Category / Glyphosate affects to the skin

by song boat

18 U.S. Code CHAPTER 11B—CHEMICAL WEAPONS. FBI SA THOMAS REINWART DETERMINED NO VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW HAS OCCURRED

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 .—

(1)In general.—

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

(B)in an emergency situation, any otherwise non culpable person if the person is attempting to destroy or seize the weapon.

(c)Jurisdiction.—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.

18 U.S. Code § 229A. Penalties

(a)Criminal Penalties.—

(1)In general.—

Any person who violates section 229 of this title shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years, or both.

(2)Death penalty.—

Any person who violates section 229 of this title and by whose action the death of another person is the result shall be punished by death or imprisoned for life.

(b)Civil Penalties.—

(1)In general.—

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

(a)Property Subject to Criminal Forfeiture.—Any person convicted under section 229A (a) shall forfeit to the United States irrespective of any provision of State law—

(1)any property, real or personal, owned, possessed, or used by a person involved in the offense;

(2)any property constituting, or derived from, and proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, as the result of such violation; and

(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.

(b)Procedures.—

(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

(B)“subsection (a)” shall be deemed to be a reference to subsection (a) of this section.

(2)Temporary restraining orders.—

(A)In general.—

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.

(C)Applicable procedures.—

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 Attorney General shall provide for the destruction or other appropriate disposition of any chemical weapon seized and forfeited pursuant to this section.

(e)Assistance.—

The Attorney General may request the head of any agency of the United States to assist in the handling, storage, transportation, or destruction of property seized under this section.

(f)Owner Liability.—

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—

(1)the conduct prohibited under section 229 or 229C of this title; or

(2)the preparation or solicitation to engage in conduct prohibited under section 229 or 229D [1] of this title.

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 [1]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.[1] 

18 U.S. Code § 229F. Definitions

In this chapter:

(1)Chemical weapon.—The term “chemical weapon” means the following, together or separately:

(A)A toxic chemical and its precursors, except where intended for a purpose not prohibited under this chapter as long as the type and quantity is consistent with such a purpose.

(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 “national of the United States” has the same meaning given such term in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22)).

(5)Person.—

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.

(6)Precursor.—

(A)In general.—

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:

(A)Peaceful purposes.—

Any peaceful purpose related to an industrial, agricultural, research, medical, or pharmaceutical activity or other activity.

(B)Protective purposes.—

Any purpose directly related to protection against toxic chemicals and to protection against chemical weapons.

(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.

(8)Toxic chemical.—

(A)In general.—

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—

(A)any of the places within the provisions of paragraph (41) [1] of section 40102 of title 49, United States Code;

(B)any civil aircraft of the United States or public aircraft, as such terms are defined in paragraphs (17) and (37),1 respectively, of section 40102 of title 49, United States Code; and

(C)any vessel of the United States, as such term is defined in section 70502(b) of title 46, United States Code.

 

by song boat

TOTAL DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS Section II

TOTAL DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS Section II

The phrase, “no one can “be compelled to be a witness against himself,” is in agreement with the Supreme Court ruling in Haynes v. U.S., 390 U.S. 85, 88 S.Ct. 722, wherein the ruling was that to force anyone to register anything is communicative, and such communicative evidence is precluded by the 5th Amendment. 

So with that in mind, all fiat governmental administrators, police and all associated by interlocking directorates have been given knowledge! You “know, or should have known.” 

Under USC Title 42 §1986: Action for neglect to prevent…, it states: Every person who, having knowledge that any wrongs conspired or to be done… and having power to prevent or aid in preventing… Neglects or refuses so to do … shall be liable to the party injured… and; 

The means of “knowledge”, especially where it consists of public record, is deemed in law to be “knowledge of the facts” that makes the offending, trespassing, pirating “Officer” and all supporting interlocking directorates subsequently liable for all damage and injury. THE WORLD has now been given “knowledge of the facts” as it pertains to this conspiracy to commit a fraud against me.

AT LEAST THIRTEEN (13) TIMES I noticed all Capturing and Offending Parties that I reserved ALL my Rights at all times. I did not, do not, and never have voluntarily agreed to play any game of ‘let’s pretend’ with any Legal Fictional Entity or other governmental agency. I stopped trusting big boys with real guns in 1968 with my Honorable Discharge for US Army. I reiterate, I reserved all my Rights at all times, compromising none, even though that increased my degree of torture within their confines.

“[W]aivers of fundamental Rights must be knowing, intentional, and voluntary acts, done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences. U.S. v. Brady, 397 U.S. 742 at 748 (1970); U.S.v. O’Dell, 160 F.2d 304 (6th Cir. 1947)” . 

Fraud, deceit, coercion, willful intent to injure another, malicious acts, RICO activity and conspiracy were instrumented against Claimant by said Capturing and Offending Pirates Unconscionable “contract “One which no sensible man not under delusion, or duress, or in distress would make, and such as no honest and fair man would accept. ; Franklin Fire Ins. Co. v. Noll, 115 Ind. App. 289, 58 N.E.2d 947, 949, 950. And; 

Under USC Title 42 §1982, §1983 and/or §1441. Property rights of citizens …, further evidences the above position that the City or State cannot take property because they DO NOT have Jurisdiction. It states that federal or state governmental agencies MUST have a monetary or proprietary interest in my private property in order to have jurisdiction over it (my property has no government grant/funding and is not a subsidized government project). 

The State cannot diminish the rights of the people. Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516.

“To say that one may not defend his own property is usurpation of power by the legislature.” O’Connell v. Judnich (1925), 71 C.A.386, 235 P. 664.

“The phrase ‘common law’ found in this clause, is used in contradistinction to equity, and admiralty, and maritime jurisprudence.” Parsons v. Bedford, et al, 3 Pet 433, 478-9 “If the common law can try the cause, and give full redress, that alone takes away the admiralty jurisdiction.” Ramsey v. Allegrie, supra, p. 411.Inferior Courts – The term may denote any court subordinate to the chief tribunal in the particular judicial system; but it is commonly used as the designation of a court of special, limited, or statutory jurisdiction, whose record must show the existence and attaching of jurisdiction in any given case, in order to give presumptive validity to its judgment. In re Heard’s Guardianship, 174 Miss. 37, 163, So. 685

 The high Courts have further decreed that Want of Jurisdiction makes “…all acts of judges, magistrates, U.S. Marshals, sheriffs, local police, all void and not just voidable.† Nestor v. Hershey, 425 F2d 504. 

Void Judgment -One which has no legal force or effect, invalidity of which may be asserted by any person whose rights are affected at any time and at any place directly or collaterally. Reynolds v. Volunteer State Life Ins. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 80 S.W.2d 1087, 1092. 

“Whenever a law deprives the owner of the beneficial use and enjoyment of his property, or imposes restraints upon such use and enjoyment that materially affect its value, without legal process or compensation, it deprives him of his property within the meaning of the constitution. … It is not necessary, in order to render the statute obnoxious to the restraints of the constitution, that it must in terms or effect authorize the actual physical taking of the property or the thing itself, so long as it affects its free use and enjoyment, or the power of disposition at the will of the owner.” Forster v. Scott,136 N. Y. 577, [18 L. R. A. 543, 32 N. E. 976]; Monongahela Nav. Co. v. United States, 148 U. S. 312, 336, [37 L. Ed. 463, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 622].

 Mr. Lewis in his work on Eminent Domain, third edition, section 11, says: ‘A law which authorizes the taking of private property without compensation, … cannot be considered as due process of law in a free government.’ (Chicago etc, R. R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U. S. 226, [41 L. Ed. 979, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 581].” Associated etc., Co. v. Railroad Commission (1917) 176 Cal. 518, 528-530.

