Held as a high priority issue for an investigation into Public Corruption by the FBI. Existing Conflicts of Interests Among City of Montrose and Lee County, Ia. Officials

Existing Conflicts of Interest between the individual local government officials in regard to the illegal property redevelopment, illegally issued building permits, intentional negligence by Appointed Building Official Mark Holland. Named as a relevant issue for warranting a public corruption investigation by the FBI.

Conflict of Interest existing between named Government officials

Mayor Ron Dinwiddie    Seller             Lot 105 N 5th St                        Buyer    Mark Conlee

 Members on Montrose Volunteer Fire Department, (relevant due to suspicious fire)

Mayor Ron Dinwiddie                                                                                                  Mark Conlee
Council Member/BCA, Fire Chief Mark Holland                         Council Member Jeff Junkins

                                             Co-workers                                                                     

Council Member Jeff Junkins               Council Member Mark Conlee             Linda Conlee

              Family Members

Lee Co. Detective Robert (Bob) Conlee                  Siblings                               Mark Conlee

Council Member Mark Holland                              Siblings                   Member Judy Brisby

Lee County FEMA Officer Steve Cirinna                 spouses              City Clerk Celeste Cirinna

       City of Montrose and Lee County, Iowa Law Enforcement\

Lee Co. Detective Robert Conlee     special relationship       Lee Co. Attorney Michael Short 

Lee Co. Dep. David Hunold           special relationship.        Montrose Police Chief Karl Judd 

Montrose Chief of Police Brent Shipman    Lee County FEMA Officer Steve Cirinna

Conspiracy, taking of private real property without just compensation.

The facts of this case in a brief summary is that a neighbor purchased the legally nonconforming lot adjoining mine. He purchased this lot from the Mayor. He began redeveloping it the following year by trucking in enough fill dirt to elevate the lot up to 10′ higher, constructed a two story nonconforming garage with roof surface altered to allow stormwater runoff to be diverted directly onto my property. He re-graded the fill dirt from the alley down to my property, resulting in diverting all stormwater runoff from his new redevelopment. The building permit issued for this structure is illegal mainly because is states this entire structure was started and finished in only 4 days. He also did not install drain tile around the slab or along the common boundary to carry stormwater to the city drainage ditch. I was advised he intended to build a living quarter in the upper level of this garage when I mentioned my concern about foreseeable adverse effects to my property.

The following year after a suspicious fire destroyed the existing double wide mobile home, he changed the plan. He was issued an illegal building permit for a new home. He again built a nonconforming structure, altered the roof surface and trucked in fill dirt all of which were made to intentionally divert stormwater from the entire lot onto my property. He illegally removed and existing berm, conflicting with a statement made under oath. He changed the frontage of the new home to be the alley. This to conflicts with a statement he made under oath. He and the city raised the alley to act as if it were his private city street, higher that the private property abutting it. The raising of the alley is in conflict with the standard procedure of an alley to be lower that the property adjoining it to take stormwater from a backyard and carry it to the city drainage ditch. There are many inconsistencies and conflicting statements implicating himself in perjury in the civil case he filed against me for loss of enjoyment of his property. The case was dismissed. At no time did the building official address my concerns, he did continue to issue illegal building permits to this neighbor however.

He then used his connections to be elected to city council. Specifically the city clerk. In that position he attempted to cause me financial harm, however all cases against me were dismissed, only costing the taxpayers of the city money. One case was for the same complaint the same as the civil case he filed against me, it was dismissed with a note at the bottom from the judge questioning the purpose of the case against me by the city. He held his position as city council member for the intent of continuing to harass me. He made false police reports against me. He initiated nuisance weed ordinances with the intent to cause me physical harm. He began applying toxic chemicals to my property in early 2005. I followed all standard procedures provided for me to remedy the nuisance drainage issue his property redevelopment causing adverse effects and loss of value to my property. The city building official refused to follow standard procedure to remedy the situation. The chemicals had severe effects to my physical health. I suffered severe pain as a result of not being able to get equal protection of the law in my requests for them to issue a trespassing complaint on my behalf. I had no protection of the law and the city level or the county level, in fact certain law enforcement officers misrepresented their authority and jurisdiction to act on this neighbors behalf. Ethical violation of not recognizing a conflict of interest existed at every local level, those special relationships were used for the benefit on this neighbor. He violated the civil court ruling by physically altering the railroad ties I had placed on my property to divert stormwater toward the city drainage ditch, he was assisted by Chief of Police Brent Shipman.

