I was intentionally exposed to glyphosate for over 5 years. The chemicals were applied to my private property. I was denied a trespass complaint against my assailant. This was an intentional chemical attack for the purpose of causing me serious injury or death. My assailant was held above the law in redeveloping his legally non conforming property from being compliant to State building code and drainage laws. He was held above the law in every illegal action he committed. When his redevelopment was denied from being recorded on the county plat map, they (gov. officials) determined his remedy was to eliminate me at any cost. My terrorists were and continue to be my government officials. I followed the standard procedures to remedy the situation early on. My attorney clearly got a better offer from the opposing party. He advised me that he had filed the complaint against the liable party, reassuring me in the few times he did respond to my emails. There was a civil court trial. Not filed my my attorney against the liable party. In the civil case my attorney suppressed all the evidence supporting my allegations, but I was still not told he had not filed the complaint against the liable party. My case was and still is indisputable. The civil court without the evidence still cited my right to use my private property as I wished. That order was never complied to or enforced. Private property rights are Federally protected rights. Not recognized in this case. The local public impostors clearly conspired to deprive me of my rights under color of law.
The FBI became involved, supposedly to investigate on my behalf. The agent took 14 months to come to my home specifically for the purpose of reviewing my hard copy evidence. He arrived advising that he had no intention of reviewing my evidence, he advised me to verbally tell him the story. Hearsay is not evidence. He did not recognize private property rights are Federally protected. Two hours after he left my home I received in my mailbox a letter from the FBI headquarters in Washington DC signed by a deputy assistant director JC Hacker. The letter stated that the agent who came to my home had determined no violation of Federal law has occurred. I proceeded to contact this agent and let him know that his fraudulent, incompetent investigative skills were obviously not acceptable. Common man can recognize this as a clue that shows the intent to continue to violate my private property rights and continue to torture me. It is not possible for mail to travel from DC to Iowa in a period of two hours. My government has tortured me using chemical warfare. There is no gray area in determining that this is a fact. The chemicals cause a severe skin condition, within three months I was completely unable to function. Wearing clothes was unbearable. I was a self employed upholsterer operating my business from this private property. It was not possible for me to work as the skin eruptions oozed puss and blood constantly, this was a full body condition. It was obvious from simply looking at me that I was suffering severely. These terrorists had no empathy for my suffering. Their only concern was for one of them to acquire my private property at any cost. They committed criminal offenses on this special ones behalf. I was criminally charged multiple times by the City and the States attorney based on fabricated laws. All charges were dismissed, that only made my attacker more aggressive.
My options boiled down to fleeing to escape the chemicals or invoking my second amendment rights. I fled. When I fled I was also blind and homeless for the following 4 years. I understand it is the responsibility of the FBI to investigate corrupt State and local officials. I understand it is the responsibility of the US Attorney to prosecute corrupt State and local public officials. This FBI agent did not look into financial records for a bribe that has been paid. He did not question any of my witnesses, he did not interview my Drs. He did nothing that would follow standard procedure required for a competent investigation.
I have never committed any criminal offenses. I purchased my property because it had exactly what I needed to provide my livelihood, a home to raise my son and it was in my budget to purchase. I traveled to Washington DC to change the laws allowing people with circumstances that will not allow for them to work outside the home. I had that situation. I was selected for the next habitat for humanity home and when I acquired financing of my property I withdrew my application, passing that home on to another needy family. I have always acted in the best interest of the community. I am the only person that I can find on record that has been a victim of chemical warfare committed by my government for the purpose of elimination. My condition is chronic. I have a life sentence of suffering from acts of torture by my government. I am pleading for all fellow American’s to unite as one voice forcing government accountability for the war crimes they have committed against this civilian. I need a leader in the process to proceed with my goal. There could not be a more relevant case concerning the rights of a completely innocent citizen of the USA. If you are bound to one of the Political parties it is irrelevant. This is a nonpartisan issue. These rights are inherent to all Americans. This is a moral issue of right and wrong as well as a serious criminal offense. https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/10o7BgegCaQc5BVIqEabn4KD_9fBbjaf2Xb6TP6F7iX4/edit?usp=sharing
A nonconforming use is generally defined as a land use or structure that was legal when established but does not conform to the standards of the current zoning ordinance. The term “nonconforming use” actually covers several situations, including nonconforming uses, lots and structures.
Preexisting land uses that do not conform to current zoning are not favored. The ultimate goal of zoning is to achieve uniformity of property uses within each zoning district. At the same time, landowners have made investments in their businesses and buildings, and it would be unfair — not to mention illegal in some states — to require immediate termination or removal. Rather than require the immediate elimination of these preexisting uses, the zoning ordinance will outline a set of conditions for the continued existence of nonconforming uses.
Although state courts apply different interpretations to local zoning codes regarding nonconforming uses, the expansion, enlargement or intensification of a nonconforming use in almost all cases can be regulated or prohibited.
Resumption of a nonconforming use or structure after it has been destroyed may be prohibited in some states. In other states the right to reestablish the nonconforming use exists. Zoning ordinances traditionally have set a specific threshold– for example, a percentage of assessed value — for defining what constitutes destruction, and courts generally defer to the stated threshold. Again, the principle is to allow landowners to continue to reap the benefits of investments made in their properties. If those investments have been destroyed, however, the community may or may not have an obligation to allow a landowner to reinvest in a use prohibited by current zoning.
To prevent nonconforming uses from becoming blighted properties, zoning codes generally do allow for routine maintenance and repair, so long as such activities do not constitute expansion or enlargement.
Once a nonconforming use has been abandoned, its resumption can be prohibited. Most ordinances state a time period, usually six months to a year, that creates a presumption of abandonment if the property is not used for that period. Some states do not allow just a passage of time to establish abandonment. The issue of what constitutes abandonment is one that is generally the subject of much state court case law, with some courts requiring that an “intent to abandon” be shown before the nonconforming use is considered to be terminated. The intent to abandon may be something like a list of criteria, in the zoning ordinance, from which “abandoned” is established from a preponderance of facts about the particular situation.
Gary D. Taylor, Iowa State University
AUSA Kevin VanderSchel has advised that my emails go to his spam. So if any of you have a connection with him please forward this to him, I am not done defending myself against his accusations. Tell him to offer up some evidence supporting his opinions.
The basis of my complaint has long been that nobody has reviewed my evidence. It is clear to me that the failure to competently review my evidence it for the purpose of continuing my suffering. The evidence is indisputable. Private property rights are Federally protected. Nobody has the right to violate Federally protected rights. For my government to use chemical weapons with intent to cause physical harm is terrorism. Whether there is a actual law against terrorism in the US or not, that is what this was. According the FBI Agent Reinwart there is a law against supporters of terrorists. If that is the case there are many government officials who have supported acts of terrorism in this case. The motive to eliminate me from my private property violates my 4th, 5th and 14 amendments guaranteed by Federal law.
Authors Note; There has been nobody that has reviewed my evidence! The statement that the former Davenport branch chief reviewed my materials is false. You assumption as to when I contacted the FBI is completely false. The fact is that, Grassley’s assistant advised me that the FBI would contact me. Senator Grassley requested 2 inquiries on my behalf advising me that the FBI would contact me never happened. I reached out to the FBI division that covers my area, not before Sheriff Weber contacted a friend (former branch chief) of his and put his own spin on the story. The former Davenport branch chief did NOT review my materials. Either he is lying or you are lying. Where is the evidence that he reviewed my evidence? Those conversations are recorded. I stand by my statement that the only conversation was him advising me that the Statute of limitations had expired conversation ended. He was not interested in anything I had to tell him about my situation. What was the former branch director Jeff Huber basing his information on. There is no evidence of Huber reviewing my materials as you claim because it never happened. FBI agent Thomas Reinwart came to my home specifically to review my hard copy evidence. Upon arrival he informed me that he had no intention of reviewing my hard copy evidence. He advised me to verbally tell him my story. I protested advising him it was not possible to tell this story because there are too many tentacles to tell this story. The only way a person could fully understand the magnitude of the egregious acts committed against me is to personally review the hard copy evidence that fills 3 + three ring binders. This is the standard procedure used in any type of investigation. I have understood hearsay is not evidence since I was in high school. Unless the laws regarding hearsay have changed that procedure stands.
Your repeated attempt to question my credibility is obvious. Having refused to review my evidence seems quite relevant in your continued defamation of my character. I take offense to your berating of my character based on the documented accounts of all government officials being found guilty of ethical violations.
You yourself have given me reason to question your ability to read and comprehend documents that I have submitted to you. For example our first correspondence you stated that my allegation occurred between 2002-2004. When that is clearly not the information the evidence you reviewed showed. I don’t believe you could have possibly read the evidence and come up with that conclusion. Perhaps you should not take hearsay from any of you colleagues as fact and only use hard copy evidence to make credible determination about any issues brought before you.