An unconstitutional law is not a law, it confers no rights, imposes no duties, and affords no protection. Norton vs. Shelby County, 118 US 425.

Primacy of position in our state constitution is accorded the Declaration of Rights; thus emphasizing the importance of those basic and inalienable rights of personal liberty and private property which are thereby reserved and guaranteed to the people and protected from arbitrary invasion or impairment from any governmental quarter. The Declaration of Rights constitutes a limitation upon the powers of every department of the state government. State ex rel. Davis v. Stuart. 64 A.L.R. 1307, 97 Fla. 69, 120 So. 335. 

“The rights of the individual are not derived from governmental agencies, municipal, state, or federal, or even from the Constitution. They exist inherently in every man, by endowment of the Creator, and are merely reaffirmed in the Constitution, and restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies of government. The people’s rights are not derived from the government, but the government’s authority comes from the people. The Constitution but states again these rights already existing, and when legislative encroachment by the nation, state, or municipality invade these original and permanent rights, it is the duty of the courts to so declare, and to afford the necessary relief. City of Dallas, et al. v. Mitchell, 245 S. W. 944, 945-46 (1922). 

A constitution is designated as a supreme enactment, a fundamental act of legislation by the people of the state. A constitution is legislation direct from the people acting in their sovereign capacity, while a statute is legislation from their representatives, subject to limitations prescribed by the superior authority. Ellingham v. Dye, 178 Ind. 336; NE 1; 231 U.S. 250; 58 L. Ed. 206; 34 S. Ct. 92; Sage v. New York, 154 NY 61; 47 NE 1096.

 “Owner has constitutional right to use and enjoyment of his property.” Simpson v. Los Angeles (1935), 4 C.2d 60, 47 P.2d 474

“We find it intolerable that one constitutional right should have to be surrendered in order to assert another”. SIMMONS v US,

 “When rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.

 “The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.” Miller v. U.S. 230 F 2d 486, 489. History is clear that the first ten amendments to the Constitution were adopted to secure certain common law rights of the people, against invasion by the Federal Government.” Bell v. Hood, 71 F.Supp., 813, 816 (1947) U.S.D.C. — So. Dist. CA. 

Economic necessity cannot justify a disregard of cardinal constitutional guarantee. Riley v. Certer, 165 Okal. 262; 25 P.2d 666; 79 ALR 1018. When any court violates the clean and unambiguous language of the Constitution, a fraud is perpetrated and no one is bound to obey it. (See 16 Ma. Jur. 2d 177, 178) State v. Sutton, 63 Minn. 147, 65 NW 262, 30 L.R.A. 630 Am. 459. 

“The ‘liberty’ guaranteed by the constitution must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiar and known to the framers of the constitution. This liberty denotes the right of the individual to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to locomotion, and generally enjoy those rights long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” Myer v. Nebraska, 262 U .S. 390, 399; United States v. Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 654.

 “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” Norton vs. Shelby County, 118 US 425 p. 442

 “The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

 “No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.” 16 Am Jur 2nd, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256 

All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void. Chief Justice Marshall, Marbury vs Madison, 5, U.S. (Cranch) 137, 174, 176 (1803).

 “Right of protecting property, declared inalienable by constitution, is not mere right to protect it by individual force, but right to protect it by law of land, and force of body politic.” Billings v. Hall (1857), 7 C. 1.

People are supreme, not the state. Waring vs. the Mayor of Savannah, 60 Georgia at 93 

“The Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity is one of the Common-Law immunities and defenses that are available to the Sovereign…” Citizen of Minnesota. Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, (1988) 491 U.S. 58, 105 L.Ed. 2d. 45, 109 S.Ct. 2304.

“The people of the state, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the king by his own prerogative.” Lansing v. Smith, (1829) 4 Wendell 9, (NY). 

“In Land v. Dollar, 338 US 731 (1947), the court noted, that when the government entered into a commercial field of activity, it left immunity behind.† Brady v. Roosevelt, 317 US 575 (1943); FHA v. Burr, 309 US 242 (1940); Kiefer v. RFC, 306 US 381 (1939

 “Ignorance of the law does not excuse misconduct in anyone, least of all in a sworn officer of the law.” In re McCowan (1917), 177 C. 93, 170 P. 1100.

“All are presumed to know the law.” San Francisco Gas Co. v. Brickwedel (1882), 62 C. 641; Dore v. Southern Pacific Co. (1912), 163 C. 182, 124 P. 817; People v. Flanagan (1924), 65 C.A. 268, 223 P. 1014; Lincoln v. Superior Court (1928), 95 C.A. 35, 271 P. 1107; San Francisco Realty Co. v. Linnard (1929), 98 C.A. 33, 276 P. 368.

 “It is one of the fundamental maxims of the common law that ignorance of the law excuses no one.” Daniels v. Dean (1905), 2 C.A. 421, 84 P. 332.

NOTICE OF CLAIMANTS INTENT

 I’VE THROWN MORE LAW INTO THIS DOCUMENT than the offending Libellee(s) have probably read in their lifetime. Forcing a Living Man to “pretend”  he’s a corporation, a trust, a legal entity, or some other “device” is contrary to common sense and True Law. A benefit, no matter how benevolent, cannot be forced upon any Living Man against his will. I exercise my will to inform the entire world that I am not a partaker in the/this/any Babylonian Empirical enterprise that ‘buys and sells men’s souls’ as a common commodity.  My plain statement of intent revolves around the fact that one man’s protest won’t help my fellow man, unless I demand “Enforceability.”  [Pr 29:19 “A servant will not be corrected by words: for though he understands he will not answer.”] And, [Jeremiah 13:22-26. I will discover thy skirts upon thy face, that thy shame may appear] I am openly showing you and the entire world the filth of the “Whore of Babylon”  I am lifting her skirt above her head that all can see the filth of the murders, slavery, torture, extortion and, yes, even PIRATING done by her. There are no ‘innocent by-standers’ in this theatre of Legal Fictional Entities (actors). You are either part of the solution or you are part of the problem. I am exercising one of my greatest Rights, the Right of being left alone, the Right of Privacy, the Right of Peace, which all Libellee(s) have greatly disturbed. 

The ninth (9th) Maxim of Commercial Law states that credibility is measured by the degree of risk one takes. You won’ find much greater risk than I have taken to bring Truth and clarity to this very ugly scenario. 

WHAT IS THE TRUE PURPOSE FOR POLICE ACTION/REVENUE GENERATORS? 

My limited education has informed me that anyone having my signature can use it as they see fit. So, they create new money by sending a “bill,” an instrument which has no charge to it. The bill is like an invoice, which if not rebutted will run like any invoice … 30, 60, 90 days, then it becomes a security which can be levied against. The new money created is MY money which I can prove by either 1099OID or 1099A. 

All vendors, retailers, etc., have the liability (ability to lie) to collect the interest on the national debt, which in essence is what they are doing … but they are not sending that along to the US Treasury and are in reality “pirates” operating on letters of marque and reprisal against the “enemies” of the US, you, me, and the 14th Amendment citizen under TWEA (trading with the enemy act) … BUT THEY ARE NOT PAYING THE TAX MEANING THAT THE MONEY CREATED IS “UNREPORTED INCOME” …hence the OID or A and resulting 1040 claim on interest back to principal – ME. 

