Selective Prosecution

Selective Prosecution

Criminal prosecution based on an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other

Abitrary classification.

Selective prosecution is the enforcement or prosecution of criminal laws against a particular class of persons and the simultaneous failure to administer criminal laws against others out-side the targeted class. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that selective prosecution exists where the enforcement or prosecution of a Criminal Law is “directed so exclusively against particular class of persons … with a mind so unequal and oppressive” that the administration of the criminal law amounts toa practical denial of Equal Protection of the law (United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 116 S. Ct. 1480, 134 L. Ed. 2d687 [1996], quoting yick wo v. hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 6 S. Ct. 1064, 30 L. Ed. 220 [1886]). Specifically, police and prosecutors may not base the decision to arrest a person for, or charge a person with, a criminal offense based on “an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification” (United States v. Armstrong, quoting Oyler v. Boles, 368 U.S.448, 82 S. Ct. 501, 7 L. Ed. 2d 446 [1962]).

Selective prosecution is a violation of the constitutional guarantee of equal protection for all persons under the law. On the federal level, the requirement of equal protection is contained in the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S.Constitution. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment extends the prohibition on selective prosecution to the states. The equal protection doctrine requires that persons in similar circumstances must receive similar treatment under the law.

Selective prosecution cases are notoriously difficult to prove. Courts presume that prosecutors have not violated equal protection requirements, and claimants bear the burden of proving otherwise. A person claiming selective prosecution must show that the prosecutorial policy had a discriminatory effect and that it was motivated by a discriminatory purpose. To demonstrate a discriminatory effect, a claimant must show that similarly situated individuals of a different class were not prosecuted. For example, a person claiming selective prosecution of white Protestants must produce evidence that shows that white Protestants were prosecuted for a particular crime and that persons outside this group could have been prosecuted but were not.

The prohibition of selective prosecution may be used to invalidate a law. In Yick Wo v. Hopkins, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a San Francisco ordinance that prohibited the operation of laundries in wooden buildings. San Francisco authorities had used the ordinance to prevent Chinese from operating a laundry business in a wooden building. Yet

the same authorities had granted permission to eighty individuals who were not Chinese to operate laundries in wooden buildings.Because the city enforced the ordinance only against Chinese-owned laundries, the Court ordered that Yick Wo, who had been imprisoned for violating the ordinance, be set free.

Are private property right Federally protected rights?

I have asked this question before and have gotten few responses. I can only take the silence of opinions as a “yes” private property rights are Federally protected. I have been advised to get a private attorney. I want to ask why would I need a private attorney when a violation of Federal law is to be investigated and prosecuted by the Federal authorities.

One other question I previously asked was, “does an AUSA have the authority to violate a civil court order with no type of court proceeding”? Again I have to assume that the silence of opinions would concur “no”. An AUSA does not have the right to use attorney discretion to violate a civil court order.

So I understand that the Federal authorities have knowingly made false statements to me. An investigation cannot be concluded using hearsay evidence, and private property cannot be taken without just compensation, as that is a violation of Federal law.

SA Calvin Shivers signed the letter stating that a prior investigation had determined no violation of Federal law has occurred, Shivers has not contacted me, he has avoided me. Why wouldn’t a Federal officer want the facts about any case before he would sign a letter based on hearsay. Have some dignity to you position officers. You are employeed to represent the citizens, not the blue wall of silence. Seems like a bunch of cowards if confronted individually. I have some facts that need to be reviewed and until I am confident the facts have been reviewed I will continue to defend my right to be protected from harm. There are many violations of Federal law that have occurred at the hands of my local government officials. The fact that hearsay was taken as evidence and that hearsay was given no less than from a law enforcement imposter is more reason to question the honesty of this law enforcement officer, I have already submitted clear evidence that this cop has a conflict of interest with the party that used chemical weapons to force me from my property.  They have taken everything I owned. My home, business, property and health. They have taken any quality of life I had planned for my golden years. There is no doubt that Federal laws have been violated. I do not expect anyone to offer an opinion as to why the Feds would not be the proper agency to prosecute, ssshhh don’t expose public corruption, it only a pr tactic on their website. This government would not exist and thrive without a supporting group of thieves protecting self serving colleagues. https://poisonedbymyneighborfromhell.com

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

This Agent does not recognize that using chemicals as a weapon unlawfully applied to my property is in violation of my Federally protected private property rights.

From: songboat [mailto:songboat@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2017 1:14 PM
To: Reinwart, Thomas J. (OM) (FBI) <Thomas.Reinwart@ic.fbi.gov>
Subject: Letter from J.C.Hacker

Thomas

I am attaching my most recent correspondence with I had with you. I received the letter from FBI JC Hacker yesterday. I searched for this individual and there is no person named JC Hacker listed as an FBI assistant director or anywhere else for that matter. Please explain, as there seems to be a conflict between the two letters.

Regarding the evidence I have sent you clearly shows that the continuing unlawful application of toxic chemicals to my property violates my Federal right to enjoy my property. The fact that the unlawful application of toxic chemicals to my property constitutes a criminal offense of trespassing. Denying my right to file a criminal complaint against this trespasser by the City of Montrose police dept, and the Lee County Attorney clearly violates my Federal right to equal protection of the law. The evidence I have sent you supports two or more people working together to violate my Federal rights to privacy and equal protection supports a conspiracy.