I am stating in no uncertain terms that, I was advised that Senator Grassley was forwarding all the evidence I was sending him to the FBI since 2007, he has been advising me that he was doing this. That’s what I was told and I have the email evidence to prove this is a fact.
I am aware that Sheriff Stacy Weber gave information to Jeff Huber and that information was then given to Agent Reinwart.
I know for a fact that Sheriff Weber has no hard copy information about my case. I know for a fact that any information Sheriff Weber thinks he has, is based on hearsay from the opposing party. Sheriff Weber has been involved in protecting the opposing party. This was taking place in 2017, I did not post all my evidence on my website simply for personal safety issues. I requested Reinwart share the information that he received from the third party by Sheriff Weber. Reinwart refused to share the information with me. If he had and he should have, if he were doing a competent investigation I would have had the opportunity to submit conflicting evidence with the hearsay evidence that was given to Agent Reinwart.
The last sentence in most of our correspondence offends me as a victim and a former taxpayer. You generally close with the statement that your office will not put anymore resources into my case. That may be acceptable, if you had put any effort into a competent investigation into my allegations, you have not. As an Assistant US Attorney your failure to recognize that private property rights are Federally protected gives me the opinion that you are not qualified in your duty to uphold the Constitution of the United States. These rights can be found in the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments of the Bill of Rights.
I was advised it is difficult to hold local government officials compliant to the law. That statement I will never understand. The justice system hold citizens accountable for their illegal acts, but they find it difficult to hold citizens with government titles accountable to the law?
I have recognized for several years that nobody is going to act on my behalf. Someone has the authority and the duty to investigate and prosecute corrupt public officials. Is it that you do not know the name of any Federal authority that is willing to become personally involved in a case of torture committed by government terrorists or is there none that exist?
I can make a statement to the public that I am going to take up arms against my attackers and there still will be no Federal authority who will come after me for threatening the lives of those who have tortured me. You know why? Because at some point someone would have to review my evidence. Someone would have to represent me. Somebody would have to hold accountable, not your run of the mill corrupt public officials, but public officials who without a single doubt participated in the torture of an American civilian in the State of Iowa.
No Federal agency or authority could give two shits about their oath to uphold the Constitution. The only option I have is to serve justice myself. I have been disrespected and treated less than human for to long now. My terrorist have no concern about ever being held accountable because no Federal agent will question the lies they have been told. To be an US citizen today and still have a belief that the cops are honorable, servants of justice you would have to be completely off grid with no access to the news at all. Anyone who would question my credibility over that of the local law enforcement officers simply has not reviewed the evidence. You cannot review the evidence and not recognize the false statements made by these local officials. They implicate themselves on public record, you cannot get more solid evidence than what I have.
I have hard copy evidence that my attackers have lied to the FBI. If the shoe were on the other foot I would be criminally charged with the crime of lying to the FBI. When an AUSA tells me that he has the authority to violate a civil court order, an order that if it had be complied to or enforced when it was issued my suffering would have ended right then and there, he is lying. That order was ignored and my suffering has only increased. In any other situation ignoring a court order is an act of contempt.
Why am I the only citizen who has ever been a victim of chemical warfare committed by my government for the purpose of eliminating me? There are laws in place to prevent this from happening, those laws have been enforced in every other case. Trespassing is a common criminal charge in Lee County, Iowa. Why was I denied the right to have a trespassing complaint filed against someone the evidence supports is a psychopath?
I guess I will never know. I know that one day I will wake up and the camels back will have broken. I know that I will lose my life defending my honor at this time. I accept that to be my destiny. I will die with dignity. My attackers will burn in hell.
There is someone whose title gives him or her the authority to intervene in cases of willful misconduct and intentional negligence of Federal and State authorities, be them elected or hired. Someone with a name and a phone number. Someone who I believe that, if they had any clue as to the facts of this case instead of the hearsay given to the FBI and AUSA would feel obligated to step up on my behalf. I simply do not have the name of the person who has that obligation. All I have is a blank wall to speak to an nobody has heard me.
I don’t know what else to say. Without the contact information I cannot do anything but invoke my 2nd amendment. I just hope after a tragedy happens you and the few others who have been kind enough to listen to me will insist on a thorough investigation as to why this had to happen. Because it has to happen or I am disrespecting myself. I cannot do that any longer. I wish they would come and get me for threatening someones life, then I would have the opportunity to submit my evidence. That’s why they won’t.
Nobody should be treated less than human. I have been and it has been devastating to be the victim of such evil human beings. My life is natters to those who love me. To be forced to defend myself is going to effect the lives of many people. It can only be saved if the Federal laws are enforced. There is no other way.
Torture is a serious criminal offense. My condition is chronic. There is not a day since spring of 2005 that I have not felt the physical and mental suffering of torture. Who prosecutes acts of torture? That is the person who hold lives in their hands. It cannot be any Federal official from Iowa. I asked for an independent investigation years ago. No response, is like putting a cigarette out on my cheek. Denying me the right to present my case to a grand jury is like putting a cigarette out on my cheek. I can tell you there is no person who has not tried as hard as I have to use the justice system to remedy a situation. It just isn’t going to happen for me.
You have the connections to the connection of the person who can take this case under such special circumstances, I am sure of that. You may not know who, but someone you know does, I bet on that. I am sorry you have not been able to assist me, I am thankful for your ear and respect you have shown me.
- The remedy to my situation is simply to have an unbiased investigation and a US attorney who has not worked with the County Sheriff for “years” to review my evidence.
- For an FBI agent not to recognize that private property rights are Federally protected is completely unacceptable.
- For the AUSA to advise me that no matter what my evidence proves he will use attorney discretion and not prosecute people who have use torture tactics to eliminate me from my private property is unacceptable.
- For the FBI agent to give me three different versions of how he submitted my complaint to the AUSA and me not to recognize red flags is an insult to my intelligence regarding his credibility.
- For the FBI agent to refuse to review my evidence and request me to verbally tell him my story brings his professional ability to be questioned.
Who in the FBI or any law enforcement agency would use hearsay over the documented evidence. A a competent investigation into my allegations of these two Federal officials actions of their willful misconduct and intentional negligence, collusion is what is needed for proper justice being served. The evidence is written and sent to me by them.
A legitimate and competent investigation is what the government needs to provide in the best interest of all citizens. Corruption is thicker than the thieves who stole my private property and health from me. This is in everyone’s best interest, these people are why the citizens have no respect for law enforcement. These people are the cause of mass shooting tragedies. The evidence will prove these two Federal authorities conspired to violate my Federally protected rights.
To find an honest unbiased investigator, is that even possible? I have advised that I would travel to have my evidence reviewed. But I am not going to pretend to be ignorant of what my Federal rights are. If an investigator does not know private property rights are Federally protected he shouldn’t be representing the Federal government. He damn sure shouldn’t be lying to my face as this one did. Had the article not been published in the newspaper recently associating the AUSA with working with the Sheriff for “years” I would have no proof of their relationship. Now I do. My State and Federal rights not being held above the protection of corrupt local government officials is unacceptable.
Where was homeland security when I needed protection from terrorists assaulting me with chemical weapons? Oh that’s right! They were the participating in the ongoing assault. There is no immunity from justice given to any of these domestic terrorists by me. https://poisonedbymyneighborfromhell.com
Saturday, June 30, 2012
Constitutional Rights, Bullying , Terrorist Acts, Discrimination
I am an innocent victim of your War on Drugs. Share this with your colleagues and your assistant in your local office who frankly couldn’t have care less that I was being poisoned by toxic chemical applied to my property for the sole purpose to cause me physical harm not excluding death if that were the consequences.
I will never forget her comment after I repeatedly called desperate for intervention, “something will come along”. Two years later and on my deathbed she, Penny, as I recall was her name, assured me “something will come along”.
I am victim of crimes against humanity in the State of Iowa, in the County of Lee. I am angry. I want you to demand some answers from these local Government authorities to the questions I have been oppressed from asking.
You have made it clear that you are Federal, well sir the State is under the Federal authorities. In fact I was advised by the State Attorney General that they could only get involved if a case was referred to them by the County Attorney. the following is just a minute accounting of the brutality I suffered. There are numerous participants that I have not mentioned. The constant use of massive amounts toxic chemicals as a weapon is nothing short of attempted murder.
I understand you may not like my tone in this letter, let me assure you it is not my character to assert a tone of anything but pleasant. You must understand that I believe I am the only person in this Nation that has endured this degree of brutality and disregard of the law by those who I pay to enforce the law.