The chemicals unlawfully applied to my property continued for the following five years. My right to enjoy my own property as cited in the civil court ruling was violated due to the illegal application of the chemicals. These chemicals caused my condition to deteriorate to the degree that I believe they were going to be the cause of my death. He would not stop. No law enforcement officer intended to make him stop the criminal act. The Lee County Attorney advised me that “he would decide who gets prosecuted in Lee County.” He proceeded to file criminal complaints against me on my neighbors behalf. All were dismissed due to the fabrication of a law itself.

This neighbor had all the right people in all the right positions that he was aided and abetted causing me serious injury. When he discovered he could not get his illegal property redevelopment recorded on the county plat map is when he began using the chemicals as a weapon against me. He motive was to acquire my property. He could never get his illegal property redevelopment recorded on the county plat map without the addition of my property to his lot. I was forced to flee to escape the chemicals that were killing me. I fled from my home, business, property and the chemicals cost me my health. There are no words to express being violated of my right to this degree. I did survive only due to one Dr. from the University of Iowa hospital. However the medication I must take to control the severe skin condition will more likely than not cause damage to my internal organs. The damages include pain and suffering, along with the severe skin condition I lost my eyesight for over 7 years. I was unable to read, recognize people and had no business driving. My successful upholstery service that I operated out of my shop on my property and future income from that business. All lost income that will affect the amount of SS I received had I been allowed to stay at my property till retirement as I had planned for myself. This is unprecedented in that there is no other case according to the EPA field investigator in which a neighbor has been allowed to used chemicals on a neighbor’s property.  There are laws in place to prevent this type of thing from happening.

 

Went to City Hall to get copies of building permits issued for Mark Conlee’s property redevelopment. – Poisoned By My Neighbor From Hell in Montrose, Lee County, Iowa

After being told by Mayor Dinwiddie that this was a private issue I went to City Hall. I got copies of the building permits on file for Mark Conlees new garage and his new home. This one for his new home.

 

slide0002_image002
In the circled area Value is handwritten $40,880 Fee $ is blank. The issue date at the top is 7-12-2004. Complainant had only noticed that this permit was invalid due to no Builders signature. Clearly Building Administrator Holland was intentionally negligent at least for his lack of oversight and pre-approval of issuance of this permit

Define terrorist attack

former Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano sought to carve out a distinction.
“To our belief, (Stack) was a lone wolf,” she said. “He used a terrorist tactic, but an individual who uses a terrorist tactic doesn’t necessarily mean they are part of an organized group attempting an attack on the United States.”
Napolitano’s description mapped out, if tortuously, a clear difference. But it also reinvented the word. By her given logic, a single individual without material support from others could not — by definition — carry out a terror attack.

Attorney fails to file complaint, lies to client claiming he did. Client gets sued by illegal property redeveloper for frivolous complaint. Is it typical for a person to sue you and offer 2 out of court settlements? Judge dismisses case, Police chief assists in violating court ruling, contempt is a criminal law.