When you do a full AFV (Acceptance For Value by a Private Bank/Banker) and state on the AFV “bill” to Deposit to the US Treasury and Charge the same to your corporate, Legal Fictional Entity (strawman), or to the vendor itself, it is a chargeback to the collector of the national debt, the US Treasury (you could do a chargeback to any other source … like to the Republic … if you so choose). The newly created money then is taken from the pirate for failure to ‘state a claim upon which relief can be granted (Rule 12 b 6)’ and either charged back for the use of the Republic or charged back where ever you send it. [Read: EXHIBIT  THERE IS NO MONEY] The client (vendor/presenter/seller/clerks/police “ticket†) account(s) is/are not entitled to the funds because of failure to pay the tax. The new bill is always ‘new’ money (which increases the National Debt with every issue) as they got paid when we put our signature on the original application for “credit”. The presenter (police/ticket) is always trying to avoid liability on the return of the tax to US Treasury by doing a ‘pass over’ from the application/ Bill directly to the bond of the strawman and getting you/me to become liable (30,60,90 days) … so now the presenter is trying to pirate from the US Treasury and make you liable for the payment of the tax bill — which we do when we take the Bill and AFV and deposit to the US Treasury and charge it back to either the presenter or our strawman (they are actually the same entity … all corporations o the US).     

The Treasury can’t ‘cut them a check’, but actually ‘charge’ them for the money on the presentment which is essence should have been forwarded to Treasury on the national debt!!! THEY ARE IN DISHONOR AND WILL BE LIQUIDATED UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHAPTER 11 BANKRUPTCY OF THE US! Vendors or presenters already have the benefit privilege of discharge when issued a TIN, and trying an end run with a ‘bill’ is thievery under public policy. They are not entitled to “new” money as this is a felony called unjust enrichment. One easy way to prove the felony is the 1099A, and under 18 USC 4 — misprision of felony, the IRS has to prosecute. The presenter has no rights in the matter for failure to state a claim and pay the tax … it is all NEW MONEY!!! And, every action performed raises the National Debt by that much. These are Dark Matters.

 

by song boat

My Comment Submitted on Regulations.gov (ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0361-2340). The use of chemicals applied to another person’s property is a fucking criminal offense! Who wants to prove otherwise? You who know and ignore are as guilty of this as those who participated!

My local government officials assisted one of their own in applying glyphosate to my side of our 300′ common boundary. This behavior continued for over five years. I verbally requested this neighbor to stop because I felt it was causing a rash on my shins. He refused to stop. I requested the City police chief to file a trespassing complaint against this neighbor. He refused advising that he did not want to make this neighbor mad. I requested the County Attorney to file a trespassing complaint against this neighbor he advised that he did not file neighbor against neighbor complaints. His double standard is indisputable because I was criminally charged multiple time by the State based on fabricated laws. I was criminally charged by the city multiple time by the city based on fabricated ordinances. While I was trying to defend my person and my property the “rash” had progressed into a full body severe skin condition. I hired an attorney to sue the City for my damages. The city is liable because they issued fraudulent building permits to this neighbor. The building administrator refused his duty to address my complaints in regard to the nuisance drainage causing adverse effects to my property and significant loss of value. The fact that the Mayor sold this legally nonconforming lot to this neighbor provides an existing conflict of interest. The building administrator refusing to address my concerns was replaced by the Lee County Detective and brother of this neighbor. He had no jurisdiction or authority to act as a building administrator. A field investigation was done by the proper authority. The investigator advised me when he saw my skin condition that he knew what was causing it. I did not inquire because I had already use the process of elimination and determine the glyphosate had to be the cause of my condition. My attorney failed to file the complaint against the city, he failed to inform me that he did not file the complaint. This neighbor filed a frivolous complaint against me alleging “loss of enjoyment to his property”, he had no concern that he had been applying chemicals to my property knowing it was causing me health problems. The judge in the civil case cited my right to use my property as I wished. That order was violated without hesitation. The County Attorney and the Detective had a special relationship for 17 years working hand in hand creating a conflict of interest. I contacted US Senator Charles Grassley, he advised me that he would request and inquiry of my case to the FBI. Grassley advised me that the FBI would contact me. I waited for five years. No FBI contacted me. By this time my condition had progress to the degree that I felt my life was in danger. I contacted Senator Grassley again and he requested a second inquiry into my case, he advised me again that the FBI would contact me. He advised me to be patient, it takes time. I felt that ten years of waiting for intervention, suffering severely everyday was not acceptable. I had no protection of the law, this neighbor had a motive to eliminate me from my property and a County Deputy that have ultimate respect for stop at my house advising me that this neighbor had no intention of stopping with the chemicals until he acquired my property. I have followed all the standard procedures to remedy this situation. The government has not, they have fully partnered with this neighbor/council member in violation my rights. I am requesting a legitimate review of the evidence I have collected throughout this taking of my private property by using chemicals as a weapon to cause my person and my property harm.

A legitimate investigation would have determined it was not the city that applied the chemicals to the city easement. It was in fact my neighbor/city council member who took it upon himself to act as a city street department employee. This report was done after three years of the chemical being applied to my 300′ common boundary with this “above the law” neighbor/ council member. The city is liable because they issued fraudulent building permits. But the personal financial gain of the Mayor from selling this otherwise worthless non conforming property was more important that protecting the rights of this resident.

warning to City poison

warning to City poison

by song boat

Ms Melody…I don’t know how you do it, day in, day out.

I tell you the truth with each day that passes I feel the need to remedy my situation myself. It seems that there will be no justice served by our legal system. I have reached out to every person who I feel may remotely have the ability to use their influence to assist me. And to top it off is was just a matter of months ago a couple county deputies came knocking on my door asking if I had threatened anyone from my hometown. I immediately went into open a can of whoopass mode on these cops that had no clue about anything that has taken place. They wanted to come in and look at my computer. I think smoke was coming out my ears. I said you mean to tell me that you are here on behalf of the police chief of my hometown and asking if I have threatened anyone, they nearly killed me. I was forced to flee from my home to save my own life! The one who was questioning me kind of glanced around the room. I happened to be bagging up stuff in those vac bags from dollar tree. I have kept many of my med bottles and keep small items in them. He could not tell what was in them. I had like 5 of those bags on the dining room table. He asked, “do you take all those meds”? I told him yes, that is the only thing that keeps me from carrying out defending myself in the brutal attack your colleagues have committed against me. He hightailed it out the door. I never even asked who the threat was supposed to be against. I have never even met the new police chief. Someone from the AVVO lawyers must have reported me to the Montrose police chief. I asked a question, “who protects me from harm”?. A response was, “you”. I asked a question to that, “I protect myself from harm”? Note the question mark. Stupid asses don’t understand punctuation, that’s what I told the cop. GRRRRR, it just depends on the day. One day I am ready to go armed and loaded and the next I am back to begging for legal assistance that seems will never come. It is tough to keep emotionally together. I am consumed by what they did to me. I am consumed knowing that there is not one other citizen in the Nation who has been forced to flee from their private property to escape chemical weapons, in all cases trespassing complaints have been filed against anyone who would do this only one application. This guy did this for over 5 years on a weekly basis. There are trespassing complaints listed in the newspaper here commonly. The EPA field investigator told me what they were doing was “unheard of”. He was not joking. He advised the only reports he has ever investigated has been from an accidental spill from an factory. I want to know why I was exempt from filing a complaint? I was exempt from filing a complaint against a city clerk who committed multiple counts of document fraud and altering of ordinances specifically and only for me? I want to know why building permits that do not have the required information by the State of Iowa or the signature of the builder have not been pulled and the City of Montrose, Ia. held accountable for fraud? I want to know how an FBI agent can claim to have investigated my complaint but refused to review any hard copy evidence? I want to know how that agent left my home after not reviewing any evidence and got a report to his supervisor and back to my mailbox in a matter of two hours? I want to know the answers to these questions. And nobody has provided me any reasonable explanations. I want the general public to know what has taken place in Lee County, Iowa on behalf of one man that my experience of interaction can only be associated with a full blown psychopath. I want to know where it is written that an AUSA has the authority to violate a civil court order with no type of court proceedings. He cannot produce such a document he is lying. He has an ethical duty to uphold court orders, not violate them because he has attorney discretion. He has discretion not to prosecute but he has no authority to violate a court order that has already been decided. Then he has the balls to lie about it. He needs hung by the balls and put in prison. Nothing worse that a corrupt public official. I can’t say I have met one that is not corrupt or honors his oath of office. Not one!