My request for a behavioral analysis is reasonable, who in sound mind continues a criminal act (trespassing in this case) knowing the person that owns the property the chemicals are being applied to believes the chemicals are causing severe health problems? Whose duty is it to protect those rights? Local law enforcement has the duty to protect the rights of the citizens from criminal acts perpetrated against them. In this case intentional acts perpetrated against me.

Who has the duty to assure compliance to State of Iowa building and drainage code? The appointed building administrator. In this case multiple counts of fraud have been committed not only the fraudulent building permits but also the document fraud and fabricated city ordinance perpetrated by the city clerk. Fraud also falling into the criminal offense category. The FBI holds public corruption as of highest priority, including conflict of interest. In this case a conflict of interest is relevant between every actor participating in the personal attack against me and my property.

Apparently you do not agree with my allegations, please explain what it is that I am not understanding as a violation of Federal law.

Regards,

Melody Boatner

 

Reply to me

Reinwart, Thomas J. (OM) (FBI) Thomas.Reinwart@ic.fbi.gov

There is not a conflict.  Thus far, there does not appear to be any Federal criminal law violations which have occurred.  Although there may be some local or state criminal and or civil law(s) which may have violated, we do not investigate those activities.  As previously stated in my email with you,

“You have previously written on numerous occasions explaining you have an abundance of evidence to support your claims of the criminal violations you have researched.  Please bring that information to explain and substantiate your allegations.”

Again, we will not provide any type of profiler or behavioral analysis for you.  This is not going to continue to be debated via email.  I am giving you the opportunity to provide any material you feel has not been provided/explained by you to us in the past to substantiate your allegations.

This is a personal request for Calvin Shivers, FBI Deputy Assistant Director, criminal investigations division

To anyone who has contact or the ability to get FBI Deputy Assistant Director Calvin Shivers a message from me to him.

Officer Calvin Shivers,

I received a letter signed by you yesterday in the mail. It was a response from an inquiry on my behalf from Congressman Dave Loebsack. This content of the letter you sent dated 3-2-2019 is irrelevant. I stressed to the Congressman that I was requesting an independent investigation, or from an unbiased Federal authority. The information you are referring to is based on hearsay evidence. That hearsay evidence was tainted from the facts regarding my complaint by Lee County Sheriff Weber. I have hard copy evidence that supports this is a fact.

Any information given to you has no evidence that supports it to be factual, if it does I have indisputable evidence to prove what you have been given is fabricated.

I have utilized several resources to attempt to reach you. I am confident that at least one of those attempts have been successful in reaching you. I am publically requesting that you contact me personally. The evidence I have supports in the least obvious incompetent investigation into my complaint. Unless hearsay is now an acceptable source of evidence, it is not submissible in a court of law. Every reasonable citizen has that knowledge. The agent investigating my case clearly does not have that knowledge. The agent investigating my case did not have the knowledge that private property rights are Federally protected rights. The agent investigating my case wasted taxpayer money for travel expenses to come to my home specifically to review the hard copy evidence I have in my possession. Upon arrival 14 months after I first contacted him, he advised me that he had no intention of reviewing the hard copy evidence that I had laid out in a manner that it could easily be reviewed. The only logical reason he would refuse to review valid evidence in my opinion is that he knew my evidence supported my allegations. By refusing to review that evidence he could stand proud behind the blue wall of silence and protect those who actions have intentionally caused me serious physical and financial damages. They have committed serious criminal offenses against me. In violation of a civil court order these corrupt officials are not going to resist being held accountable for their crimes. SA Thomas Reinwart had clearly made up his mind to support the corrupt local officials before he ever entered my home.

There is no way that I am going to drop my complaint at least until I know for a fact that a competent investigator has reviewed the hard copy documented evidence that is indisputable. I expect my rights to be recognized as every other citizen takes their rights for granted. I certainly do not expect this degree of local corruption to be hidden and supported by any Federal authority.

The FBI makes it quite difficult for any one on one conversations with a competent official. I have repeatedly tried to file a formal complaint against this particular agent and have yet to discover what the process for filing a complaint is.

Officer Shivers, I am requesting that you telephone me, email me and would prefer a meeting between the two of us. As I tried to explain to the SA this case is to complex to verbally tell the facts to anyone. That’s the option he allowed me to have. He asked that I verbally tell him what Federal violations of the law occurred in a physical attack committed against me for over 5 years. He gave me 2 1/2 hours to tell him a story that took me six years to put in chronological order filling for large 3 ring binders. The entire time I was attempting to explain what had occurred he was steady checking his watch, apparently he was to tight on a time schedule to hear anything I was trying to explain to him. When he left I believe he had three notes written on his notepad.

Now I will travel to your location if need be. I have more information to submit to you however doing so in a public setting could put my life in danger, and I don’t think anyone wants anything bad to happen to me, do you?  I have given you my email and phone number though the linkedin message. I do not care when you contact me, day or night. It takes a special kind of officer to cross the blue line of silence, but somebody with honor and integrity will do it and be honored for upholding his or her oath.

Request to the general public to pass this message on to Deputy Assistant Director Calvin Shivers asking him to contact me asap. URGENT!

