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.
Boatner followed standard procedure provided for all citizens to remedy issues caused by a neighbor’s property redevelopment. This property is legally nonconforming. The new neighbor purchased the lot from the Mayor of the City. City building official Mark Holland admitted he did not intend to do his duty and follow standard procedures to address and remedy the situation. Boatner contacted State Representative Phil Wise. Having explained the situation to Mr. Wise he showed the professional courtesy to contact City Hall and have Boatner put on the agenda so she could direct her questions to Council member/Building official Mark Holland in regards to the building permits issued for Mark Conlees property redevelopment. Having Contacted the Mayor and city clerk previously, she was always told to contact the building official. Again she was denied the opportunity to point out the fact that Conlee’s property is a legally nonconforming property and Iowa building code restricts the size of structures to be no large that the existing structures and they must comply with current building codes. These nonconforming structures are much larger that the existing double-wide mobile home and single car garage. Having reviewed the blueprints and following standard procedure Mark Holland would have never legally been able to issue building permits for these nonconforming structures. Holland was absent from this meeting. Based on the record of attendance at these meetings one may consider his absence was intentional. He was aware that Boatner was on the agenda for the purpose of getting answers to her questions concerning how these illegal redevelopment were approved, and the foreseeable nuisance drainage issue caused by the redevelopment had not been addressed and remedied.Conlee was unable to get the illegal redevelopment recorded on the County plat map. That is when he determined I was going to be eliminated. He had to have my property to get his illegal redevelopment recorded on the County plat map. He chose to use toxic chemicals to eliminate me. He applied chemicals to my property as if it were a normal part of his routine yard maintenance. My Federal 1st Amendment right was violated by the chief of police and the County attorney. I was literally begging County attorney Mike Short to protect my rights. I knew the chemicals were causing my death. Many people knew I was dying. They just did not care. They refused to file a trespassing complaint on my behalf. Their acts were blatant and intentional. State Representative Phil Wise retired soon after I contacted him. Since Jerry Kearns has been elected to State Rep. I have contacted him multiple times. He has made no comment. I want to know who he is representing. He is not representing me. He is not representing the State law. That only leave Mark Conlee’s best interest to be what he is representing.
I am not a doctor, but this was more than an allergic reaction CLICK LINK BELOW
29.5 VIOLATION OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS — PENALTY.
- A person, who acts alone, or who conspires with another person
or persons, to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate or interfere
with any citizen in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or
privilege secured to that person by the constitution or laws of the
state of Iowa or by the constitution or laws of the United States,
and assembles with one or more persons for the purpose of teaching or
being instructed in any technique or means capable of causing
property damage, bodily injury or death when the person or persons
intend to employ those techniques or means in furtherance of the
conspiracy, is on conviction, guilty of a class “D” felony.
A person intimidates or interferes with another person if the act
of the person results in any of the following:
a. Physical injury to the other person.
b. Physical damage to or destruction of the other person’s
c. Communication in a manner, or action in a manner, intended
to result in either of the following:
(1) To place the other person in fear of physical contact which
will be injurious, insulting, or offensive, coupled with the apparent
ability to execute the act.
(2) To place the other person in fear of harm to the other
person’s property, or harm to the person or property of a third
- This section does not make unlawful the teaching of any
technique in self-defense.
- This section does not make unlawful any activity of any of the
following officials or persons:
a. Law enforcement officials of this or any other
jurisdiction while engaged in the lawful performance of their
b. Federal officials required to carry firearms while engaged
in the lawful performance of their official duties.
c. Members of the armed forces of the United States or the
national guard while engaged in the lawful performance of their
d. Any conservation commission, law enforcement agency, or
any agency licensed to provide security services, or any hunting
club, gun club, shooting range, or other organization or entity whose
primary purpose is to teach the safe handling or use of firearms,
archery equipment, or other weapons or techniques employed in
connection with lawful sporting or other lawful activity.
via Iowa Code 729.
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.