I want to move on past this so bad but they have me so financially disabled I have no way to get out of this rut. How many citizen get a return on their property investment? I had the investment and they forced me to evacuate. They used chemical weapons to eliminate me. Who does this in America? Is there anyone who has a remotely similar situation? I can find no cases in which chemicals were applied to a citizens property against their will and ongoing for over five years. This went from a civil suit to a criminal complaint when they allowed trespassing on my property.

To top that off I bought a car that wasn’t much to look at but was mechanically strong. A dude that works at one of the highest paying factories and his gf who is a CNA let their 13 year old unlicensed daughter drive on the street to pick up a friend. Well she ran a stop sign and the front end of my car is totaled. No insurance, I only have liability. So I am screwed. The court gets $50 a month payment but the cop did not include me as a damaged person on his report so I get no damages. Every time the government has been involved in my life I get screwed.

One time I got a bill from child support services. What? I have never gotten a cent of child support? I blew up that day and I never heard from that agency again. I know of nobody who has ever gotten a bill from child support recovery services. Even if they get child support.

I think I may be one of the “targeted individuals”! lol but seriously. lol Thanks for the message. Always good to know someone supports us out here in single female easy target land.  take care

No authorities or persons close to a government authority will respond to this message because they are cowards and committing acts of treason to their duty to the Constitution. A bunch of low life assholes that need bitch slapped. Step on up here I will fist fight every last one of you cowards.

by song boat

Question of the day. Why?

Why does a victim have to be diagnosed with cancer? Why wouldn’t intentional exposure to chemicals unlawfully applied to private property causing personal injury be enough to file a complaint against those who applied the chemicals, not according to label directions? 

by song boat

Random medical records

h

5-22-2001 medical records
medical attention
cataract exam
medical attention
effect glyphosate had when in direct contact with my skin. Chemicals were applied to my property not by me or a family member, but by a neighbor whose goal it was to acquire my property
cateract after care
2-16-2007 lipoma removal pg 9
by song boat

Letter to US Senator Charles Grassley and Congressman Dave Loebsack staff

My responses claim the statute of limitations has expired. I am requesting you go back through our previous correspondences and review what you have advised me of this entire time. You advised me to be patient that the FBI would contact me. I waited patiently as you advised for 5 years.  I contacted you again and you graciously submitted another request for an inquiry, advising me throughout the next 5 years to be patient, you said “it takes time”. The FBI never contacted me now for ten years. The FBI was negligent. The FBI had the responsibility to contact me.   When finally I contacted the local FBI myself, he him hawed around taking 14 months to come to my home specifically to review the hard copy evidence. Upon arrival he advised me that he was not going to review any documented evidence. He instead determined no federal law has been violated based on hearsay from the sheriff to a third party. I have evidence to prove the sheriff knowingly made false statements about what took place. I have evidence that proves the sheriff has a conflict of interest with the opposing party. That is why I asked for an independent investigation. I am not responsible for the statute of limitations expiring, in fact the statute has not expired considering the government’s negligence and fraudulent actions against me in the taking of my property without just compensation. I see no where the violation of the Federal bill of rights has an expiration date, in fact the 5th amendment states that private property is never to be taken without just compensation. Senator Grassley needs to demand an investigation into the negligence of the FBI in this case, I have never slacked off what I know to be the Federal government’s duty to prosecute corrupt public officials. Has a bribe been paid, no doubt. SA Thomas Reinwart refused to look into the financial record, interview witnesses or provide any type of competent investigation. Hearsay is not evidence, point blank. They say the lowest scoring agents of a graduating class are place in the areas of the lowest criminal events. I can only speculate that SA Reinwart was of the lowest scoring graduates. He knew when he arrived at my home the decision he was going to make based on hearsay as the sheriff had already given his false information to the third party.

Two hours after SA Reinwart left my home I received a letter in the mail from Wash DC headquarters that Reinwart had determined no violation of Federal law had occurred. It is not possible for him to come to my home, submit a report to Washington and had the determination sent back to my from Washington DC two hours after he left my home. This is a blatant violation of the public’s trust and only encourages local government that they can get away with crimes against humanity or any other violation guarantees of individual rights. It is not acceptable.

Senator Grassley would not approve of this type of behaviour from a Federal agent. My Constitutional Rights are just a relevant as those who violated those rights by the forceful taking of my private property using chemicals as a weapon. Please step up and demand the law to actively competently investigate the evidence and defend my individual rights as if they were your own.  This is not an option, Constitutional rights are mandatory to be upheld. The criminal offenses committed against me ar serious. From the issuing of the fraudulent building permits to the use of glyphosate that resulted in life long health effects I will suffer. Senator Grassley and Congressman Dave Loebsack please represent you constituents.

by song boat

FEDERAL COORDINATION OF TITLE VI AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

Title VI:

A Powerful Tool to Address Discrimination and Advance Environmental Justice

“Title VI’s breadth of coverage is extensive and it can address a huge array of injustices: from environmental racism…to disparities in basic health care and basic services to inequities in transportation, housing, and education.”

August 19, 2010 Memorandum from the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights to the Federal Funding Agency Civil Rights Directors.

Environmental justice and Title VI are both rooted in the same basic principle that no person should bear an unfair share of harm on account of their race, color or national origin. At its core, Title VI requires recipients of federal funding to ensure that their programs operate in a nondiscriminatory manner. Indeed, the central tenet of environmental justice – that programs benefiting a community as a whole not disproportionately allocate their adverse environmental and health burdens – flows directly from this underlying principle of Title VI.

Where federally funded programs – like transportation agencies, state agencies responsible for environmental permitting, hospitals and health clinics, and countless others – affect human health or the environment, Title VI enforcement may resolve problems that other laws cannot.

Discriminatory Effects under Title VI. Most federal agencies have regulations implementing Title VI, which prohibit funding recipients from “utilizing criteria or methods of administration which have the effect of subjecting individuals to discrimination because of their race, color, or national origin….” See, e.g., 28 C.F.R. 42.104(b)(2) (DOJ regulations). This prohibition on unjustified discriminatory effects was first established nearly 50 years ago, just after passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964. Individuals must turn to the administrative complaint process to secure the protections afforded by these regulations. Federal funding agencies play a vital enforcement role because individuals must turn to the administrative complaint process to secure the protections offered by these regulations. The Attorney General has directed federal agencies to fully utilize these provisions and the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights has emphasized the need for their vigorous enforcement. Federal agencies must recognize their crucial role in addressing discriminatory effects and work to further environmental justice though Title VI enforcement.