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

Statute of Limitations

For those of you that suggest the statute of limitations has expired in regards to my case.

Amendment 5
– Protection of Rights to Life, Liberty, and Property

No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

I see no reference to a statute of limitations in private property taken without just compensation. In fact it is NEVER to be taken without just compensation. Any untimeliness in my case is due to the negligence of the government officials who have been involved in my case. That is aside from the time in which I was blind and unable to defend myself. The entire amendment had been violated in my case. No justice, no accountability to date. I will not be the only victim in this case, I promise these rights do and will apply to me as they do to every other citizen. https://poisonedbymyneighborfromhell.com

Does an AUSA have the authority to use attorney discretion to violate a civil court ruling made by a Judge?

Nobody has contacted me from the FBI yet. I called the Washington DC headquarters and every time they hang up on me. I don’t even get to voice my issue. Federal official requested two inquiries, advised me that the FBI would contact me. Ten years later they still hadn’t contacted me. I reached out to the local division, but not before the Local official had contact an agent buddy of his, Local official has a direct conflict of interest with the opposing party. Whatever the local official did tell his friend was false, I know that is a fact because he knows no facts about this case. I asked the agent that was pretending to be investigating my complaint to share the information the third party was told by local official. The agent refused. He advised me that based on the hearsay local official  had given the third party and what I had told him. He made his decision not to investigate. I have the hard copy evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt my allegations cannot be denied. My point is TEN years after Federal official requested an inquiry. I don’t have ten more years to wait for these criminal actors to have justice served on them. You understand the seriousness of the degree of the crimes committed against me don’t you? I am serious. The only thing a honest law enforcement officer has to do is to actually take the time to review my hard copy evidence. It’s not that much to ask. These locals had no regard for my life, had I not have fled I would have been murdered by the intentional poisoning. Give me that name and contact information for an agent not associated with this locals who have been biased do to false statements made by the local official. I am not going to be the only victim of this brutal chemical attack. I am telling you, the evidence clearly shows what I have been claiming for the past ten years. Being patient as advised by Federal official never did a thing for me. I do not know the process of requesting an inquiry, but I am sure you submit the Federal official’s request to someone who has a name. Is that right? I want that person’s name. If you do not submit the request for an inquiry you need to change up the standard procedure for this case with special circumstances and direct it to the highest authority. The EPA has law enforcement officers of their own. I want to talk to a specific person. For me to call the Washington DC division without an extension to a specific person makes me feel discriminated against. Federal official told me years ago that the Federal official had a contact in the FBI, now the assistant tells me Federal official can’t contact anyone in the FBI because its against the law. What has happened to me is against the Federal law, what the hell? He has been talking out both sides of him mouth representing Federal official. He will not allow me to speak with Federal official, so I really don’t know if Federal official knows anything about what I have been advised he has been doing on my behalf. One of the Local officials wrote a letter on my behalf to this incompetent FBI agent. The Local official told me that he could not believe that nobody has contacted him from the FBI. He stated that if I had a Federal official on my side more than nothing should have happened already. Let me make sure you understand exactly what happened to me with the FBI and AUSA.  Supporting the criminals in this case they have also conspired against my Civil, human and Constitutional Rights. No government official can legally turn a blind eye to corrupt acts committed by government officials. If they do they are not only co conspirators against my rights but also violating the rules of ethics for Government service. I have been a victim of physical abuse by a local resident since I could walk. I had escaped that abuser.  I acquired my home, business and property. Then, I am physically abused by my local government officials by the intentional use of chemicals as a weapon, no question that the chemicals were applied to my property with intent to cause me serious harm or death. The evidence could not be more solid in supporting that to be a fact. I need someone to enforce to law, to protect me from harm. Right now the only person with influence to do that is you.

I want to know if an AUSA has the authority to violate a civil court order without some type of court procedure. I have a hard time believing this AUSA. He told me that he could completely disregard a civil court order because he has attorney discretion. It is not reasonable that he can violate a court order made by any Judge. Can you find that information out for me. My question is “Does an AUSA have the authority to use attorney discretion to violate a civil court ruling made by a Judge”? The logical answer to that question is no, why would the citizens waste the time and their money to proceed with a civil court trial? Kevin VanderSchel of the Des Moines, Ia US Attorney’s for the Southern District of Iowa is a XXXXXX. He needs to be removed from his position immediately. How many others has he violated before me? I find very few cases in which he is the prosecutor. I find no cases of public corruption filed in the State of Iowa. That in itself is quite telling about the thin blue line. There are more corrupt officials in Lee County that I can write about, I don’t expect Lee County is  the only county with corrupt officials. They quite possibly could be the only county who have used chemical weapons to commit acts of terror against a citizen. I can find no record of chemical weapons used by government officials against a citizen in the USA. Can anyone cite me a precedent case with this issue? Do you share information with

Federal official? I really do not believe Federal official knew anything about my case. However his assistant was acting on his behalf so I don’t know what would be the result of a situation with such serious offenses as have been committed against me. I would at least like to speak with someone justifying the local officials case.  So I could prove whatever evidence they have is fraudulent. Everyone of the named individuals wholly participated in crimes against humanity, and violation of human rights. There is no justification for using chemical weapons EVER!

severe skin disorder caused by illegal application of toxic chemicals to my property by Mark Conlee