Official letter of intent to sue

I hired Steve Swan to sue the City of Montrose in July 2005. This is not typical for a neighbor to have to do, the building authority has the duty to address residents concerns regarding nuisance drainage issues caused by new property redevelopment. He sent this letter to Conlee that afternoon. He lied by continuing to claim he filed a complaint against the City of Montrose. He stated that we would sue both parties, the City is where the money is at. Based on the fact that the building permits are illegal, the redevelopment of the legally non conforming property is illegal I knew full well who the liable party was. So what does his failure to represent my best interests fall in the justice system. An investigation would be required to find that evidence. The evidence supports the least of his immoral, unethical behavior is legal malpractice. This could be due to his physical disabilities, This man is morbidly obese. For him to actually get to the courthouse to file a complaint on behalf of a client has to be extremely difficult for him. He had to set on four chairs in the courtroom. I filed a complaint but of course the sided with Swan, We agreed to barter services for this case, after which he sent me a bill for $4000.00. I never was billed after I filed the complaint. Is it not the his responsibility to present evidence and question witnesses? He never did that either. I believe the evidence supports his actions are within that of a co-conspirator.

 

Petition in Equity

Petition in Equity. Mark and Linda Conlee sue me for LOSS OF ENJOYMENT OF HIS PROPERTY. I was well within my legal rights to install a privacy curtain on my own property? There was nothing illegal about this. I am a law abiding citizen. I know the law before I take an action.

 

 

6-5-2006 Conlee offer to settle out of court

6-5-2006 Conlee’s first out of court offer, had Boatner’s attorney Steve Swan submitted this evidence to the court the judge may have recognized it as admission to the nuisance drainage issue Conlee’s illegal redevelopment caused to Boatners property.

6-22-2006 2nd offer by Conlee admitting liability for drainage

6-22-2006 2nd offer by Conlee admitting liability for drainage. This was also suppress from the court by Boatner’s attorney Steve Swan Esq. This is no less than Conlee admitting he is responsible for the nuisance drainage problem his illegal redevelopment caused Boatner’s property. What is wrong with this guy, seriously?

5-24-2008

5-23-2008 Mark Conlee  in contempt of court, altered the railroad ties I have on my property to divert stormwater from Conlees new illegal property redevelopment, staubs holding railroad ties in place are broken off and bent over, plastic edging pull up & laying on top of the ground. Evidence Mark Conlee has no respect for the court, no respect for the law, no respect for his neighbor or the police chief Brent Shipman who he bullied into assisting him in violating the court ruling. This behavior indicates he has a severe personality disorder believing he is above the law and he has the right to control others. You can see on the left part of the retaining wall that is holding Mark Conlee’s fill dirt in position.

 

EFFECTS OF TOXIC CHEMICALS HAVING DIRECT CONTACT WITH MY SKIN

I am not a doctor, but this was more than an allergic reaction CLICK LINK BELOW

Source: EFFECTS OF TOXIC CHEMICALS HAVING DIRECT CONTACT WITH MY SKIN – Google Slides

Medical Records relating to exposure to illegal toxic chemicals unlawfully applied to my property

2-5-2006-glyphosate-med

This is the document that public record refers to when Mayor Sciumbato was first elected mayor. Since then we know there are many supporting publically known reports of the harm glyphosate has caused harm to humans. To control the skin condition that was triggered by the ongoing exposure to the chemicals I am being treated with methotrexate,  a drug that is known to cause damage to internal organs. 

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

chemical poisoning

This is a chemical burn, not an allergic reaction as Lee County Attorney seems to believe

 

 

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

 