I am sending the following brief to all media and and sources available. Not one single person beside myself and this neighbor mentioned in the following letter know the whole story and events that took place. But there are many witnesses and documents that together can not be disputed as to the credibility that what seems to unbelievable to be true these people treatment of me was pure evil. Sir, I am not a liar, I am not a cheat, and I am not a thieve. I will take a lie detector test any time. They have defamed my character to the highest degree, when asked about the situation they would avoid any discussion by saying “oh she’s crazy”.
To Whom it may Concern,
I have literally been oppressed from presenting the facts, getting any answers to my questions pertaining to the indisputable evidence proving criminal acts, ethical violations of several high ranking City and County officials. I deserve answers. I deserve an investigation.
I was victimized by these individuals for 5 years. I am innocent of any crime, There is no evidence that I was ever involved in any illegal drug activity. The evidence, proves the highest ranking County officer knowingly made false allegations over the police radio associating me a family member who has prior convictions. I can prove this officer was well aware that his statement was false by information on a copy of a search warrant that I am in possession of. I have had no personal association with this family member since 1992. This is a well known fact by many people.
I and other neighbors can testify that I was under surveillance (their term) by this County officer 24/7. The hours he spent watching me knowing that there was no just cause most likely cost the taxpayers a considerable amount of money. His behavior is defined as stalking. I found it kind of humorous early on simply because he and I both knew everything he was saying about me was completely false, he was taking the facts completely out of context as the documents prove. The last 12 months his behavior frightened me, he became more irate, and his lies more extreme in content. Then at age 42 he suddenly retired. I have heard that there were undisclosed ethical circumstances for his sudden early retirement. Many citizens find retiring suddenly at 42 unusual and believe the facts behind this should be disclosed but the County Attorney will do whatever it takes to protect his highest ranking officer, personal friend and closest working colleague for over 2 decades.
Why am I under surveillance by a County officer when I live in the City? I and other neighbors can testify that I was under surveillance (their term) by this County officer 24/7. The hours he spent watching me knowing that there was no just cause most likely cost the taxpayers a considerable amount of money. His behavior is defined as stalking. I found it kind of humorous early on simply because he and I both knew everything he was saying about me was completely false, he was taking the facts completely out of context as the documents prove. The last 12 months his behavior frightened me, he became more irate, and his lies more extreme in content. Then at age 42 he suddenly retired. I have heard that there were undisclosed ethical circumstances for his sudden early retirement. Many citizens find retiring suddenly at 42 unusual and believe the facts behind this should be disclosed but the County Attorney will do whatever it takes to protect his highest ranking officer, personal friend and closest working colleague for over 2 decades.
An investigation into the County Attorney’s history will show that he has repeatedly used his position to provide protection from prosecution for family members who have repeated meth, illegal drug and other criminal offenses. The general public is not aware this is repeated behavior by the CA ignoring the rule of conflict of interest because some of the individuals are blood and carry the same last name, other immediate family last names differ because they are step- relatives. The County Attorney stated in an email to me that he sent an officer to investigate. None of my witnesses were ever interviewed. The officer that he sent to my house stated that he was only at my house to question me about giving the neighbor the finger.
The motive according to the evidence I have of this high ranking officer who initiated verbal attack on me was to defame my character, other City and County law enforcement officers, along with City officials and the general public who did not know me personally to disregard general procedure and duty of appointed officials to address and answer a citizen complaint? My initial concern was a drainage issue that devalues my property value $8,000 and damaged my foundation when this guy redeveloped his property.
Did I mention there was a suspicious fire that destroyed the existing home? Did I mention the Chief of Police felt it was suspicious and felt and investigation was needed. Did I mention the Chief was told an investigation was not necessary, that they (the fire dept) had taken care of it. Did I mention out of umpteen firemen on the dept. only 4 were on the seen at this fire. There are always more than needed at any fire. Did I mention that the firemen that were present were the Mayor (seller of the property), the building inspector(who refused to speak to me about the drainage issue) and the new neighbor(purchaser of property, brother of the County cop with the apparent vendetta against me) and Jake, junior member of the dept. and son of the building inspector. It was a conversation of the facts of events several days after the fire that both Jake and I realized we without a doubt had witnessed an arson. Jake’s dad and the other 2 had always presented himself as such fine servants of the community.
Did I mention the neighbor is also on the City Council?They have committed what is probably the most severely punishable crime ever happen in this town of 900. Jake testimony which I will not disclose is by far the most compelling evidence of all. Every neighbor on the block approached stated they felt it was intentional. I did not question any of them as to the reason behind their thoughts.
According to witnesses (some being police officers that do know me personally) This County officer verbally assured City officials, City police officers, and one other County deputy for sure that I was going to get busted for drugs. What type of drugs I do not know. I assume pot. I stated that I knew for sure one other County deputy was convinced I was going down. This officer and I have a mutual friend. One afternoon after the friend left my house after a visit this deputy pulled him over and stated “that house you just left is going to get busted”. I thought the officer had mistaken my house for a house on the next block that did get busted. I knew for a fact that I wasn’t doing anything to get busted for.
I am not a writer, I have a GED. I quit high school in 11th grade because I was terrified that speech was a require class and I get so nervous that I literally can not stand up and talk to people I don’t know. My cheek starts twitching, that’s just me. Maybe because I was bullied by big brother, I don’t know.
I will take the short end of the stick every time to avoid and confrontation. I bought my property in 1995, raised a son to be a fine productive member of society with no financial or emotional support from his father whom I was married to for 13 years. Never questioned my ability to use my talent to pay my bills and support myself and acquire the American Dream.
I had much more success in doing so depending on myself than with a husband. I rebuilt the existing home on my property and rebuilt the garage into an upholstery shop. I had an outstanding reputation for the quality of my work and was never without a job on deck. I am self taught at many skilled crafts. I chose upholstery so I could work from home as my son a had rare serious health condition from the age of 6 through young adulthood.
I am writing this in part due to the media attention to bullying that has been so relevant lately. I am well educated as to the duties and responsibilities of Cities to the citizens and the procedures that citizens are to follow when an issues arises pertaining to new construction and property redevelopment. My Grandfather and father both were employed by a neighboring City. My father’s position was titled Street Commissioner, this was in the 60-80s. This was also the time when States, Counties and Cities adopted the uniform building codes.
These codes are now international and have been for quite some time. One of the main purposes for these codes is to minimize the number of lawsuits filed by neighbor against neighbor. The position of Street Commissioner has now been phased out and larger Cities use City Planners to oversee property issues. Smaller Cities as mine appoint a council member to be building administrator. The administrator has specific duties to ensure building codes are compiled to by the builder the first step is for the administrator to issue a permit. The builder signs the permit prior to any work to be done. The builder notifies the administrator when t the project is complete. The administrator goes to the property and physically measures, checks a list of things to ensure the builders has complied to all regulations. If the project is compliant the administrator signs the permit. If the project is not compliant the administrator does not approve (sign) the permit until the property is brought up to code. The administrator signs the permit and then issues a certificate of occupancy. Residents are then free to move in an live happily ever after…..
- Did I mention that the permit for the neighbors property was signed by the administrator but not the builder?
- Did I mention that the neighbor admitted to applying chemicals to my property without my knowledge?
- Did I mention the City applied chemicals to my property without my knowledge or without a licensed applicator to do so? Or without following the EPA rules for posting and every other rule regulated by the EPA?
- Did I mention that I developed a severe skin condition from the chemicals?
- Did I mention that when I requested both parties not to apply anything to my property they became more aggressive?
- Did I mention that my entire body was raw, I could not bare to wear clothes for the entire 2 years this continued on a weekly basis?
- Did I mention that I was so sick that the pastor of the church went to City hall to make a payment on my water bill and the clerk told her that the payment had to come out of my pocket?
A civil court judge told him that I had the right to enjoy my property. He physically enter my property accompanied by a cop and moved some landscape timbers I had place in a desperate attempt to kept the chemicals off me. The County Attorney told me he frankly didn’t care.
I am now physically disabled. I live in a 12′ camper that I borrowed from a friend behind my sons house. My credit score when this began was 760. Now I can’t even open a checking account to deposit my $660 p/m SSI disability check. I have a 3 year backlog of work from when I first got sick.
Oh yeah this neighbor sued me in civil court for loss of enjoyment of his property. Then he offered me 2 ridiculous out of court settlements. To sum it up. I am a victim of bullying. I have been tortured and the condition is chronic.
I need some answers to why this happened. I have information that the public has the right to know about the Lee County Task Force, County Attorney, Retired Officer, Psychopath Council member and criminal city officials. Are you or your colleagues scared to ask questions or are you reporters of the news?