3-9-2010-skin-condition-progressing

null

According to AUSA my evidence is assumptive.

image

Note the P.S. in this letter, not negotiable because if I did not take the amount offered he had already taken control of my property. What the hell would I do with $17,000?  These documents could be no better proof that Conlee wanted my property. Understand that he sued me for loss of enjoyment of his property, then he offered me these two out of court settlements before the trial started. My property was not for sale. It was never to be taken by violating my rights to use it as I wished. These are Federal criminal offenses.

null

AUSA stated my evidence was assumptive, yet he is aware that SA Thomas Reinwart made his decision not to investigate my allegations based on what XXXXXXXXXX told a third party and what I had the chance to verbally tell Reinwart, given 2 1/2 hours to tell him. The hard copy evidence was right there on the table for him to review, he refused to review the evidence. I know AUSA VanderSchel reads my posts. Or he did because he was using my site to determine my case by what I had posted. I do not think it would be in my best interest to post all the evidence that has recently been given to me. Tell me now, VanderSchel, who is using assumptive evidence? Hell yes I am pissed off at the incompetence that has been shown in this case since 2005. I have committed no crime, everyone involved in this has committed criminal offenses. Is that, MY only option to have justice served.  Law enforcement has a duty to keep me from harm.  I am going to bitch till the cows come home. If this does not embarrass the government I want you to know that I am embarrassed for you.

Any reasonable person would at least offer me enough to get a comparable property. One that I could operate my business from. I have about $30,000 in receipts of the money I invested in this property. Conlee paid Mayor Dinwiddie $27,000 for the worthless lot he bought from him. It was legally undevelopable. He set a farm on an 70′ wide lot. These structures were illegal when he built them and they are still illegal. I have the original building permits.  

null

 Here is the original fraudulent permit issued for Conlee’s new home.

celeste-cirinna-city-of-montrose-exec-manager-pg-5

 

Here is the fraudulent, fraudulent permit that was altered to show a fee had been paid after Conlee was elected to city council. City clerk, building administrator and Conlee conspired to commit a double fraud? That should pay treble damages in my opinion. This act of fraud was completely unnecessary, the permit is still not signed by the builder. That signature alleviates the city’s liability just like the Mayor said right before I presented it to the city council. These people should be in prison for acts of ignorance unbecoming of a government official.

These are the US law in which they should be prosecuted.

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.

18 U.S.C. § 229 – U.S. Code: the violation of Federal law that should ensure justice is finally served

Letter sent to the City of Montrose by the State of Iowa agency in charge of Environmental violations. The City followed no laws that are in place to protect all living things from toxic chemicals. This letter was sent to the Street Dept Director at the time. There had never been any chemicals applied anywhere in town except the cemetery by city employees. These chemicals were applied precisely on the city’s easement on my property. Not an inch past my boundary or an inch short of my boundary.  Only after Mark Conlee was elected to city council were chemicals applied to the easement.

warning to City of Montrose unlawful application of toxic chemicals


warning to City poison

warning to City poison


Conlee had applied chemicals to my side of our 300′ common boundary the year prior to this. He continued to apply chemicals to my side of the boundary this year and for three years after that. Five years straight I was intentionally exposed to chemicals. I complained to the city. I complained to County attorney Mike Short. Short advised me that Mark  Conlee “said”, “he only applied it to the bottom of his side of the fence. Both the city and county attorney had the same reason not to file a criminal complaint against Conlee. They didn’t believe neighbors filing complaints against neighbors was a good thing to do. I was criminally charged by the City and the State on complaints based on “Mark Conlee said” all charges against me were dismissed.  Doesn’t the county attorney know that hearsay is not evidence? Mark Conlee “said” many false statements throughout this attack against my person and my property.

Intentional glyphosate poisoning

chemicals applied to my side of the 300′ common boundary

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.

Iowa Code Sec. 237. Section 729.5, Code 2013, is amended to read as follows: 729.5 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 Fri Nov 08 16:03:04 2013 59/65 CH. 90 60 techniques or means in furtherance of the conspiracy, is on conviction, guilty of a class “D” felony. 2. 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. 2. 3. This section does not make unlawful the teaching of any technique in self-defense. 3. 4. 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

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.

 

The Power of a Federal Prosecutor

Looking for expert answers to this question. If a State district judge makes a ruling in a civil case. Does a Federal Attorney have the right to violate or ignore that district courts ruling without having to appeal or have some type of court hearing to overturn the previous ruling of the District court?

It does not seem reasonable to me that if a District court order has no relevance from the day the case is decided, what is the purpose of even have a District court trial? Just for the attorneys to make money? I am not buying that. I know the attorneys are there to make money but I do believe that a court order is intended to be complied to until an different determines it is not. I do not believe that AUSA Kevin VanderSchel in his position as Assistant Prosecuting Attorney for the Southern District of Iowa has any power to simply ignore a court order as he advised me he did. I think he is knowingly making false statements. Someone show me a document that gives that power to an attorney. I do not have any reason to believe one word that comes from the mouth of any government official. Hearsay is not evidence, even the common citizen knows that.

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.

Simple question regarding Federal law. Just to verify my own understanding of the law.

I have a simple question regarding Federal law. I am requesting opinions and answers from anyone, this is not limited to attorneys.