Intersection of Title VI and Environmental Justice. Many types of Title VI cases involve environmental justice issues and could be resolved through the administrative complaint process. Some factors to consider in determining whether specific situations raise environmental justice concerns include whether individuals, certain neighborhoods, or tribes:

  • Suffer disproportionately adverse health or environmental effects from pollution or other environmental hazards;
  • Suffer disproportionate risks or exposure to environmental hazards, or suffer disproportionately from the effects of past under-enforcement of state or federal health or environmental laws;
  • Have been denied an equal opportunity for meaningful involvement, as provided by law, in governmental decision making relating to the distribution of environmental benefits or burdens. (Example: permit processing and compliance activities)

Where a federally funded program may be responsible for these harms, a Title VI investigation may help determine whether  the harms have a discriminatory effect on persons identifiable by race, color, or national origin.

Federal Coordination of Title VI and Environmental Justice

The Department of Justice is charged by Executive Order 12250 with ensuring the government-wide consistent and effective enforcement of Title VI, which includes nondiscrimination in programs and activities that affect the environment and human health:

  • The Title VI Committee of the Federal Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice (EJ IWG), which is chaired by DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, acts as a resource to help agencies connect their civil rights enforcement responsibilities with their efforts to achieve environmental justice. In 2014, the EJ IWG launched its Title VI webpage with the goal of ensuring consistent enforcement of Title VI across the federal family and encouraging the use of this critical enforcement tool to address environmental justice issues. go.usa.gov/3BYf5
  • The Civil Rights Division’s Federal Coordination and Compliance Section runs a robust program of technical assistance and legal counsel to civil rights offices across the government. A significant part of the Division’s environmental justice work is providing targeted technical assistance to federal agencies that receive complaints alleging Title VI violations in programs that effect the environment and human health. The Division helps many agencies in addressing matters involving intentional discrimination as well as discriminatory effects in matters involving environmental permitting and enforcement, transit equity, municipal services, emergency management, access to federal benefits, and more. Read more about our Title VI Coordination Initiative here: go.usa.gov/3BYfV).
  • The newly launched Title VI training program for federal civil rights staff includes a segment on environmental justice. This training component emphasizes the ability of agencies that fund activities that affect human health and the environment to use their Title VI compliance efforts to achieve the environmental justice goals of Executive Order 12898.
  • The revised Title VI manual will be issued in 2015. The update will provide detailed guidance to agencies analyzing, among other issues, discriminatory treatment and discriminatory effects under Title VI. Over time, the manual will address the application of Title VI in a range of areas, including environmental justice, transportation equity, and school discipline.
  • DOJ’s public outreach on environmental justice issues has included moderating a panel on federal Title VI enforcement during the annual Environmental Justice Conference and Training Program held in Washington, D.C. as well as holding listening sessions to learn about various civil rights issues of concern from stakeholders.

Highlights of Agency Efforts to Advance Environmental Justice through Title VI Enforcement

Approximately 30 federal agencies investigate Title VI administrative complaints alleging discrimination in federally funded programs affecting human health or the environment. Additionally, many of those agencies publish annual environmental justice progress reports. Below we highlight several agencies’ Title VI enforcement activities involving environmental justice issues.

Department of Transportation. DOT has a well-established set of environmental justice (EJ) and Title VI policies, including the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) two companion circulars that help recipients understand and comply with environmental justice principles through both Title VI compliance and the environmental justice executive order. Notably, the Title VI circular requires, among other things, that certain recipients conduct an equity analysis of the impact on minorities of certain actions and decisions. Both circulars and related materials are available here.

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) also directs recipients to address environmental justice issues in their federally funded activities. It is currently developing a number of resources, including the EJ Reference Guide, which is intended to be a resource for staff to ensure compliance with EJ requirements, and the EJ Booklet highlighting recent policy changes and initiatives. The Guide will aid staff and stakeholders in identifying and addressing disproportionately high and adverse effects of agency programs, policies and activities on minority populations and low-income populations. The Reference Guide clarifies existing requirements and is available to the public on the FHWA EJ website, and can be accessed under “Recent Updates” or “References.” The FHWA has also formed an EJ Workgroup, which includes other DOT modes, and collaborates with the National Highway Institute. The workgroup is developing an EJ Analysis Course as part of the EJ Reference Guide. In order to register for the webinar, participants external to US DOT will first need to request an account here, then register here. FHWA’s civil rights office has conducted a national Title VI Program webinar that includes a component on EJ requirements for state transportation agencies and monitoring responsibilities of FHWA Division offices.

DOT components also address environmental justice issues through investigation and resolution of Title VI complaints. For example, in one case, FTA found two cities in south Florida non-compliant with Title VI requirements when the cities failed to assess the potential adverse disparate impacts stemming from relocation of a trolley maintenance facility to a historically Black neighborhood. As a direct result of FTA’s involvement in the matter, city officials agreed to keep the facility near its current location. Read more here. Similarly, in another Title VI investigation, FHWA found that an Ohio city’s denial of expanded bus service to a large medical center, as well as other essential services, caused disproportionate harm to African Americans. The case ultimately resulted in the construction of three new bus stops. Read more here.

Environmental Protection Agency. In accordance with Title VI, EPA’s office of Civil Rights (OCR) maintains a program to ensure that recipients of Federal financial assistance from EPA do not operate their programs or activities  in a way that discriminates on the basis of race, color, or national origin, including on the basis of limited-English proficiency. Consistent with EPA’s ongoing efforts to strengthen its external civil rights compliance program, earlier this week OCR released a report that outlines its progress on specific deliverables related to Title VI compliance efforts, as a supplement to Plan EJ 2014.  Read the full report for more information about EPA’s accomplishments regarding specific Title VI deliverables over the past four fiscal years, including: OCR’s renewed commitment to (1) strategic management of its Title VI complaint docket; (2) successful resolution of complaints; and (3) settlement of significant Title VI matters.

In addition, this week OCR released a policy paper entitled “Issue Paper on the Role of Complainants and Recipients in the Civil Rights Complaints and Resolution Process.”  The purpose of this paper is to promote greater participation by complainants and recipients in the civil rights complaint and resolution process, including Title VI complaints, by clarifying existing practices and identifying opportunities for greater participation within that framework.

Several agencies’ civil rights offices, such as the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Homeland Security, have committed to review environmental justice issues and allegations that arise in programs and activities they fund. To learn more about other federal agencies’ environmental justice and Title VI efforts, visit the home page of the Federal Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice here and its Title VI page here.

by song boat

Public Corruption and Private Property Rights in Violation of Federal Law.

I have always been searching for a private attorney, clearly I do not have a retainer. My assets were unlawfully seized. Prior to this I could have gotten anything I desired on my excellent credit rating.  That being said this is why I believe the Feds have the duty to protect my Constitutional right to private property.

The Fourth Amendment protects Americans from “unreasonable searches and seizures” by the government. But the Supreme Court’s interpretation of “unreasonable” has varied over time. Some searches require warrants, but others do not. In general, the Fourth Amendment protects a person and their property from searches by the government wherever there is a “reasonable expectation of privacy.” For instance, trash that is still inside a person’s home is protected; trash sitting beside the street curb for pickup is not. In the age of the Internet, where so much personal information is shared over social media such as Facebook and Twitter, some people argue that privacy has become a myth. After the 9-11 attacks, Congress passed laws making it easier for the government to use such information when investigating terrorism. The Fifth Amendment protects the right to private property in two ways. First, it states that a person may not be deprived of property by the government without “due process of law,” or fair procedures. In addition, it sets limits on the traditional practice of eminent domain, such as when the government takes private property to build a public road. Under the Fifth Amendment, such takings must be for a “public use” and require “just compensation” at market value for the property seized. But in Kelo v. City of New London (2005), the Supreme Court interpreted public use broadly to include a “public purpose” of economic development that might directly benefit private parties. In response, many state legislatures passed laws limiting the scope of eminent domain for public use.