9-1-2005 Boatner was not shown this letter. The majority of the content is false. The State drainage laws require that no property redevelopment can increase storm water runoff to a neighboring property than prior to the redevelopment. The drainage should have been established according to State law by the City building administrator before redevelopment began. This property was already described as legally non conforming when Conlee purchased it.. No new structures larger that the existing structures footprint. The mayor acknowledges his know this law on public record. Narcissistic personality disorder all over this letter..
I was recently advised of this by an attorney, in fact over these past few years several attorney’s have had similar advice for me.
I have gone to extreme lengths to get the proper authority to review the evidence in my case and to proceed to have justice served.
My case is non typical of any other case in this Nation. The criminal acts committed against me have been intentional. They have been as brutal as a civilian in this Country have ever experienced. The pain and suffering continues to exist from the time my eyes open till the time they go to sleep.
The fact that no Federal authority chooses to prosecute my attackers should not have ever been considered in this case. There are Federal laws on the books that are in place to protect citizens from exactly what has happened to me. These laws are not optional for prosecution. Those who have the duty to investigate and prosecute and have not preformed their duties and just as guilty as the ones who physically attacked my person and property, in my opinion they are more liable. They have provided me with no means of having justice be served. The violations of my State and Federal Rights are not to be violated anymore than those who have attacked me. For any person to be held above the law in serious criminal offenses against another citizen is difficult to understand. I know this neighbor is suffering from psychopathic personality disorder. I know that the other officials were in it for personal financial gain. I know the facts because I was a witness, and I have the documentation supporting my allegations.
To the extent in which I have been violated lets get right to the bare bones. Corrupt local government is a common reality in the entire USA. Generally it does not take the form of intentionally causing physical harm and suffering to an innocent civilian. When Senator Chuck Grassley advised me that he requested an inquiry into my allegations I felt a sense of relief. The Senator has great influence over the Federal Government. He advised me that the FBI would be contacting me. I waited for five years and nobody from the FBI contacted me. I contacted the Senator again, he advised me that he would request a second inquiry on my behalf. He advised me to be patient, it takes time. Another five years pass and nobody from the FBI contacted me.
Have you ever tried to contact the FBI, well don’t waste your time because you are only going to be disrespected and hung up on. You can never get the name of the person you are speaking with and quite frankly the statistics show that they as a whole are incompetent. In my case the same is true. I reached out to an agent through the County Sheriff, I knew he had a conflict of interest, that’s how desperate I was.
During these ten years of waiting for a response from the Senator’s inquiry I continued more advanced degree of suffering. My entire body was reacting to the chemical exposure. I had no choice but to stay at my private property with would have resulted in my death I am sure, or flee to escape the chemicals. I chose the latter believing that at some time I would be compensated for the damages I suffered from the intentional actions of my corrupt local government officials. They terrorized me, I was afraid to go to sleep at night because I knew they were not beyond setting my house on fire with me in it. I know that for a fact. You don’t know that because you have never had the opportunity to read my story.
The Senator still has an obligation to assure my evidence has been properly reviewed, however he has now suggested he can do nothing on my behalf. So to sum up what he did, he requested two inquiries on my behalf. He apparently was never given a follow up report from the FBI disclosing what they discovered in my case. I can tell you what they discovered. They discovered nothing, they have never reviewed the evidence. The agent who I finally got connected with came to my home for the purpose of reviewing my evidence. He arrive announcing that he had no intention of reviewing anything. He later disclosed to me that the County Sheriff had given information (hearsay) to a third party and that is how he determined no Federal law has been violated. I can tell you and most of you know that when it come to telling the truth about any subject a law enforcement officer is the last source you can trust to be honest. I was not privy to the information given to this agent, for the purpose I am sure that I would not have the opportunity to present evidence that he was making false statements. This agent was supposed to be investigating on my behalf. He instead cover up the violations of Federal law committed by corrupt local officials.
Now what options do I have to seek justice in a case that destroyed my life? You know and I know the only resolution I have available for justice to be served. The media has much responsibility for the mass shootings we hear of in today’s world. I can testify that these random shooters are not mentally ill. They have been violated to the degree that they will not allow to be disrespected for one more minute. That is what the media should be reporting before it comes to this extreme.
I have pleaded with the media to publish my story. The local editor has been sent the evidence as it took place by me. He stated that my case looks cut and dry. He is right there is no reasonable justification for the criminal offenses that have been committed against me. But he will not publish my story because he has a good relationship with the County Sheriff and does not want to put that in jeopardy. Should I happen to decide I will not go one more minute being disregarded and disrespected to be a human being I am certain that this local editor will withhold the evidence that has been submitted to him by me.
Protecting corrupt government officials is not in the best interest of them. It takes a tragedy and still they are protected from being exposed as the animals they have become.
The buck stops here. https://poisonedbymyneighborfromhell.com terrorist governments using chemical weapons against civilians happening in the USA today. But don’t tell the general public. Let them put themselves in a life threatening situation, that is in the best interest of all involved, right?
Give me my day in court or an AR-15.
The fact that FBI Agent Reinwart, refused to review my evidence that supports without a doubt my allegations leaves his decision irrelevant. It does not take a graduate of the academy to know that an investigation requires reviewing evidence from both sides of a case. In an email he sent me he admits that he made his decision based on what I verbally told him and what the County Sheriff told a third party. I even submitted evidence that the Sheriff had a conflict of interest with the opposing party. He made his decision based on false statements given by the sheriff. I asked Reinwart to share with me the information the Sheriff had made in his statements. Reinwart refused. Reinwart was supposed to be investigation this case on my behalf. He could not share the false information given by the Sheriff because I have hard copy evidence that would prove the Sheriff was lying. The sheriff knows no facts about this case. Any information he has is based on lies made by the Conlee’s. I can prove multiple counts of perjury made by Conlee in the civil case. AUSA Kevin VanderSchel was lying when he advised me that he had the authority to violate a civil court order. When we have Federal authorities who have no regard to the oath they took to uphold the Constitution its time for the citizens to unite and remove them from their positions. Dirty Rotten Bastards. I have a purpose to speak to the Inspector General. To expose one corrupt government official is small potatoes. I have an entire group of self serving government impostors that need removed from their positions. Hearsay is not evidence. Dirty Rotten Bastards. Private property is never to be taken without just compensation. Reinwart did not possess the knowledge of any Federal law, who is responsible for putting this incompetent individual in his position? He has shown me that he is not qualified to investigate any case regarding Federal law!
18 U.S. Code § 229.Prohibited activities
(a)Unlawful Conduct.—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).
(b)Exempted Agencies and .—
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.
(2)Exempted persons.—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
(1)takes place in the United States;
(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.
18 U.S. Code § 229A. Penalties
The Attorney General may bring a civil action in the appropriate United States district court against any person who violates section 229 of this title and, upon proof of such violation by a preponderance of the evidence, such person shall be subject to pay a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed $100,000 for each such violation.
(2)Relation to other proceedings.—
The imposition of a civil penalty under this subsection does not preclude any other criminal or civil statutory, common law, or administrative remedy, which is available by law to the United States or any other person.
(c)Reimbursement of Costs.—
The court shall order any person convicted of an offense under subsection (a) to reimburse the United States for any expenses incurred by the United States incident to the seizure, storage, handling, transportation, and destruction or other disposition of any property that was seized in connection with an investigation of the commission of the offense by that person. A person ordered to reimburse the United States for expenses under this subsection shall be jointly and severally liable for such expenses with each other person, if any, who is ordered under this subsection to reimburse the United States for the same expenses.
18 U.S. Code § 229B. Criminal forfeitures; destruction of weapons
(3)any of the property used in any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission of, such violation.
The court, in imposing sentence on such person, shall order, in addition to any other sentence imposed pursuant to section 229A (a), that the person forfeit to the United States all property described in this subsection. In lieu of a fine otherwise authorized by section 229A (a), a defendant who derived profits or other proceeds from an offense may be fined not more than twice the gross profits or other proceeds.
(1)General.—Property subject to forfeiture under this section, any seizure and disposition thereof, and any administrative or judicial proceeding in relation thereto, shall be governed by subsections (b) through (p) of section 413 of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 853), except that any reference under those subsections to—
(A)“this subchapter or subchapter II” shall be deemed to be a reference to section 229A (a); and
(2)Temporary restraining orders.—
For the purposes of forfeiture proceedings under this section, a temporary restraining order may be entered upon application of the United States without notice or opportunity for a hearing when an information or indictment has not yet been filed with respect to the property, if, in addition to the circumstances described in section 413(e)(2) of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 853(e)(2)), the United States demonstrates that there is probable cause to believe that the property with respect to which the order is sought would, in the event of conviction, be subject to forfeiture under this section and exigent circumstances exist that place the life or health of any person in danger.
(B)Warrant of seizure.—
If the court enters a temporary restraining order under this paragraph, it shall also issue a warrant authorizing the seizure of such property.