Trespassing is a criminal offense? True or False

Someone trespasses on your private property, causing damage.  You have requested them not to trespass.  They continue to trespass and cause damage to your private property. The local law enforcement refuses to issue a criminal complaint on your behalf.

Do you believe these actions are in violation of the 14th Amendment. Is it your opinion that the described actions are in violation of Federal law?

Do you have any references that would support trespassing is not a violation of the 14th Amendment?

My neighbor used chemicals as a weapon with intent to cause serious harm or death. Most extreme case of criminal actions carried out by the “good old boy network”.

The motive was to acquire my property as his new redevelopment of an otherwise worthless property was non-compliant to State building codes and he could not get the illegal redevelopment recorded on the County plat map. Having been successful in acquiring my property after 5 years of exposing me to the chemicals, He and those who participated are living large and I suffer from chronic health problems and was homeless for over 3 years and blind.

My neighbor intentionally applied Roundup on my property with intent to cause serious harm or death. The link will explain the unprecedented case that I been a victim of. I am requesting any legal contacts that can represent me in Federal court. I have asked multiple attorney’s they all reply with the same response “we simply do not have time to dedicate to such a complex and unprecedented case”. The damages done to me will forever affect my life. I need advice in the proper way to sue these officials for the damages they have intentionally caused me. I went to the city council in an attempt to notify them of what was going on, the neighbor stated that the roundup dissipates. We all know that is a false statement, but in this case all local authorities have to be aware that this man is a pathological liar. All statements made by this neighbor were taken as proof positive and my hard copy evidence was dismissed.
sincerely,
Melody Boatner

The chemicals were non-stop, I did eventually have to make a decision of whether to flee from my home, property and business. Stay and die from the intentional exposure to the chemicals or shoot this neighbor dead. Not much of a choice for someone who has no criminal record.This neighbor was allowed to redevelop a non-conforming property with no regard to State of Iowa building codes. He went to get the redevelopment recorded on the county plat map. The redevelopment was rejected from being recorded. It was at this time the neighbor assisted by local city and county officials determined the remedy to get the illegal redevelopment recorded on the plat map was to acquire my property. Doing so would provide enough sq ft of property that his redevelopment could be legally recorded on the county plat map.
sincerely,
Melody Boatner.

Laying on the ground at the farm store

I cannot forget how wonderful my life used to be. Before my character was defamed. Before I was shunned by the lifelong members of my community. Today when my fuel line broke and I was crawled half in and half under the rust bucket. How great it was when I had achieved my happiness by acquiring my goal of owning a garage so I could do maintenance out of the elements. I could still have my vehicle towed to my garage if I only had one. I am not comfortable working on it during business hours. I am more comfortable working on it when the business is closed. I will be working on my car in the farm store parking lot, yes after dark if anyone needs to reach me. Montrose residents be sure and drive by to see me. Honk and I will recognize you by giving you the middle finger. In fact I will greet former Lee County attorney with the middle finger if he would like to have charges brought against me for the third time for an act that is not against the law. What a joke these government officials are. Current and former at this time. They do not get out of each others reach for any extended period of time. Hopefully you will all be getting an unexpected visit from a very special person in the near future. Boy will that day be honorable for you all.

Typical hard evidence the County Attorney used to file criminal charges against me.

Where is this law written, this is the second complaint filed against me. Exactly the same complaint except this one is trumped-up by adding “continually” and “She won’t stop”. Specifically a trait named by Dr. Hare. In his list of personality traits it says the psychopath will turn a situation around so that he is the victim. Conlee would not stop applying chemicals to my property. The fact that there is no law against giving someone the finger supports the Police Chief and the County Attorney are conspiring with Conlee to acquire my property.

6-26-2007 State vs Boatner, second Complaint on Conlees behalf .jpg

Cato Handbook of Policy Makers

I can tell you one thing this handbook is useless unless these policies are guaranteed to be enforced. Where is a Cato representative to represent what they declare they represent?

Cato handbook of policymakers

Link

In this case the County Attorney could not be more involved with enabling violations of these codes. He recently retired. I pray that the new County Attorney stands beh

Iowa Code

703.4 Responsibility of employers. An employer or an employer’s agent, officer, director, or employee who supervises or directs the work of other employees, is guilty of the same public offense committed by an employee acting under the employer’s control, supervision, or direction in any of the following cases:1.  The person has directed the employee to commit a public offense.2.  The person knowingly permits an employee to commit a public offense, under circumstances in which the employer expects to benefit from the illegal activity of the employee.3.  The person assigns the employee some duty or duties which the person knows cannot be accomplished, or are not likely to be accomplished, unless the employee commits a public offense, provided that the offense committed by the employee is one which the employer can reasonably anticipate will follow from this assignment.[C79, 81, §703.4]

703.1 Aiding and abetting. All persons concerned in the commission of a public offense, whether they directly commit the act constituting the offense or aid and abet its commission, shall be charged, tried and punished as principals. The guilt of a person who aids and abets the commission of a crime must be determined upon the facts which show the part the person had in it, and does not depend upon the degree of another person’s guilt.[C51, §2928; R60, §4668; C73, §4314; C97, §5299; C24, 27, 31, 35, 39, §12895; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75, 77, §688.1; C79, 81, §703.1]