Rights content written by Linda R. Monk, Constitutional scholar

My property was illegally seized by local government officials. Any control of use of my private property was violated by my neighbor and the local government officials. Unlawfully assaulting me with chemical weapons with the intent of eliminating me from my property is an act of terrorism resulting in torture, that I can testify to and the evidence supports. There is no other side to this story, I am fully disclosing the evidence that supports my allegations are factual.

Public corruption involves a breach of public trust and/or abuse of position by federal, state, or local officials and their private sector accomplices. By broad definition, a government official, whether elected, appointed or hired, violates federal law when he/she asks, demands, solicits, accepts, or agrees to receive anything of value in return for being influenced in the performance of their official duties. One of the most high-profile forms of public corruption is bribery of a public official. Title 18 of the U.S. Code, Section 201 provides the statutory framework for bribery prosecutions. Federal legislators are continuing to work on legislation that increases penalties for public corruption and that attempts to close loopholes created by previous legislation. Ethics violations occur at all levels of government (local, state, and federal) and includes allegations of judicial, legislative, regulatory, contract, and law enforcement corruption. Law enforcement corruption accounts for more than one-third of the current corruption investigations. These cases typically involve law enforcement officers accepting money to protect (or facilitate) drug-trafficking and organized criminal activity. Breaches of the public trust can impact everything, from how well our borders are secured and our neighborhoods protected, to verdicts handed down in courts of law, to the quality of our roads and schools. Public corruption is one of the FBI’s top investigative priorities—behind only terrorism, espionage, and cyber crimes. Federal cases of public corruption are prosecuted by the Department of Justice. Individual states also prosecute cases of public corruption, including charges of bribery, receiving unlawful gratuities, and misuse of confidential information. Private criminal defense lawyers often specialize in either state or federal cases. State court penalties for public corruption range from six months in prison and a $1,000 for misdemeanor misuse of confidential information to a prison term of 8 years and up to a $250,000 fine for felony bribery. A federal offense can likewise garner serious penalties, which may include thousands of dollars and/or time in federal prison.                                                                         

Private criminal defense attorneys are hired by those who are accused of crimes regarding public corruption, not the victims of public corruption. In this case the State attorney for Lee County, Iowa discriminated against me, he had an existing conflict of interest. He refused to prosecute this neighbor for criminal trespassing (in violation of a civil court order) He criminally charged me multiple times with fabricated laws. Laws that do not exist. The city clerk also altered city ordinances specifically for my in the best interest of this neighbor/council member. She committed document fraud multiple times. She never even got reprimanded. Fraud is a criminal offense. This clerk actually got a title of higher authority for the crimes she committed against me. I don’t know if you have viewed my website but here are some links that provide the relevant information and the hard copy evidence.                                            https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/12-U-5aB6PuRmxZX4B8uy-hTpaQ2_Qs34lmVYmGo5tic/edit?usp=sharing   

 https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1OQYEN-sOBooq62NUHwyFObWHlLCwUbLGb3tpmyXON00/edit?usp=sharing

 https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1XkyMRhjC-_8toaLl2pfLSt4YWF_9dts69nIWfTaSfts/edit?usp=sharing               

My site is https://poisonedbymyneighborfromhell.com                     

This is an unprecedented case. There is no other case in which chemicals have been used to eliminate a citizen from their own private property.  https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/10o7BgegCaQc5BVIqEabn4KD_9fBbjaf2Xb6TP6F7iX4/edit?usp=sharing

by song boat

Ignorance of the Law is no excuse. Intentional serious injury at the hands of my government officials. What is your intent?

Well I can testify that the chronic skin condition resulting from intentional exposure to glyphosate for an extended period of time is once again seriously severe. I have never been prescribed a higher dose of methotrexate and had the condition to become increasingly severe. I am at the point now that it is unbearable to wear shoes. This pain and severe itching is 24/7. To know that an FBI agent claims to have done and investigation and has found no violation of Federal law based of hearsay stated by the County sheriff to a third party is about to piss me off more than I have ever been pissed on. SA Thomas Reinwart has proven to be incompetent and not qualified to investigate my case. He does not have the knowledge that every reasonable American takes for granted. He does not know that private property rights are Federally protected. His ignorance has proven he had no business being involved in my case that encompassed in violations of Federal laws. His ignorance and incompetence is going to have significant effects to the outcome of this case. Who to whom it may concern that has a connection be it by a third party or via any damn way, needs to extend this message to a high authority. FBI Agent Calvin Shivers signed the most recent letter stating that they have determined no violation of Federal law has occurred, he has completely avoided any contact with me. Tell him he is participating in a crime that is causing serious physical injury to an American citizen. He is knowingly refusing to protect me from harm based on fabricated information. He being the most recent signator of a letter that further violates my individual rights. Has made the choice to protect the blue wall of silence. Do not send any law enforcement to my home, inquiring as to whether I have threatened anyone. Send them to those who have repeatedly attempted to murder me using chemical weapons. It’s in everyone’s best interest. Get these maniacs that have proven to be a danger to society off the streets before they do kill an innocent human being!

Dead End

by song boat

What statute was violated?

In my case eminent domain was not used to take my private property. The way this happened was my neighbor took control of my property from me. He unlawfully applied glyphosate to my property. The evidence suggests that this was his intent. I verbally told him no to do anything to my property the day that I saw the chemicals had been applied, he could have care less about what I told him. I requested an incident report that I had told him not to do anything to my property. By intent the Police chief waited 16 months before he gave me that first report. It was completely inadequate as to the facts of the incident. I gave that one back and told him to give me one that explains what when and why I requested one, he gave me a report that was substandard according to the accurate information. If did not make a difference if I ever got one because my attorney did not submit any evidence that would allow the judge to recognize the degree of inhuman treatment. So if control of my property was taken the only statue I can come up with is conspiracy against rights, deprivation of rights under color of law, and assault with intent causing serious injury. I believe the statute of limitations does not apply in cases of torture and serious injury to a person. It isn’t going to in this case. There is no precedence to make it simpler for a pro se case.

by song boat

Old draft that I never published concerning witnesses on my behalf.

 My complaint is against local City and County officials. My personal knowledge of duties and standard procedures regulated for Cities to enforce comes from the fact that my father was (official title at that time, 1970-1980’s) Acting Street Commissioner of a neighboring City. I am very confident in my knowledge and understanding of the laws and procedures pertaining to the duties of a City to provide its residents. My complaint is complex due to unprecedented turn over of City officials, one example is the fact that within 5 years the City had 4 different Mayor. Similar circumstances apply to the City Council and Police Dept. Another unprecedented fact is that chemicals were used as a weapon to force me from my property, either by fleeing or cause my death. The evidence proving this is by a report from an EPA investigation among other sources. I am sure you are ready to dismiss this letter under the assumption that I have some kind of mental disorder. I understand that to be the opinion of most individuals and the fact that my allegations are truly unbelievable has hindered my attempts to expose those who have violated me. I believe my case is the most outrageous case of pubic corruption since the civil rights laws were passed in the 60’s. I have figuratively been raped by local officials. The evidence will prove that I have been literally been
Oppressed from my rights to free speech in a public forum.

My evidence is documented by public record

My evidence is documented by photographs

My evidence verified by a compelling list of  witnesses including but not limited to

 1)    brother of Mayor #1 retired from lifelong career Street   Dept. for neighboring City

2) Son of council member and chief of fire dept.