Suspicious fire destroys existing home on Mark Conlee’s property

Brutal attack by neighbor using acts of terror, chemical weapon (presumably glyphosate roundup by Monsanto. His motive was to eliminate me from my property. He built illegal conforming structures, issue by fraudulent building permits. He changed the frontage of his property to be the city alley, in doing this he altered the direction of the massive roof surfaces of his illegal buildings, raised the alley as if the purpose was to be his private street, truck in massive amount of fill dirt elevating the property in place 7′ or 8′. I followed standard procedure in remedying the nuisance drainage issue. The building officials simply refused to address my concerns. He did continue to issue building permit to his personal friend. The Mayor sold the property to this new neighbor and his buddy, I requested he or the building official to come to the location. The Mayor eventually did, I expected we would walk the boundary line but that did not happen, he got out of his truck stood on the sidewalk and advised me that this was a civil issue. By making that statement he knowingly made a false statement as in public record he states that the signature of the builder alleviates the liability of the City, at that time I submitted the unsigned building permit and the discussion ended, I was never acknowledged as an individual with rights, I have never been interviewed by any authority and my attorney never filed a complaint that he was hired to file against the City for nuisance drainage causing in uncontrollable stormwater runoff diverted directly onto my property by the city. The city held this one man above the law to the degree the other elected and hired officials were themselves committing criminal offenses on behalf of this mans intention of eliminating me from my property. Had he been held to the rule of law from the beginning he would have never been able to redevelop his property. I find it suspicious that the existing home was apparently destroyed by fire. The Mayor, the building official (fire chief), this new neighbor and the building administrators son were the only volunteers on the scene that day, That in itself never happens in this little town. I do not recall being awoke by the fire siren. I woke up due to the noise the son of the fire chief was making connecting the hose to the hydrant on the corner at my house. The other 3 responders did nothing to show an attempt to extinguish a fire, they stood on the sidewalk. After the hose was connected, the younger member was ready to start to spray water and one of the other three still standing on the sidewalk motioned for him to put the hose down. They stood in the same spot on that sidewalk the entire time. After several hours the new neighbor dressed in the hazard protective gear enters the home. Several minutes later he emerges from the home and gives a nod. He had no personal belonging in his hands as you would think someone whose house was burnt would, a picture of something, How is it that on that particular day the Mayor and building administrator (fire chief) just happened not to go to work that day? Based on a statement this new neighbor made to me two weeks earlier and knowing his character there leaves no doubt in my mind this was an arson. Many other neighbors are of the same opinion. I actually called the arson hotline, I suppose if the State investigated the extent would be to call and ask the fire chief about it, I am sure the fire chief had that base covered. The act of arson is a serious criminal act, an investigation is warranted due to the seriousness of this act.

Oath of Office – Deprivation of Rights – Color of Law – Treason – YouTube

Oath of Office – Deprivation of Rights – Color of Law – Treason – YouTube.

Iowa Code 729

29.5 VIOLATION OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS — PENALTY.

  1. A person, who acts alone, or who conspires with another person

or persons, to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate or interfere

with any citizen in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or

privilege secured to that person by the constitution or laws of the

state of Iowa or by the constitution or laws of the United States,

and assembles with one or more persons for the purpose of teaching or

being instructed in any technique or means capable of causing

property damage, bodily injury or death when the person or persons

intend to employ those techniques or means in furtherance of the

conspiracy, is on conviction, guilty of a class “D” felony.

A person intimidates or interferes with another person if the act

of the person results in any of the following:

a. Physical injury to the other person.

b. Physical damage to or destruction of the other person’s

property.

c. Communication in a manner, or action in a manner, intended

to result in either of the following:

(1) To place the other person in fear of physical contact which

will be injurious, insulting, or offensive, coupled with the apparent

ability to execute the act.

(2) To place the other person in fear of harm to the other

person’s property, or harm to the person or property of a third

person.

  1. This section does not make unlawful the teaching of any

technique in self-defense.

  1. This section does not make unlawful any activity of any of the

following officials or persons:

a. Law enforcement officials of this or any other

jurisdiction while engaged in the lawful performance of their

official duties.

b. Federal officials required to carry firearms while engaged

in the lawful performance of their official duties.

c. Members of the armed forces of the United States or the

national guard while engaged in the lawful performance of their

official duties.

d. Any conservation commission, law enforcement agency, or

any agency licensed to provide security services, or any hunting

club, gun club, shooting range, or other organization or entity whose

primary purpose is to teach the safe handling or use of firearms,

archery equipment, or other weapons or techniques employed in

connection with lawful sporting or other lawful activity.

via Iowa Code 729.