703.2 Joint criminal conduct. When two or more persons, acting in concert, knowingly participate in a public offense, each is responsible for the acts of the other done in furtherance of the commission of the offense or escape there from, and each person’s guilt will be the same as that of the person so acting, unless the act was one which the person could not reasonably expect to be done in the furtherance of the commission of the offense.[C79, 81, §703.2]Referred to in 717A.3A

703.3 Accessory after the fact. Any person having knowledge that a public offense has been committed and that a certain person committed it, and who does not stand in the relation of husband or wife to the person who committed the offense, who harbors, aids or conceals the person who committed the offense, with the intent to prevent the apprehension of the person who committed the offense, commits an aggravated misdemeanor if the public offense committed was a felony, or commits a simple misdemeanor if the public offense was a misdemeanor.[C51, §2929; R60, §4669; C73, §4315; C97, §5300; C24, 27, 31, 35, 39, §12896; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75, 77, §688.2; C79, 81, §703.3; 1981 Acts, ch 204, §1]Referred to in 717A.3A

703.4 Responsibility of employers. An employer or an employer’s agent, officer, director, or employee who supervises or directs the work of other employees, is guilty of the same public offense committed by an employee acting under the employer’s control, supervision, or direction in any of the following cases:1.  The person has directed the employee to commit a public offense.2.  The person knowingly permits an employee to commit a public offense, under circumstances in which the employer expects to benefit from the illegal activity of the employee.3.  The person assigns the employee some duty or duties which the person knows cannot 703.5Liability of corporations, partnerships and voluntary associations.1.  A public or private corporation, partnership, or other voluntary association shall have the same level of culpability as an individual committing the crime when any of the following is true:a.  The conduct constituting the offense consists of an omission to discharge a specific duty or an affirmative performance imposed on the accused by law.b.  The conduct or act constituting the offense is committed by an agent, officer, director, or employee of the accused while acting within the scope of the authority of the agent, officer, director or employee and in behalf of the accused and when said act or conduct is authorized, requested, or tolerated by the board of directors or by a high managerial agent.2.  “High managerial agent” means an officer of the corporation, partner, or other agent in a position of comparable authority with respect to the formulation of policy or the supervision in a managerial capacity of subordinate employees.[C79, 81, §703.5]2013 Acts, ch 30, §261be accomplished, or are not likely to be accomplished, unless the employee commits a public offense, provided that the offense committed by the employee is one which the employer can reasonably anticipate will follow from this assignment.[C79, 81, §703.4]

704.4 Defense of property. A person is justified in the use of reasonable force to prevent or terminate criminal interference with the person’s possession or other right in property. Nothing in this section authorizes the use of any spring gun or trap which is left unattended and unsupervised and which is placed for the purpose of preventing or terminating criminal interference with the possession of or other right in property.[C51, §2774; R60, §4443; C73, §4113; C97, §5103; C24, 27, 31, 35, 39, §12922; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75, 77, §691.2(2); C79, 81, §704.4]

706.1 Conspiracy.1.  A person commits conspiracy with another if, with the intent to promote or facilitate the commission of a crime which is an aggravated misdemeanor or felony, the person does either of the following: a.  Agrees with another that they or one or more of them will engage in conduct constituting the crime or an attempt or solicitation to commit the crime’s.  Agrees to aid another in the planning or commission of the crime or of an attempt or solicitation to commit the crime.2.  It is not necessary for the conspirator to know the identity of each and every conspirator.3.  A person shall not be convicted of conspiracy unless it is alleged and proven that at least one conspirator committed an overt act evidencing a design to accomplish the purpose of the conspiracy by criminal means.4.  A person shall not be convicted of conspiracy if the only other person or persons involved in the conspiracy were acting at the behest of or as agents of a law enforcement agency in an investigation of the criminal activity alleged at the time of the formation of the conspiracy.[C51, §2758, 2996; R60, §4408, 4790; C73, §4087, 4425; C97, §5059, 5490; C24, 27, 31, 35, 39, §13162, 13902; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75, 77, §719.1, 782.6; C79, 81, §706.1]1987 Acts, ch 129, §1

706.2 Locus of conspiracy. A person commits a conspiracy in any county where the person is physically present when the person makes such agreement or combination, and in any county where the person with whom the person makes such agreement or combination is physically present at such time, whether or not any of the other conspirators are also present in that county or in this state, and in any county in which any criminal act is done by any person pursuant to the conspiracy, whether or not the person is or has ever been present in such county; provided, that a person may not be prosecuted more than once for a conspiracy based on the same agreement or combination.[C79, 81, §706.2]