The procedures and time limits applicable to temporary restraining orders under section 413(e)(2) and (3) of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 853(e)(2) and (3)) shall apply to temporary restraining orders under this paragraph.
(c)Affirmative Defense.—It is an affirmative defense against a forfeiture under subsection (b) that the property—
(1)is for a purpose not prohibited under the Chemical Weapons Convention; and
(2)is of a type and quantity that under the circumstances is consistent with that purpose.
(d)Destruction or Other Disposition.—
The owner or possessor of any property seized under this section shall be liable to the United States for any expenses incurred incident to the seizure, including any expenses relating to the handling, storage, transportation, and destruction or other disposition of the seized property.
18 U.S. Code § 229C. Individual self-defense devices
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prohibit any individual self-defense device, including those using a pepper spray or chemical mace.
18 U.S. Code § 229D. Injunctions
The United States may obtain in a civil action an injunction against—
18 U.S. Code § 229E. Requests for military assistance to enforce prohibition in certain emergencies
The Attorney General may request the Secretary of Defense to provide assistance under section 382 of title 10 in support of Department of Justice activities relating to the enforcement of section 229 of this title in an emergency situation involving a chemical weapon. The authority to make such a request may be exercised by another official of the Department of Justice in accordance with section 382(f)(2) of title 10.
18 U.S. Code § 229F. Definitions
In this chapter:
(1)Chemical weapon.—The term “chemical weapon” means the following, together or separately:
(B)A munition or device, specifically designed to cause death or other harm through toxic properties of those toxic chemicals specified in subparagraph (A), which would be released as a result of the employment of such munition or device.
(C)Any equipment specifically designed for use directly in connection with the employment of munitions or devices specified in subparagraph (B).
(2)Chemical weapons ; convention.—
The terms “Chemical Weapons Convention” and “Convention” mean the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction, opened for signature on January 13, 1993.
(3)Key component of a binary or multicomponent chemical system.—
The term “key component of a binary or multicomponent chemical system” means the precursor which plays the most important role in determining the toxic properties of the final product and reacts rapidly with other chemicals in the binary or multicomponent system.
(4)National of the united states.—
The term “person”, except as otherwise provided, means any individual, corporation, partnership, firm, association, trust, estate, public or private institution, any State or any political subdivision thereof, or any political entity within a State, any foreign government or nation or any agency, instrumentality or political subdivision of any such government or nation, or other entity located in the United States.
The term “precursor” means any chemical reactant which takes part at any stage in the production by whatever method of a toxic chemical. The term includes any key component of a binary or multicomponent chemical system.
(B)List of precursors.—
Precursors which have been identified for the application of verification measures under Article VI of the Convention are listed in schedules contained in the Annex on Chemicals of the Chemical Weapons Convention.
(7)Purposes not prohibited by this chapter.—The term “purposes not prohibited by this chapter” means the following:
Any peaceful purpose related to an industrial, agricultural, research, medical, or pharmaceutical activity or other activity.
(C)Unrelated military purposes.—
Any military purpose of the United States that is not connected with the use of a chemical weapon or that is not dependent on the use of the toxic or poisonous properties of the chemical weapon to cause death or other harm.
(D)Law enforcement purposes.—
Any law enforcement purpose, including any domestic riot control purpose and including imposition of capital punishment.
The term “toxic chemical” means any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals. The term includes all such chemicals, regardless of their origin or of their method of production, and regardless of whether they are produced in facilities, in munitions or elsewhere.
(B)List of toxic chemicals.—
Toxic chemicals which have been identified for the application of verification measures under Article VI of the Convention are listed in schedules contained in the Annex on Chemicals of the Chemical Weapons Convention.
(9)United states.—The term “United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States and includes all places under the jurisdiction or control of the United States, including—
TOTAL DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS Section II
The phrase, “no one can “be compelled to be a witness against himself,” is in agreement with the Supreme Court ruling in Haynes v. U.S., 390 U.S. 85, 88 S.Ct. 722, wherein the ruling was that to force anyone to register anything is communicative, and such communicative evidence is precluded by the 5th Amendment.
So with that in mind, all fiat governmental administrators, police and all associated by interlocking directorates have been given knowledge! You “know, or should have known.”
Under USC Title 42 §1986: Action for neglect to prevent…, it states: Every person who, having knowledge that any wrongs conspired or to be done… and having power to prevent or aid in preventing… Neglects or refuses so to do â€¦ shall be liable to the party injured… and;
The means of “knowledge”, especially where it consists of public record, is deemed in law to be “knowledge of the facts” that makes the offending, trespassing, pirating “Officer” and all supporting interlocking directorates subsequently liable for all damage and injury. THE WORLD has now been given “knowledge of the facts” as it pertains to this conspiracy to commit a fraud against me.
AT LEAST THIRTEEN (13) TIMES I noticed all Capturing and Offending Parties that I reserved ALL my Rights at all times. I did not, do not, and never have voluntarily agreed to play any game of â€˜letâ€™s pretendâ€™ with any Legal Fictional Entity or other governmental agency. I stopped trusting big boys with real guns in 1968 with my Honorable Discharge for US Army. I reiterate, I reserved all my Rights at all times, compromising none, even though that increased my degree of torture within their confines.
“[W]aivers of fundamental Rights must be knowing, intentional, and voluntary acts, done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences. U.S. v. Brady, 397 U.S. 742 at 748 (1970); U.S.v. O’Dell, 160 F.2d 304 (6th Cir. 1947)” .
Fraud, deceit, coercion, willful intent to injure another, malicious acts, RICO activity and conspiracy were instrumented against Claimant by said Capturing and Offending Pirates Unconscionable “contract “One which no sensible man not under delusion, or duress, or in distress would make, and such as no honest and fair man would accept. ; Franklin Fire Ins. Co. v. Noll, 115 Ind. App. 289, 58 N.E.2d 947, 949, 950. And;
Under USC Title 42 §1982, §1983 and/or §1441. Property rights of citizens â€¦, further evidences the above position that the City or State cannot take property because they DO NOT have Jurisdiction. It states that federal or state governmental agencies MUST have a monetary or proprietary interest in my private property in order to have jurisdiction over it (my property has no government grant/funding and is not a subsidized government project).
The State cannot diminish the rights of the people. Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516.
“To say that one may not defend his own property is usurpation of power by the legislature.” O’Connell v. Judnich (1925), 71 C.A.386, 235 P. 664.
“The phrase ‘common law’ found in this clause, is used in contradistinction to equity, and admiralty, and maritime jurisprudence.” Parsons v. Bedford, et al, 3 Pet 433, 478-9 “If the common law can try the cause, and give full redress, that alone takes away the admiralty jurisdiction.” Ramsey v. Allegrie, supra, p. 411.Inferior Courts – The term may denote any court subordinate to the chief tribunal in the particular judicial system; but it is commonly used as the designation of a court of special, limited, or statutory jurisdiction, whose record must show the existence and attaching of jurisdiction in any given case, in order to give presumptive validity to its judgment. In re Heardâ€™s Guardianship, 174 Miss. 37, 163, So. 685
The high Courts have further decreed that Want of Jurisdiction makes â€œ…all acts of judges, magistrates, U.S. Marshals, sheriffs, local police, all void and not just voidable.â€ Nestor v. Hershey, 425 F2d 504.
Void Judgment -One which has no legal force or effect, invalidity of which may be asserted by any person whose rights are affected at any time and at any place directly or collaterally. Reynolds v. Volunteer State Life Ins. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 80 S.W.2d 1087, 1092.
“Whenever a law deprives the owner of the beneficial use and enjoyment of his property, or imposes restraints upon such use and enjoyment that materially affect its value, without legal process or compensation, it deprives him of his property within the meaning of the constitution. … It is not necessary, in order to render the statute obnoxious to the restraints of the constitution, that it must in terms or effect authorize the actual physical taking of the property or the thing itself, so long as it affects its free use and enjoyment, or the power of disposition at the will of the owner.” Forster v. Scott,136 N. Y. 577, [18 L. R. A. 543, 32 N. E. 976]; Monongahela Nav. Co. v. United States, 148 U. S. 312, 336, [37 L. Ed. 463, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 622].
Mr. Lewis in his work on Eminent Domain, third edition, section 11, says: ‘A law which authorizes the taking of private property without compensation, … cannot be considered as due process of law in a free government.’ (Chicago etc, R. R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U. S. 226, [41 L. Ed. 979, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 581].” Associated etc., Co. v. Railroad Commission (1917) 176 Cal. 518, 528-530.
An unconstitutional law is not a law, it confers no rights, imposes no duties, and affords no protection. Norton vs. Shelby County, 118 US 425.