3) Former council member

4) Chief of Police #1

5) County Extension Agent (expert)

6) neighbors 

7) Professional Contractors

8) County Supervisor

9) State Representative (ret)

10) Pastor local church

11) Mutual friends of conspirators and complainant

12) Court records

13) Public records containing statements that the Official implicated himself.

14) Medical records and photos documenting the severity in which the chemicals had on my skin.

15) Numerous police reports and court records

The evidence I have is well documented, proving continuous serious criminal offenses have been covered up, and even participated in to abuse my rights under Color of Law. The intent is clear by reviewing the evidence. 

I have reason to believe that the individual who these officials were acting on behalf of to be a psychopath, I believe he is absolutely is capable of causing my death. I request that my identity not be disclosed until an expert in behavior analysis review my evidence. Due to prior experience I have no doubts that I or any person associating with me will be targeted and put in harms way.

I request that an expert in that behavioral analysis review the evidence I have in my possession. Prior to any interrogation of the of the individual I allege are involved simply because of the known calculated ways a psychopath manipulates his victims, text book behavior couldn’t be more spot on.

This attack has been ongoing over a period of 7 years. Beginning with a smear campaign. I do not have the education or computer skills to properly submit my evidence in a written form, Due to the turnover of City officials my story is difficult to explain verbally. I swear this is a true story of extreme criminal acts and brutality by local government officials. I have followed all standard procedures to remedy my situation including a civil case that ruled in my favor citing my right to enjoy property resulting in the court order being violated for no other reason than to prove my only option to escape the chemical weapon is to sell my property and flee or die trying.

Sincerely,
Melody Boatner
by song boat

Monsanto’s ‘cancer-causing’ weedkiller destroyed my life, dying man tells court

“It got on my clothes, got on everything,” he said of one incident, noting that before his cancer, he had “perfect skin”, but after he started spraying and suffered exposures, he got sick and began seeing rashes, lesions and sores all over his body. “I’ve had it bad everywhere.”

Monsanto’s “cancer causing” weedkiller destroyed my life

by song boat

Evidence Is “Overwhelming,” Says EPA Scientist, That Pesticides Contribute To Cancer Risk — Truth To Power

The ugly truth that government-approved chemicals applied daily to crop fields cause cancer is finally seeing the light of day, thanks in large part to the release of a trove of never-before-seen documents known collectively as the “Poison Papers.” Released by the Bioscience Resource Project (BRP) in collaboration with the Center for Media and Democracy […]

via Evidence Is “Overwhelming,” Says EPA Scientist, That Pesticides Contribute To Cancer Risk — Truth To Power

by song boat

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

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

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

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

Failure to Intervene

Failure to Intervene,

An officer who purposefully allows a fellow officer to violate a victim’s Constitutional rights may be prosecuted for failure to intervene to stop the Constitutional violation. To prosecute such an officer, the government must show that the defendant officer was aware of the Constitutional violation, had an opportunity to intervene, and chose not to do so. This charge is often appropriate for supervisory officers who observe uses of excessive force without stopping them, or who actively encourage uses of excessive force but do not directly participate in them.

Law does not provide for Lee County Sheriff’s Detective Bob Conlee to act as a building official for the city of Montrose. Or for Brent Shipman not to issue  a trespassing ticket because “he did not want to make him mad”. Or any other the other officers who were involved or knew about the illegal in the taking of my property using chemicals as a weapon. https://poisonedbymyneighborfromhell.com

 

by song boat

Joint criminal enterprise

via Joint criminal enterprise | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII / Legal Information Institute

Joint criminal enterprise

“Joint criminal enterprise” (“JCE”) is a mode of liability created by judges on the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) that allows the tribunal to bring charges against members of a group responsible for [[wex:war crime][war crimes]] or [[wex:crime against humanity][crimes against humanity]] even if there is no evidence that the particular individuals physically participated in the crimes (see ICTY Appeals Chamber, Milutinovic et al., 21 May 2003). JCE is distinct from the doctrine of conspiracy in American criminal law in that actual perpetration of the acts is required, rather than just a meeting of the minds  (Id.).

Keywords:
INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW
WAR CRIMES
wex:
human rights
international law
criminal law
wex definitions
by song boat

Monsanto chemical safety data, Roundup Herbicide

This is if the product were used according to the directions, clearly the intentional exposure that I suffered was not according to directions. EFFECTS OF TOXIC CHEMICALS HAVING DIRECT CONTACT WITH MY SKIN

The year 2015 hasn’t been kind to Monsanto. In March, the World Health Organization declared that the company’s flagship product, its herbicide glyphosate or Roundup, is a probable human carcinogen. Increasingly, national health ministries are taking a hard second look at glyphosate’s health and environmental dangers and efforts are underway to ban the herbicide.[1] To protect its citizens, last year the Netherlands, Bermuda and Sri Lanka have either banned or imposed strict limits on Roundup. Last June, France banned its use in gardens. Brazil, Germany and Argentina are considering legislative bans. And this month, California’s environmental protection agency launched plans to label Roundup as a carcinogen.[2]

Glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide in the world today. Over 130 countries currently permit extensive use of the chemical. The US is the largest consumer, using approximately 20% of the world’s Roundup.[3] The latest reliable figures from the US Geological Survey record 280 million pounds of Roundup were used in 2012, nearly a pound for every American.[4] In 2013, gross profit of $371 million on crop chemicals including Roundup climbed 73% due to a 37% increase in sales. That same year Monsanto’s net income rose 22% to $1.48 billion.[5]

Over the years a large body of independent research has accumulated and now collectively provides a sound scientific rationale to confirm that glyphosate is far more toxic and poses more serious health risks to animals and humans than Monsanto and the US government admit. Among the many diseases and health conditions non-industry studies identified Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and autism since Roundup has been shown to instigate aluminum accumulation in the brain. The herbicide has been responsible for reproductive problems such as infertility, miscarriages, and neural tube and birth defects. It is a causal agent for a variety of cancers: brain, breast, prostate, lung and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Other disorders include chronic kidney and liver diseases, diabetes, heart disease, hypothyroidism, and leaky gut syndrome. In addition to lung cancer, glyphosate may be responsible for today’s growing epidemics of chronic respiratory illnesses among farm workers and their families.[6] However, these findings derive from outside the Big Agriculture industry. Private industries routinely defend themselves by positing their own research to refute independent reports. Consequently, for several decades it has been a he-said-she-said stalemate. Monsanto is content with this. It can conduct business as usual, Roundup sales increase, and the debates and media wars continue without government interference. Then who is protecting the public?

Government officials and health regulators more often than not simply ignore these studies even if published in peer-reviewed journals. The bulk are independently funded. Most have been performed in foreign nations and therefore American bias dismisses them outright. Furthermore, Monsanto and other large chemical agricultural companies are quick to counter and discredit adverse scientific findings. The company has the financial means to retain large international PR firms, such as Burson-Marsteller and Fleishman Hillard, consultation firms and think tanks, as well as large armies of hired trolls and academic spokepersons to mobilize damage control upon notice and protect the integrity of Monsanto’s products and public image. It funds and orchestrates self-serving research at universities and research laboratories to increase an arsenal of junk science. And of course it has Hillary Clinton and Bill Gates as its celebrity cheerleaders.