706A.2 Violations.1.Specified unlawful activity influenced enterprises. a.  It is unlawful for any person who has knowingly received any proceeds of specified unlawful activity to use or invest, directly or indirectly, any part of such proceeds in the acquisition of any interest in any enterprise or any real property, or in the establishment or operation of any enterprise .b.  It is unlawful for any person to knowingly acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise or real property through specified unlawful activity .c.  It is unlawful for any person to knowingly conduct the affairs of any enterprise through specified unlawful activity or to knowingly participate, directly or indirectly, in any enterprise that the person knows is being conducted through specified unlawful activity .d.  It is unlawful for any person to conspire or attempt to violate or to solicit or facilitate the violations of the provisions of paragraph “a”, “b”, or “c”.2.Facilitation of a criminal network. It is unlawful for a person acting with knowledge of the financial goals and criminal objectives of a criminal network to knowingly facilitate criminal objectives of the network by doing any of the following: a.  Engaging in violence or intimidation or inciting or inducing another to engage in violence or intimidation .b.  Inducing or attempting to induce a person believed to have been called or who may be called as a witness to unlawfully withhold any testimony, testify falsely, or absent themselves from any official proceeding to which the potential witness has been legally summoned. c.  Attempting by means of bribery, misrepresentation, intimidation, or force to obstruct, delay, or prevent the communication of information or testimony relating to a violation of any criminal statute to a peace officer, magistrate, prosecutor, grand jury, or petit jury. d.  Injuring or damaging another person’s body or property because that person or any other person gave information or testimony to a peace officer, magistrate, prosecutor, or grand jury. e.  Attempting to suppress by an act of concealment, alteration, or destruction any physical evidence that might aid in the discovery, apprehension, prosecution, or conviction of any person. f.  Making any property available to a member of the criminal network. g.  Making any service other than legal services available to a member of the criminal network. h.  Inducing or committing any act or omission by a public servant in violation of the public servant’s official duty. i.  Obtaining any benefit for a member of a criminal network by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representation, promises, or material omissions. j.  Making a false sworn statement regarding a material issue, believing it to be false, or making any statement, believing it to be false, regarding a material issue to a public servant in connection with an application for any benefit, privilege, or license, or in connection with any official investigation or proceeding.

706A.2 Violations.1.Specified unlawful activity influenced enterprises. a.  It is unlawful for any person who has knowingly received any proceeds of specified unlawful activity to use or invest, directly or indirectly, any part of such proceeds in the acquisition of any interest in any enterprise or any real property, or in the establishment or operation of any enterprise. b.  It is unlawful for any person to knowingly acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise or real property through specified unlawful activity. c.  It is unlawful for any person to knowingly conduct the affairs of any enterprise through specified unlawful activity or to knowingly participate, directly or indirectly, in any enterprise that the person knows is being conducted through specified unlawful activity. d.  It is unlawful for any person to conspire or attempt to violate or to solicit or facilitate the violations of the provisions of paragraph “a”, “b”, or “c”.2.Facilitation of a criminal network. It is unlawful for a person acting with knowledge of the financial goals and criminal objectives of a criminal network to knowingly facilitate criminal objectives of the network by doing any of the following: a.  Engaging in violence or intimidation or inciting or inducing another to engage in violence or intimidation. b.  Inducing or attempting to induce a person believed to have been called or who may be called as a witness to unlawfully withhold any testimony, testify falsely, or absent themselves from any official proceeding to which the potential witness has been legally summoned. c.  Attempting by means of bribery, misrepresentation, intimidation, or force to obstruct, delay, or prevent the communication of information or testimony relating to a violation of any criminal statute to a peace officer, magistrate, prosecutor, grand jury, or petit jury. d.  Injuring or damaging another person’s body or property because that person or any other person gave information or testimony to a peace officer, magistrate, prosecutor, or grand jury. e.  Attempting to suppress by an act of concealment, alteration, or destruction any physical evidence that might aid in the discovery, apprehension, prosecution, or conviction of any person. f.  Making any property available to a member of the criminal network. g.  Making any service other than legal services available to a member of the criminal network. h.  Inducing or committing any act or omission by a public servant in violation of the public servant’s official duty. i.  Obtaining any benefit for a member of a criminal network by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representation, promises, or material omissions. j.  Making a false sworn statement regarding a material issue, believing it to be false, or making any statement, believing it to be false, regarding a material issue to a public servant in connection with an application for any benefit, privilege, or license, or in connection with any official investigation or proceeding.3.Money laundering. It is unlawful for a person to commit money laundering in violation of chapter 706B.4.Acts of specified unlawful activity. It is unlawful for a person to commit specified unlawful activity as defined in section 706A.1.5.Negligent empowerment of specified unlawful activity. a.  It is unlawful for a person to negligently allow property owned or controlled by the person or services provided by the person, other than legal services, to be used to facilitate specified unlawful activity, whether by entrustment, loan, rent, lease, bailment, or otherwise. b.  Damages for negligent empowerment of specified unlawful activity shall include all reasonably foreseeable damages proximately caused by the specified unlawful activity, including, in a case brought or intervened in by the state, the costs of investigation and criminal and civil litigation of the specified unlawful activity incurred by the government for the prosecution and defense of any person involved in the specified unlawful activity, and the imprisonment, probation, parole, or other expense reasonably necessary to detain, punish, and rehabilitate any person found guilty of the specified unlawful activity, except for the following: (1)  If the person empowering the specified unlawful activity acted only negligently and was without knowledge of the nature of the activity and could not reasonably have known of the unlawful nature of the activity or that it was likely to occur, damages shall be limited to the greater of the following: (a)  The cost of the investigation and litigation of the person’s own conduct plus the value of the property or service involved as of the time of its use to facilitate the specified unlawful activity. (b)  All reasonably foreseeable damages to any person, except any person responsible for the specified unlawful activity, and to the general economy and welfare of the state proximately caused by the person’s own conduct. (2)  If the property facilitating the specified unlawful activity was taken from the possession or control of the person without that person’s knowledge and against that person’s will in violation of the criminal law, damages shall be limited to reasonably foreseeable damages to any person, except persons responsible for the taking or the specified unlawful activity, and to the general economy and welfare of the state proximately caused by the person’s negligence, if any, in failing to prevent its taking. (3)  If the person was aware of the possibility that the property or service would be used to facilitate some form of specified unlawful activity and acted to prevent the unlawful use, damages shall be limited to reasonably foreseeable damages to any person, except any person responsible for the specified unlawful activity, and to the general economy and welfare of the state proximately caused by the person’s failure, if any, to act reasonably to prevent the unlawful use. (4)  The plaintiff shall carry the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the specified unlawful activity occurred and was facilitated by the property or services. The defendant shall have the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence as to circumstances constituting lack of negligence and on the limitations on damages in this subsection.1996 Acts, ch 1133, §27; 1998 Acts, ch 1074, §33Referred to in 706A.3, 706A.4