This is the damage to my foundation due to the illegal removal of the existing berm by Mark Conlee. I requested multiple times for the building official to come to the location and address my concerns. Conlee’s will claim that the damage was caused by storm water runoff coming from the street. However it has already been established that Boatner hand dug the ditches bordering her property upon purchase in 1995. Prior to repairing all damage caused by the lack of maintenance by the city of many years. This photo is from the basement of Boatner’s home. Shot toward the right front corner, The front of the house facing 5th St is dry, easy to distinguish by the light color. The left side of this photo is the side of the home that faces Conlee’s property. Easy to distinguish this soil is saturated by storm water caused by illegal removal of existing berm by Mark Conlee along with the regrading of his entire lot due to him changing the frontage ¹ of his new home to be toward the alley. He regraded the entire lot downward to drain onto Boatner’s property.
¹Conlee committed perjury in civil court Conlee vs Boatner Eqeq
This photo shows the soil saturated and the foundation washed out, this is the side of the house that faces Conlee’s property. According to witnesses Tonya Adkins and Stuart Westermeyer both former owners testified that the property never received storm water runoff from the Conlee property. When there was a heavy rainfall because of the berm the front yard of the Conlee property became a pond,the berm held all the water from running onto Boatner’s property. Witnesses were prepared to testify to all this and I have written affidavits stating this as true. Attorney Steve Swan failed to submit affidavits and to question witnesses on my behalf in a civil suit Conlee filed against me for loss of enjoyment to his property. Yes that is a tell tale sign of narcissistic personality disorder. I will post all the court records as the events happened.
I contacted Mayor Dinwiddie, building official Mark Holland and every other council member on this day. I requested each of them come to the location and see with their own eyes the flooding of my property caused by Mark Conlee’s illegal property redevelopment. Only one of the council members had the professional courtesy to answer my request, Cathy Roberts Farnsworth saw the adverse effects my property was having. Building official Mark Holland had the duty to act as the authority. he is the only authorized authority to represent the State building codes for the City of Montrose, Ia. He had been on notice since fall 2004 and had not preformed his duty on my behalf. That is to untimely to consider he is not conspiring with Mark Holland to violate my Federal Right to enjoy and equal protection of the law under color of law.
Here you can see it standing it the level spot that we had the pool set up. This yard has never held water in the past. I may have more knowledge than most about these issues but building administrator Holland has a manual that states the standard procedure required for redeveloping non conforming properties, his lack of concern was not due to ignorance, it was due to conspiracy intent to deprive me of my rights under color of law. Witnesses will testify that he questioned them about site layout when they were issued a building permit for their new home. He refused to answer my concerns and continued to issue Mark Conlee two more building permits. It is noted on public record that Holland did drive by, that will be posted by the date of the meeting.
Conflicts of Interest in Land Use Decision-Making
Elected and appointed officials involved in land-use decision making must not be tainted with prejudice regarding on matters that come before them. Such prejudice exists when the individual finds herself with a conflict of interest. A conflict of interest arises when a public servant is in the position of deciding between public duty and private interests. The three most common conflict of interest situations are (1) when the member is in a position to gain financially from the decision being rendered, (2) when the member is a relative of an interested party, or (3) the member is near, or next to, the property at issue.
The most obvious example of a financial conflict is when a land-use decision-maker has an ownership interest in the property that is the subject of the requested action. A review of court cases from around the country reveals numerous other possible conflict situations:
- The decision-maker is in a business relationship with the applicant.
- The decision-maker is employed by a company that stands to gain from approval of the development proposal.
- The decision-maker owns property near the property in question.
- The member owns a business that would directly compete with the applicant’s business.
The tangle of familial relationships that can potentially give rise to conflict of interest questions is equally broad:
- The decision-maker’s spouse is the Realtor working with the landowner.
- The decision-maker’s close relative lives near the property in question.
- The member’s nephew is an attorney with the firm representing the applicant.
A decision-maker who questions whether he has a conflict of interest should ask for advice from the attorney representing his city or county. If a conflict of interest does in fact exist, the decision-maker must disqualify himself from the case. If a conflict of interest does not exist, it is the decision-maker’s duty to participate and vote, even if the situation may be uncomfortable because it involves a friend or associate.
Many communities, boards or commissions have adopted bylaws or policies that govern conflict, and some state codes require specific action to be taken where conflict of interest may exist. Care should be taken to follow any applicable standards in effect locally. While the advice to confer with legal counsel is always sound, some communities require that potential conflict of interest issues be declared and discussed at an open meeting and a vote taken to determine if an actionable conflict is present. Again, local practice should be followed when applicable. In addition, many local and national planning organizations provide models and standards for resolving conflict of interest issues.
Gary D. Taylor, Iowa State University