5-13-2005 Letter from Lee County Extension Agent including Professional Opinion on Nuisance Drainage Issue

Due to the fact that after multiple requests from Boatner for the building administrator Mark Holland to come to the location and address her concerns, he refused.  A witness was prepared to testify that she asked Holland if he was going to go to the location and address Boatner’s concerns. He replied that he had no intention of going to Boatner’s to address her concerns.  Knowing that the expert on this situation would be the local FEMA director Steve Cirinna. Knowing that a conflict of interest exists due to the fact the he is the husband of the city clerk Celeste Cirinna his opinion was not an option. Through a referral from the internet source Boatner contacted Lee County Extension Agent Robert Dodds for an opinion regarding the nuisance drainage issue. Mr. Dodds did come to the location as a professional courtesy.  Mr Dodds noticed some discrepancies that I had not, I only noticed that the building permit was not signed by the builder as required by State of Iowa law. The following letter was written to me advising me of his opinion to some questions I had asked him. A copy was also sent to Mayor Dinwiddie along with a copy of the State drainage laws. This letter was never discussed privately with Boatner or at a public council meeting. This letter was not submitted as ongoing business to the next elected administration of Mayor Tony Sciumbato . This expert’s opinion was ignored in this case, yet there are numerous instances unrelated to Conlee-Boatner nuisance drainage issue in which public record shows Mr. Dodds opinion was requested and respected. At this point any reasonable person would recognize a conspiracy to deprive me of my Federal Constitutional Right to Equal Protection of the Law and my Right to Enjoy my own Property at the least of the issues in this case.
5-13-2005 Bob Dodds letter to Mayor Dinwiddie

5-13-2005 Lee County, Ia extension agent Bob Dodds letter answering questions Boatner has asked, identifying errors or violations of drainage laws to Boatner and  Mayor Dinwiddie. He included a copy of the Iowa storm water management regulations.

3-23-2005 Lee County Detective Bob Conlee misrepresents authority to be that of a city building administrator

About Lee County Detective Bob Conlee

Conspiracy Deprivation of Rights under Color of Law.

It has already been established that building official Mark Holland refused his duty to address Boatners concerns, Boatner witnessed Lee County Detective Bob Conlee (brother of Mark Conlee) assisting Mark with a tape measure on 3-22-2005. Bob Conlee has no authority to act as an official of any kind in Montrose, he has no jurisdiction and there is an obvious conflict of interest.

In regards to Mark Conlee stating that he would be at the next Council meeting to request a ditch be dug, it has already been established that Boatner hand dug the City ditches in 1995 when she purchased the property.


3-19-2005 letter of intent Boatner to Conlee


3-18-2005 Boatner informal notice of drainage problem to Mark Conlee

Boatner also left copies of this letter on Mayor Dinwiddie and building official Holland’s door. NOTE THE WORD DITCH IS WHAT I REFERRED TO AS WHAT WE NEEDED


3-10-2005 Foreseeable adverse effects to Boatner property have occurred crawlspace and back yard.


This is the damage to my foundation due to the illegal removal of the existing berm by Mark Conlee. I requested multiple times for the building official to come to the location and address my concerns. Conlee’s will claim that the damage was caused by storm water runoff coming from the street. However it has already been established that Boatner hand dug the ditches bordering her property upon purchase in 1995. Prior to repairing all damage caused by the lack of maintenance by the city of many years. This photo is from the basement of  Boatner’s home. Shot toward the right front corner, The front of the house facing 5th St is dry, easy to distinguish by the light color. The left side of this photo is the side of the home that faces Conlee’s property. Easy to distinguish this soil is saturated by storm water caused by illegal removal of existing berm by Mark Conlee along with the regrading of his entire lot due to him changing the frontage ¹ of his new home to be toward the alley. He regraded the entire lot downward to drain onto Boatner’s property.