708.4 Willful injury. Any person who does an act which is not justified and which is intended to cause serious injury to another commits willful injury, which is punishable as follows:1.  A class “C” felony, if the person causes serious injury to another.2.  A class “D” felony, if the person causes bodily injury to another.[C51, §2577, 2594; R60, §4200, 4217; C73, §3857, 3875; C97, §4752, 4771, 4797; S13, §4771; C24, 27, 31, 35, 39, §12928, 12934, 12962; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75, 77, §693.1, 694.6, 697.2; C79, 81, §708.4]99 Acts, ch 65, §5, 2013 Acts, ch 90, §184 Referred to in 80A.4, 702.11

Please Explain what about this is not a violation of my Federally protected private property rights?

What about this situation am I not understanding? I get no response from those who are supposedly experts in this field. This is one example of many that I understand clearly to be a violation of Federal Law.

 In my mind is a not questionable. Why am I mistaken in my conclusion?  Include references please as the local law enforcement have been far less that honest in anyway in their involvement.
So my neighbor was putting chemicals on my property for an extended period of time, right?
That act is described as trespassing, right?
I requested an incident report stating that I had verbally told the neighbor to cease and desist the the day I noticed the chemicals from the Police chief, right?
The police chief did not act in a timely manner, 16 months is not acceptable by any reasonable person to receive a request for a document, right?
The neighbor in the mean time sued me because I installed a privacy curtain, claiming loss of enjoyment of his property, right?
The civil court dismissed his case citing my right to enjoy my property, right?
The neighbor violated that court order without missing a beat, right?
I notified in person the county attorney that I wanted to file a complaint against this neighbor/council member and the city clerk bringing with me the evidence that proves my allegations, right?
I was denied filing a complaint against this neighbor by the police chief and the county attorney, right?
The right to enjoy property is a Federal law, right?
​    ​       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. One person may be charged with and convicted of both conspiracy and the underlying crime based on the same circumstances.–
 For example, Andy, Dan, and Alice plan a bank robbery. They 1) visit the bank first to assess security, 2) pool their money and buy a gun together, and 3) write a demand letter.  All three can be charged with conspiracy to commit robbery, regardless of whether the robbery itself is actually attempted or completed.
The “Agreement” Requirement

You might be wondering how exactly the agreement between two co-conspirators actually takes place. First, the agreement does not need to be expressly conveyed. For instance, in the above example,Andy isn’t required to tell Dan and Alice in unequivocal terms,”I agree to commit a conspiracy with you,” (although, that statement would surely be a prosecutor’s dream and strong evidence​ of a criminal conspiracy). Instead, the agreement may be implicit or shown by the action of “two or more guilty minds,” as required  under common law. Examples of evidence of an implicit agreement can include the appearance of the co- defendants at transactions and negotiations in furtherance of the conspiracy such as a planning meeting It is important to note that courts have found that mere presence or association with those committing a crime doesn’t, by itself, make someone a co-conspirator unless there are other factors that collectively point to an implicit agreement.

The Element of “Intent”
As with other specific intent crimes, your intention means everything. But that’s not the only intent the court will care about. Not only does one other individual in the conspiracy need to intend to agree, all parties​ mus​t ​intend to achieve the outcome. Simply put, knowledge of a crime isn’t enough to get you thrown behind bars. For instance, just because your friend tells you he is going to burglarize a house, doesn’t mean you are part of the conspiracy to burglarize it. Not unless you also agree to help by acting as a getaway car or helping him scope out the property ahead of time.

Penalties

A conspiracy conviction can yield some pretty tough penalties depending on the underlying crime. You can be punished for both the conspiracy and the actual crime itself if, it were completed. For example, if you are charged and convicted of conspiracy to commit robbery and the actual crime of robbery, you may have to suffer the consequences of both. Additionally, in some cases if you are convicted of a conspiracy to commit a felony, you may have to serve a mandatory minimum sentence.

​So what is different about my evidence that is would not be considered a criminal conspiracy between the neighbor and the Police Chief, and the neighbor and the County Attorney? I see just this part of the attack against me as a conspiracy against my rights.

​ ​
And​ since it was committed by officers of the law, why would this not be considered Deprivation of rights under color of law

Thoughts please.​

crime (krim) n. ca.1920. An unethical or immoral act against fellow man.