against me.
Mark Conlee had to have my property to ever get his illegal redevelopment recorded on the county plat map and he decided the action to take was to eliminate me. I had two options one was to shoot him dead or flee and seek justice according to the law. I mistakenly chose the latter option.
One other thing I want to mention in regard to Mayor Dinwiddie and his property. Several years ago a woman spoke to the city council about opening a tattoo shop in a building that was available, the council discussed this and they did not think a tattoo shop would represent the city as they wanted it to be represented. It was only a short time later that a different woman spoke to the council about opening a tattoo shop in a building she intended to purchase from Mayor Dinwiddie, the city council was all for this new business in town. What is the difference? Mayor Dinwiddie would receive a personal financial gain just as he did when Conlee purchased the legally nonconforming lot from him.
Attorney Steve Swan conspired with Conlee in violation of his oath to represent his clients best interest
Lee County Attorney Mike Short conspired with Mark Conlee by denying me equal protection of the law, access to the court, and terrorist acts. Conspiracy against rights under color of law.
Lee County Detective conspired with Mark Conlee in misrepresenting his authority to be that of a building official, he was acting without jurisdiction, he defamed my character and knowingly made false statements associating me with illegal drug activity. Conspiracy against rights under color of law.
The most recent act of conspiracy was when  Sheriff Stacy Weber advised the city clerk that there was an investigation that initiated City clerk Celeste Cirinna took down the City of Montrose website that contained the minutes of the council meeting and evidence of these officials implicating themselves to suppress the evidence. I have copies of all the meeting minutes.
City clerk Celeste Cirinna committed multiple counts of fraud, conspiracy against rights.
What is not in violation of Federal law in this case is my question?
Melody Boatner
https://poisonedbymyneighborfromhell.com