¹Conlee committed perjury in civil court Conlee vs Boatner Eqeq 

This photo shows the soil saturated and the foundation washed out, this is the side of the house that faces Conlee’s property. According to witnesses Tonya Adkins and Stuart Westermeyer both former owners testified that the property never received storm water runoff from the Conlee property. When there was a heavy rainfall because of the berm the front yard of the Conlee property became a pond,the berm held all the water from running onto Boatner’s property. Witnesses were prepared to testify to all this and I have written affidavits stating this as true. Attorney Steve Swan failed to submit affidavits and to question witnesses on my behalf in a civil suit Conlee filed against me for loss of enjoyment to his property. Yes that is a tell tale sign of narcissistic personality disorder. I will post all the court records as the events happened.

I contacted Mayor Dinwiddie, building official Mark Holland and every other council member on this day. I requested each of them come to the location and see with their own eyes the flooding of my property caused by Mark Conlee’s illegal property redevelopment. Only one of the council members had the professional courtesy to answer my request, Cathy Roberts Farnsworth saw the adverse effects my property was having. Building official Mark Holland had the duty to act as the authority. he is the only authorized authority to represent the State building codes for the City of Montrose, Ia. He had been on notice since fall 2004 and had not preformed his duty on my behalf. That is to untimely to consider he is not conspiring with Mark Holland to violate my Federal Right to enjoy and equal protection of the law under color of law.

Here you can see it standing it the level spot that we had the pool set up. This yard has never held water in the past. I may have more knowledge than most about these issues but building administrator Holland has a manual that states the standard procedure required for redeveloping non conforming properties, his lack of concern was not due to ignorance, it was due to conspiracy intent to deprive me of my rights under color of law. Witnesses will testify that he questioned them about site layout when they were issued a building permit for their new home. He refused to answer my concerns and continued to issue Mark Conlee two more building permits. It is noted on public record that Holland did drive by, that will be posted by the date of the meeting.

Conflicts of Interest in Land Use Decision-Making – eXtension

Conflicts of Interest in Land Use Decision-Making

Elected and appointed officials involved in land-use decision making must not be tainted with prejudice regarding on matters that come before them. Such prejudice exists when the individual finds herself with a conflict of interest. A conflict of interest arises when a public servant is in the position of deciding between public duty and private interests. The three most common conflict of interest situations are (1) when the member is in a position to gain financially from the decision being rendered, (2) when the member is a relative of an interested party, or (3) the member is near, or next to, the property at issue.

The most obvious example of a financial conflict is when a land-use decision-maker has an ownership interest in the property that is the subject of the requested action. A review of court cases from around the country reveals numerous other possible conflict situations:

  • The decision-maker is in a business relationship with the applicant.
  • The decision-maker is employed by a company that stands to gain from approval of the development proposal.
  • The decision-maker owns property near the property in question.
  • The member owns a business that would directly compete with the applicant’s business.

The tangle of familial relationships that can potentially give rise to conflict of interest questions is equally broad:

  • The decision-maker’s spouse is the Realtor working with the landowner.
  • The decision-maker’s close relative lives near the property in question.
  • The member’s nephew is an attorney with the firm representing the applicant.

 

A decision-maker who questions whether he has a conflict of interest should ask for advice from the attorney representing his city or county. If a conflict of interest does in fact exist, the decision-maker must disqualify himself from the case. If a conflict of interest does not exist, it is the decision-maker’s duty to participate and vote, even if the situation may be uncomfortable because it involves a friend or associate.

Many communities, boards or commissions have adopted bylaws or policies that govern conflict, and some state codes require specific action to be taken where conflict of interest may exist. Care should be taken to follow any applicable standards in effect locally. While the advice to confer with legal counsel is always sound, some communities require that potential conflict of interest issues be declared and discussed at an open meeting and a vote taken to determine if an actionable conflict is present. Again, local practice should be followed when applicable. In addition, many local and national planning organizations provide models and standards for resolving conflict of interest issues.

Gary D. Taylor, Iowa State University