Primacy of position in our state constitution is accorded the Declaration of Rights; thus emphasizing the importance of those basic and inalienable rights of personal liberty and private property which are thereby reserved and guaranteed to the people and protected from arbitrary invasion or impairment from any governmental quarter. The Declaration of Rights constitutes a limitation upon the powers of every department of the state government. State ex rel. Davis v. Stuart. 64 A.L.R. 1307, 97 Fla. 69, 120 So. 335.
“The rights of the individual are not derived from governmental agencies, municipal, state, or federal, or even from the Constitution. They exist inherently in every man, by endowment of the Creator, and are merely reaffirmed in the Constitution, and restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies of government. The people’s rights are not derived from the government, but the government’s authority comes from the people. The Constitution but states again these rights already existing, and when legislative encroachment by the nation, state, or municipality invade these original and permanent rights, it is the duty of the courts to so declare, and to afford the necessary relief. City of Dallas, et al. v. Mitchell, 245 S. W. 944, 945-46 (1922).
A constitution is designated as a supreme enactment, a fundamental act of legislation by the people of the state. A constitution is legislation direct from the people acting in their sovereign capacity, while a statute is legislation from their representatives, subject to limitations prescribed by the superior authority. Ellingham v. Dye, 178 Ind. 336; NE 1; 231 U.S. 250; 58 L. Ed. 206; 34 S. Ct. 92; Sage v. New York, 154 NY 61; 47 NE 1096.
“Owner has constitutional right to use and enjoyment of his property.” Simpson v. Los Angeles (1935), 4 C.2d 60, 47 P.2d 474
“We find it intolerable that one constitutional right should have to be surrendered in order to assert another”. SIMMONS v US,
“When rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.
“The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.” Miller v. U.S. 230 F 2d 486, 489. History is clear that the first ten amendments to the Constitution were adopted to secure certain common law rights of the people, against invasion by the Federal Government.” Bell v. Hood, 71 F.Supp., 813, 816 (1947) U.S.D.C. — So. Dist. CA.
Economic necessity cannot justify a disregard of cardinal constitutional guarantee. Riley v. Certer, 165 Okal. 262; 25 P.2d 666; 79 ALR 1018. When any court violates the clean and unambiguous language of the Constitution, a fraud is perpetrated and no one is bound to obey it. (See 16 Ma. Jur. 2d 177, 178) State v. Sutton, 63 Minn. 147, 65 NW 262, 30 L.R.A. 630 Am. 459.
“The ‘liberty’ guaranteed by the constitution must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiar and known to the framers of the constitution. This liberty denotes the right of the individual to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to locomotion, and generally enjoy those rights long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” Myer v. Nebraska, 262 U .S. 390, 399; United States v. Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 654.
“An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” Norton vs. Shelby County, 118 US 425 p. 442
“The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.
“No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.” 16 Am Jur 2nd, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256
All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void. Chief Justice Marshall, Marbury vs Madison, 5, U.S. (Cranch) 137, 174, 176 (1803).
“Right of protecting property, declared inalienable by constitution, is not mere right to protect it by individual force, but right to protect it by law of land, and force of body politic.” Billings v. Hall (1857), 7 C. 1.
People are supreme, not the state. Waring vs. the Mayor of Savannah, 60 Georgia at 93
“The Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity is one of the Common-Law immunities and defenses that are available to the Sovereign…” Citizen of Minnesota. Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, (1988) 491 U.S. 58, 105 L.Ed. 2d. 45, 109 S.Ct. 2304.
“The people of the state, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the king by his own prerogative.” Lansing v. Smith, (1829) 4 Wendell 9, (NY).
“In Land v. Dollar, 338 US 731 (1947), the court noted, that when the government entered into a commercial field of activity, it left immunity behind.â€ Brady v. Roosevelt, 317 US 575 (1943); FHA v. Burr, 309 US 242 (1940); Kiefer v. RFC, 306 US 381 (1939
“Ignorance of the law does not excuse misconduct in anyone, least of all in a sworn officer of the law.” In re McCowan (1917), 177 C. 93, 170 P. 1100.
“All are presumed to know the law.” San Francisco Gas Co. v. Brickwedel (1882), 62 C. 641; Dore v. Southern Pacific Co. (1912), 163 C. 182, 124 P. 817; People v. Flanagan (1924), 65 C.A. 268, 223 P. 1014; Lincoln v. Superior Court (1928), 95 C.A. 35, 271 P. 1107; San Francisco Realty Co. v. Linnard (1929), 98 C.A. 33, 276 P. 368.
“It is one of the fundamental maxims of the common law that ignorance of the law excuses no one.” Daniels v. Dean (1905), 2 C.A. 421, 84 P. 332.
NOTICE OF CLAIMANTS INTENT
I’VE THROWN MORE LAW INTO THIS DOCUMENT than the offending Libellee(s) have probably read in their lifetime. Forcing a Living Man to “pretend” he’s a corporation, a trust, a legal entity, or some other “device” is contrary to common sense and True Law. A benefit, no matter how benevolent, cannot be forced upon any Living Man against his will. I exercise my will to inform the entire world that I am not a partaker in the/this/any Babylonian Empirical enterprise that â€˜buys and sells men’s souls’ as a common commodity. My plain statement of intent revolves around the fact that one man’s protest won’t help my fellow man, unless I demand “Enforceability.” [Pr 29:19 “A servant will not be corrected by words: for though he understands he will not answer.”] And, [Jeremiah 13:22-26. I will discover thy skirts upon thy face, that thy shame may appear] I am openly showing you and the entire world the filth of the “Whore of Babylon” I am lifting her skirt above her head that all can see the filth of the murders, slavery, torture, extortion and, yes, even PIRATING done by her. There are no â€˜innocent by-standersâ€™ in this theatre of Legal Fictional Entities (actors). You are either part of the solution or you are part of the problem. I am exercising one of my greatest Rights, the Right of being left alone, the Right of Privacy, the Right of Peace, which all Libellee(s) have greatly disturbed.
The ninth (9th) Maxim of Commercial Law states that credibility is measured by the degree of risk one takes. You won’ find much greater risk than I have taken to bring Truth and clarity to this very ugly scenario.
WHAT IS THE TRUE PURPOSE FOR POLICE ACTION/REVENUE GENERATORS?
My limited education has informed me that anyone having my signature can use it as they see fit. So, they create new money by sending a “bill,” an instrument which has no charge to it. The bill is like an invoice, which if not rebutted will run like any invoice … 30, 60, 90 days, then it becomes a security which can be levied against. The new money created is MY money which I can prove by either 1099OID or 1099A.
All vendors, retailers, etc., have the liability (ability to lie) to collect the interest on the national debt, which in essence is what they are doing … but they are not sending that along to the US Treasury and are in reality “pirates” operating on letters of marque and reprisal against the “enemies” of the US, you, me, and the 14th Amendment citizen under TWEA (trading with the enemy act) … BUT THEY ARE NOT PAYING THE TAX MEANING THAT THE MONEY CREATED IS “UNREPORTED INCOME” …hence the OID or A and resulting 1040 claim on interest back to principal â€“ ME.
When you do a full AFV (Acceptance For Value by a Private Bank/Banker) and state on the AFV “bill” to Deposit to the US Treasury and Charge the same to your corporate, Legal Fictional Entity (strawman), or to the vendor itself, it is a chargeback to the collector of the national debt, the US Treasury (you could do a chargeback to any other source … like to the Republic … if you so choose). The newly created money then is taken from the pirate for failure to ‘state a claim upon which relief can be granted (Rule 12 b 6)’ and either charged back for the use of the Republic or charged back where ever you send it. [Read: EXHIBIT THERE IS NO MONEY] The client (vendor/presenter/seller/clerks/police â€œticketâ€ ) account(s) is/are not entitled to the funds because of failure to pay the tax. The new bill is always ‘new’ money (which increases the National Debt with every issue) as they got paid when we put our signature on the original application for “credit”. The presenter (police/ticket) is always trying to avoid liability on the return of the tax to US Treasury by doing a ‘pass over’ from the application/ Bill directly to the bond of the strawman and getting you/me to become liable (30,60,90 days) … so now the presenter is trying to pirate from the US Treasury and make you liable for the payment of the tax bill — which we do when we take the Bill and AFV and deposit to the US Treasury and charge it back to either the presenter or our strawman (they are actually the same entity … all corporations o the US).
The Treasury can’t ‘cut them a check’, but actually ‘charge’ them for the money on the presentment which is essence should have been forwarded to Treasury on the national debt!!! THEY ARE IN DISHONOR AND WILL BE LIQUIDATED UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHAPTER 11 BANKRUPTCY OF THE US! Vendors or presenters already have the benefit privilege of discharge when issued a TIN, and trying an end run with a ‘bill’ is thievery under public policy. They are not entitled to “new” money as this is a felony called unjust enrichment. One easy way to prove the felony is the 1099A, and under 18 USC 4 — misprision of felony, the IRS has to prosecute. The presenter has no rights in the matter for failure to state a claim and pay the tax … it is all NEW MONEY!!! And, every action performed raises the National Debt by that much. These are Dark Matters.
I have continuously asked for confirmation if private property rights are Federally protected Rights. I have gotten no confirmation. I can only assume that they are but nobody wants to admit it.
My neighbor invaded my private property for over five years by applying chemicals on my side only, of our 300′ common boundary. I verbally advised him not to apply anything to my private property on the day I noticed he had done this. That same day I also advised the Chief of Police that I had given my neighbor a verbal notice not to apply anything to my private property and requested an incident report.
The chemicals continued to be applied on my private property by my neighbor without hesitation. I repeatedly requested the incident from the Chief of Police. I received a report 16 months after my first request. That report did not represent what I had advised the neighbor. I refused to take it and advised the Police Chief that it was unsatisfactory. Two weeks later I did receive one that was not as I would have like but it did state some of the facts on it.
The neighbor continued his assault against my person and my private property. I requested the Police chief file a trespassing complaint against him on my behalf. I was advised by the Police chief that he would not file a complaint against my neighbor because he did not want to make him mad.
I confronted the Mayor about the issue. The Mayor advised me that he did not think neighbors filing complaints against neighbors was in anyone’s best interest and refused to manage the Police Chief in following procedure to remedy the situation. The Mayor also had an existing conflict of interest as he was the seller of the property to my neighbor only two years prior. Public record shows the Mayor stated that legally nonconforming property can not have larger structures built on the lots than the existing structures. The Mayor states on public record that the signature of the builder on a building permit alleviates the city from liability. The building permit is not signed by the builder. A double standard was used when I was the victim of my neighbor’s assault.
The building permits issued by the City building administrator are fraudulent. They are not completed as required by the State of Iowa building regulations and the drainage of my neighbors redevelopment of the legally nonconforming lot does not comply with State drainage law. When I requested the city building administrator to address my concerns as standard procedure requires he refused. He did continue to issue fraudulent building permits to this neighbor for his legally nonconforming lot.
Conflicting with the reason the Mayor would not have the police chief to follow the law in issuing a trespassing complaint against my neighbor I was criminally charged multiple times by the city for fabricated laws based on fraudulent ordinances.
A double standard was also supported by the County Attorney when I advised him that my neighbor was applying chemicals to my private property. The County attorney took the same stance as the Mayor. He advised me that he did not allow neighbors to file complaints against neighbors. I was criminally charged by the State for violations of fabricated law. I reported to the County Attorney that the City Clerk had fabricated ordinances anonymously over the telephone. He advised that he had a problem with a clerk that would fabricate ordinances. Only when I arrived at his office, and he realized who the parties were did he no longer have a problem with the city clerk committing fraud.
This type of behavior continued with every authority that I contacted. Including an attorney I hired to file a complaint against the city which he never informed me that he neglected to file. I discovered this when I was served court papers by my neighbor. There was a civil court order citing my right to use my private property as I wished. That civil court order was never complied with by my neighbor or enforced by law enforcement.
The chemicals caused me to suffer severe chronic skin condition that I continue to be treated for by the University of Iowa Dermatology clinic..
For five years I paid the taxes on my private property. The deed was in my name. I had no control what took place on my private property. I was denied protection from harm by law enforcement. I was force to flee from my private property to escape the chemical poisoning. The chemicals caused me to suffer severe chronic skin condition that I continue to be treated for by the University of Iowa Dermatology clinic.. Those who participated in violating my private property rights include but are not limited to the County Sheriff, FBI agent Thomas Rienwart and AUSA Kevin VanderSchel.
Trespassing is a criminal offense. The crime of trespass is commonly found to be charged against individuals in Lee County, Iowa. I was denied that right to protection.
Fraud is a criminal offense. There are numerous individuals who have been charged with fraud in Lee County, Iowa. I was denied that right to protection.
Violations of Federal laws to be prosecuted by the Federal Civil Rights Division
“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  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  of interests; and independently of statute it is strictly a judicial question, and all the circumstances of the case must be taken into consideration. I was denied that right to protection
18 U.S.C. § 229 – U.S. Code – Unannotated Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 229. Prohibited activities
Unlawful conduct. (a) –Except as provided in subsection (b), it shall be unlawful for any person knowingly–
(1) to develop, produce, otherwise acquire, transfer directly or indirectly, receive, stockpile, retain, own, possess, or use, or threaten to use, any chemical weapon; or (2) to assist or induce, in any way, any person to violate paragraph (1), or to attempt or conspire to violate paragraph (1).
Exempted agencies and persons. (b) —
In general. (1) –Subsection (a) does not apply to the retention, ownership, possession, transfer, or receipt of a chemical weapon by a department, agency, or other entity of the United States, or by a person described in paragraph (2), pending destruction of the weapon.
Exempted persons. (2) –A person referred to in paragraph (1) is–
(A) any person, including a member of the Armed Forces of the United States, who is authorized by law or by an appropriate officer of the United States to retain, own, possess, transfer, or receive the chemical weapon; or
(B) in an emergency situation, any otherwise non culpable person if the person is attempting to destroy or seize the weapon.
Jurisdiction. (c) –Conduct prohibited by subsection (a) is within the jurisdiction of the United States if the prohibited conduct–
(1) takes place in the United States;
(2) takes place outside of the United States and is committed by a national of the United States;
(3) is committed against a national of the United States while the national is outside the United States; or
(4) is committed against any property that is owned, leased, or used by the United States or by any department or agency of the United States, whether the property is within or outside the United States.
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:
- 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,
- a munition or device designed to cause death or harm through toxic chemicals that would be released by the device, or
- equipment designed for use directly in connection with using such a munition or device.
A toxic chemical is a chemical that can cause death, temporary incapacitation, or permanent harm to people or animals.
The law specifies that it does not apply to self-defense devices such as pepper spray or chemical mace. It also does not prevent uses related to (1) industrial, agricultural, research, medical, or pharmaceutical activity; (2) protection against chemical weapons; (3) unrelated military purposes; and (4) law enforcement purposes such as riot control and imposing the death penalty. I was denied that right to protection
Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 – Conspiracy Against Rights This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).
It further makes it unlawful for two or more persons to go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another with the intent to prevent or hinder his/her free exercise or enjoyment of any rights so secured.
Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to ten years, or both; and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years, or for life, or may be sentenced to death. I was denied that right to protection
Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 – Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.
This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.
Acts under “color of any law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under “color of any law,” the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.
Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death. I was denied that right to protection
Title 42, U.S.C., Section 3631 – Criminal Interference with Right to Fair Housing
This statute makes it unlawful for any individual(s), by the use of force or threatened use of force, to injure, intimidate, or interfere with (or attempt to injure, intimidate, or interfere with), any person’s housing rights because of that person’s race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin. Among those housing rights enumerated in the statute are:
The sale, purchase, or renting of a dwelling;
the occupation of a dwelling;
the financing of a dwelling;
contracting or negotiating for any of the rights enumerated above;
applying for or participating in any service, organization, or facility relating to the sale or rental of dwellings.
This statute also makes it unlawful by the use of force or threatened use of force, to injure, intimidate, or interfere with any person who is assisting an individual or class of persons in the exercise of their housing rights.
Punishment varies from a fine of up to $1,000 or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results, shall be fined up to $10,000 or imprisoned up to ten years, or both, and if death results, shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life. I was denied that right to protection.
My local government officials used glyphosate unlawfully applied to my private property ongoing for over 5 years routinely. Their purpose was to eliminate me from my private property so one of their own could acquire my private property. This special protected citizen needed my private property or a court would have ordered him to remove the noncompliant structures from his new illegal property redevelopment. He purchased the non conforming lot from the mayor. The building administer issued fraudulent building permits for the illegal structures. After five years the affects the chemicals had on my skin were chronic severe skin condition. It was unbearable to wear clothes, I was blind and homeless for the following four years. My property was my largest investment as most other citizens. I traveled to Washington DC to change the laws allowing me to get out of poverty to acquire ownership of my property. This property not only contained my home but my business and my pursuit of happiness. I was denied any protection of the law. I made a complaint about the nuisance drainage issue caused by the illegal redevelopment and the building administrator refused his duty to address my concerns, he continued to issue fraudulent permits to this special resident. The structures were the size that would legally fit on an acre of ground. He tried to squeeze them onto a 70′ W X 300’L nonconforming lot. A civil court order citing my right to used my property as I wished I thought would stop the illegal exposure to glyphosate. It did nothing by make this neighbor and the government officials more aggressive in eliminating me from my private property. Senator Grassley requested two inquires into my case. The FBI would contact me he advised. After five years I contacted Grassley again and he put in another request, five more years pass and I am advised by Grassley to be patient. The FBI never contacted me as they are required to do. I reached out after ten years of severe suffering, my life forever changed from my plan for my own destiny, to the local FBI. This agent was so incompetent that it took 14 months for him to come to my now rental home. His purpose was specifically to review the hard copy evidence that proves without a doubt Federal law has been violated. He arrived advising me that he had no intention of reviewing my evidence. I could just tell him the story and he would take notes. He gave me 2 1/2 hours of his time to tell a story that was ongoing for well over ten years in violation of Federal law. He had three notes written on his pad when he left. Two hours after he left my home I receive in the mail a letter from Assistant Deputy Director JC Hacker a letter stating that the agent had determined no violation of Federal law had occurred. It is not possible for this incompetent agent to accomplish an investigation and have a decision in the mail from Washington DC two hours after he left my home. He never investigated financial records to discover a bribe had been taken. He never interviewed any witnesses on my behalf. He never followed standard procedure to assure my allegations were valid. This in itself is an act to deprive me of my rights under color of law. This is not acceptable by any government standard. My allegations are completely supported by the hard copy evidence. For anyone to claim that the statute of limitations has expired is ludacris. Any negligence has been intentional of the part of government officials who have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution and have the duty to hold corrupt government accountable for their violations of Federal law. I am one mad single middle aged female. Discrimination against housing has been committed by all levels of government and I am demanding that a full independent investigation be done. The evidence used was not based on facts. It was based on hearsay. I want compensated for the damages that have intentionally been done to me. This is not a joke. My father did not spend his military service in the South Pacific on a ship taking on bombs and kamikaze pilots for me or anyone else to be denied their freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. Drain the Swamp. Here are the facts https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/18mtF3_4WB2u3mEe1OoSb2QpwlgvI25ulAS5BheCPq4Q/edit?usp=sharing
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.
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 typical of the good old boy network. I had been charged multiple times with frivolous charges by the City of Montrose, all charges were alway dismissed that were brought against me. This is typical of how the good old boys went over and above on Mark Conlee’s behalf. The judge had always followed the letter of the law in my cases. This is nothing less than Mark Conlee advising Mark Holland to offer the judge a bribe to find me guilty of a municipal offense. He was so angry when he lost the civil case he filed against me for “loss of enjoyment of his property”. He could not stand the fact that I had broken no law. The charges brought against me were on fabricated laws and ordinances, how the hell does a reasonable person thing a judge is going to rule when the charges brought against me do not exist? Typical psychopathic behavior. He whole purpose for running and getting elected to city council by election fraud was for the purpose of making me take down my privacy curtain and to attempt to cause me financial harm by trying to get me fined. It wasn’t enough for him that the chemicals he had unlawfully applied to my property had me to a state of total inability to function, I found myself in court all winter. Anything he would come up with the rest of them all supported but they implicated themselves when the issue was not about me. I don’t care who you are, nobody has the right to do anything to another person’s property. Not even Mark Conlee according to the real law. Not “Mark Conlee says” law. For the record Mark Holland was not a city council member at this time. Why is council member Conlee asking Mark Holland to ask the judge anything?
MONTROSE COUNCIL MEETING
MARCH 5, 2009
The Montrose City Council met for Public Hearing at 6:45 p.m. on the 5th day of March 2009. Council met at City Hall, 102 S. 2nd St. pursuant to law with Mayor Gregory Ruth presiding and the following Council members present: Conlee, Geyer, Hawk, Slater and Van Pelt.
The Montrose City Council met for Regular Meeting at 7:00 p.m. on the 5th day of March 2009. Council met at City Hall, 102 S. 2nd St. pursuant to law with Mayor Gregory Ruth presiding and the following Council members present: Conlee, Geyer, Hawk, Slater and Van Pelt.
Call to Order. Meeting called to order at 7:00 p.m.Public Forum. Gary Johnson, 405 Pine Alley said he applied for an Army Corps of Engineers permit to put in a mooring ball at the riverfront. He said the Corps may call the city for information.
Steve Fraise, 205 Locust Street spoke with David Hawk about the mud that washed off the hill in front of his house. He said he wants the ditches cleared before another rain. He said David Beelman, owner of the property, will install erosion control devices.
Tony Sciumbato, 110 S. 10th Street said he has been asked to address Council about the problem regarding the 10th Street and Cedar Street drainage problem. He said he cleans the drains about five times per year. He also said the street is deteriorating and he is willing to pay $100.00 toward moving the drain.
Council Member Conlee told Mr. Holland to ask the Judges about their decision regarding certain properties in the City.
Mark Holland, 501 Locust spoke about road drainage and the 5th Street Bridge will deteriorate if ditches are not dugout.He also said the City should hire another part-time person because Public Works Director Hoenig needs help. This also goes back to the $25,000.00 the City will spend on Ameren-UE property. Mr. Holland also said cleanup has gotten worse. Council Member Hawk asked Mr. Holland how many years it took to get this way.
Ron Dinwiddie, 1 Great River Road said he still can’t understand why the City is abandoning water on the hill. It was explained that there would be archaeological studies in Bluff Park that will likely hold up the project much longer. He said it goes against common sense to bring water downhill and then pump it up.
FY2010 City Budget. Moved by Geyer, seconded by Slater to approve the FY2010 City Budget. Roll call voting 5-0 aye. Motion declared carried.
Adjournment. Moved by Van Pelt, seconded by Conlee to adjourn at 9:09 p.m. All ayes. Motion declared carried.
Gregory R. Ruth, Mayor
Celeste L. Cirinna
Ok, here is the scenario. A city clerk forges information to a building permit that has been of file at City hall for well over a year. The fraud is committed to conflict with information a witness had already confirmed in a letter written by an expert in his field as a the County extension agent. Over time the clerk also altering an ordinance. The clerk also fabricated an ordinance for one specific resident. The victim spoke to the newly elected sheriff about the multiple counts of fraud committed by this city clerk. The sheriff indicated he wanted the victim to receive justice. He advised the victim that he personally warned the city clerk to remove the Cities webpage. This page contained the city council meeting minutes beginning in 2005. The sheriff then advises the victim that he is powerless to intervene in a private issue.
- Is fraud a criminal or a civil offense when committed by a City employee?
- Who has the duty to bring criminal or civil charges against a city clerk who has committed fraud on behalf of another individual.
- Is there any reason to justify keeping this employee on the Cities playroll?
- Is it possible that the sheriff is conspiring to allow this city clerk to get away with committing fraud and forgery due to a conflict of interest?
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.
A nonconforming use is generally defined as a land use or structure that was legal when established but does not conform to the standards of the current zoning ordinance. The term“nonconforming use” actually covers several situations, including nonconforming uses, lots and structures.
Pre-existing land uses that do not conform to current zoning are not favored. The ultimate goal of zoning is to achieve uniformity of property uses within each zoning district. At the same time, landowners have made investments in their businesses and buildings, and it would be unfair — not to mention illegal in some states — to require immediate termination or removal. Rather than require the immediate elimination of these preexisting uses, the zoning ordinance will outline a set of conditions for the continued existence of nonconforming uses.
Although state courts apply different interpretations to local zoning codes regarding nonconforming uses, the expansion, enlargement or intensification of a nonconforming use in almost all cases can be regulated or prohibited.
Resumption of a nonconforming use or structure after it has been destroyed may be prohibited in some states. In other states the right to re-establish the nonconforming use exists. Zoning ordinances traditionally have set a specific threshold– for example, a percentage of assessed value — for defining what constitutes destruction, and courts generally defer to the stated threshold. Again, the principle is to allow landowners to continue to reap the benefits of investments made in their properties. If those investments have been destroyed, however, the community may or may not have an obligation to allow a landowner to reinvest in a use prohibited by current zoning.
To prevent nonconforming uses from becoming blighted properties, zoning codes generally do allow for routine maintenance and repair, so long as such activities do not constitute expansion or enlargement.
Once a nonconforming use has been abandoned, its resumption can be prohibited. Most ordinances state a time period, usually six months to a year, that creates a presumption of abandonment if the property is not used for that period. Some states do not allow just a passage of time to establish abandonment. The issue of what constitutes abandonment is one that is generally the subject of much state court case-law, with some courts requiring that an “intent to abandon” be shown before the nonconforming use is considered to be terminated. The intent to abandon may be something like a list of criteria, in the zoning ordinance, from which “abandoned” is established from a preponderance of facts about the particular situation.
Iowa State University
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 must 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.
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
crime (krim) n. ca.1920. An unethical or immoral act against fellow man.