The EPA continues to align itself with Monsanto’s safety claims and limits glyphosate’s risks to kidney, reproductive and carcinogenic damage; and the warning only applies for very long-term exposure to high levels of the toxin. Anything under that is considered harmless. The EPA continues to approve small amounts of glyphosate as safe in drinking water to children. Its safety level is 0.7 ug/L. This was determined back in 1994, and after 20 years of further research into glyphosate’s biomolecular activities and health risks, the level has remained the same.[7,8] A review of existing data sponsored by Moms Across America found that out of 21 drinking water samples analyzed, 13 had glyphosate levels between 0.08 and 0.3 ug/L, well below the EPA’s limit, but significantly above the European Union’s limit of 0.1 ug/L.[9]

While the company manages to successfully dodge scientific research outside its purview, the tables would certainly turn if it could be proven in a court of law that Monsanto has known for decades that glyphosate is one of the most toxic substances ever launched on the public, which adversely affects almost every tissue and cell in a mammal’s body.

Imagine for a minute that evidence emerged to implicate Monsanto on a massive cover-up and manipulation of scientific data from hundreds of research trials. If it were Monsanto’s data indicting itself about glyphosate’s toxicity, and if it can be shown the company falsified, masked or fudged its data to win regulatory approval, it may likely be the largest corporate scandal in history. The question could Monsanto be charged with crimes of omission and more deservingly crimes against humanity?

This scenario may not be fantasy or the wishful thinking of GMO’s opponents. The case has a precedent and has been played out in the courts before. In November 1998, the US government won a judgment against the four largest US tobacco companies: Philip Morris, RJ Reynolds, Brown & Williamson, and Lorillard. The case came to trial after a former vice president of research and development at Brown & Williamson, Jeffrey Wigand, turned whistleblower and revealed that his company concealed the tobacco’s health risks and was making concerted efforts to addict people to smoking. High ranking executives were found to have approved the inclusion of known addictive and carcinogenic chemicals, such as coumarin, in its cigarettes to increase smoking, sales and profits.

Before the trial there had never been a lawsuit lost by a tobacco company because no one could prove with absolute medical certainty that smoking had ever caused lung cancer or emphysema. During Congressional hearings, all seven CEOs representing the four tobacco giants lied under oath stating they had no knowledge about an association between nicotine and brain addiction. Their rationale was that they believed their research data and marketing strategies were protected under propriety secrecy claims and therefore they could avoid conviction. Although FDA scientists possessed all the necessary information that could condemn Big Tobacco’s false claims, the industry relied upon proprietary rules in order to hide behind legal protection. The FDA was silenced and powerless to make the industry’s information public. Consequently it is estimated that millions of people died from a risk that could have been prevented or at least reduced substantially. Instead, the FDA honored the tobacco industry above all human life.

The guilty verdict, which resulted in the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement against the tobacco companies, enforced a minimum $206 billion settlement over a 25 year period. While the majority of payments were to settle 46 states’ Medicaid lawsuits to recover smoking related health costs, the settlement unfortunately exempted the industry from private tort claims. Many critics of the Agreement state that the settlement was too merciful. No tobacco executive went to prison and evidence indicates the industry emerged stronger and consolidated the companies into an ever more powerful cartel.[10]

What busted the tobacco companies was not the scientific evidence piling up outside the industry. Rather it was its crimes of omission about cigarettes’ health risks within the industry. The industry’s own research prosecuted itself. And this is demanded today in order to bring down Monsanto’s chemical regime and to protect populations and children throughout the world.

Perhaps we might want to consider the atmosphere Monsanto faced after it first developed glyphosate in 1973 and prepare for EPA approval for the remainder of the decade.

During the latter half of the 1970s, Monsanto’s leading products were under federal inquiry and public assault regarding safety. Dioxin had been banned. Safety concerns arose over its sweetener saccharin, and cyclamate was removed from the market. The company’s attempts to get it’s new artificial sweetener aspartame confronted obstacles during FDA scientific review. Independent research had shown that aspartame caused brain tumors in mammals. And its best selling herbicide at the time, Lasso, was showing signs of carcinogenicity. Today Lasso is a restricted-use pesticide due to its oncogenicity. With sales falling and future growth under threat, Monsanto faced a desperate need to launch a new and novel flagship product. Monsanto found itself banking its future on its new herbicide glyphosate. As we recently discovered, enormous amounts of research, analysis and hundreds of trials were conducted to learn as much as possible about the compound’s bioactivity in mammals and its potential health risks. All of this research data, studies and reports were subsequently sealed as trade secrets upon submission to the EPA. For over thirty years it has sat in the EPA vaults.

Monsanto has yet to be caught and charged for falsifying scientific data on glyphosate. However on earlier occasions two laboratories Monsanto outsourced research to were caught and indicted. In 1978, the EPA busted Industrial Biotest Laboratories for rigging laboratory results; the company’s executives were found guilty for submitting fabricated data supporting glyphosate positively to the government. In 1991, another firm, Craven Labs, was found guilty on similar charges with 20 felony counts.[11]

To this day, Monsanto continues to assert that Roundup is environmentally friendly. We are told it biodegrades rapidly and therefore poses no long-term risks after repeated usage. We are told that the herbicide is ideal for weed control. Throughout the US, it is liberally sprayed on our public parks, school playgrounds, sporting fields, and throughout our lawns and gardens. We are told it doesn’t bio-accumulate in the body’s cells and tissues and is excreted rapidly. We are also told that glyphosate toxicity is dose specific. Only exceedingly high levels of the pesticide pose any serious health risks.[12]

How factual are these claims or are they mere propaganda to obscure scientific truths far more deceptive and sinister? To answer that we would have to know for certain whether or not Monsanto conducted long-term studies on glyphosate that revealed devastating toxic effects on mammal health. We would need evidence that their own data clearly negates their scientific declarations, and that the company intentionally, and with forethought, either distorted or concealed data from federal regulatory officials and the public.

There is now an enormous cache of evidence on both scientific and legal grounds that Monsanto in fact conducted numerous studies in the 1970s and 1980s on glyphosate’s toxicity and health risks and intentionally sealed this research from independent and public review and scrutiny. As with Big Tobacco’s proprietary claims that prevented the FDA from publicly warning Americans about the dangers of smoking, the EPA has sat on Monsanto’s own deleterious data for decades.

Anthony Samsel is an independent research scientist working internationally in the interest of public health and the environment. He is a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists, and a former scientist and consultant at Arthur D. Little, one of the world’s leading management consulting firms. Now retired, Samsel has devoted much of his independent research on Roundup’s toxicological characteristics and bioactivity. Unable to gain access to research reports and data Monsanto submitted to the EPA through FOIAs, he turned to his senator’s office, who assisted in the procurement of studies and reports he sought. Months later he received a hoard of scientific documents, over 15,000 pages worth, covering Monsanto’s complete glyphosate research.

With his co-investigator Dr. Stephanie Seneff at MIT the two have been reviewing Monsanto’s data. Their conclusion is Monsanto’s claims about glyphosate’s safety are patently false. The company has known for almost four decades that glyphosate is responsible for a large variety of cancers and organ failures. Clearly it was for this reason that Monsanto demanded the data and reports to be sealed and hidden from public scrutiny as proprietary trade secrets.

During an exclusive interview on the Progressive Radio Network on September 4, Samsel stated that Monsanto used an industry trick to dismiss evidence about glyphosate’s risks in its own research. “Monsanto misrepresented the data,” says Samsel, “and deliberately covered up data to bring the product [glyphosate] to market.”[13]

In order to minimize and cancel out its adverse findings, Samsel explained that Monsanto had relied upon earlier historical animal control data, toxicological research with lab animals afflicted with cancer and organ failures, and completely unrelated to glyphosate. In some cases the control animals displayed kidney, liver and pancreatic diseases. Many of Monsanto’s own studies required the inclusion of extraneous studies in order to cancel out damaging results. This is not an uncommon industry habit, particularly in toxicological science. It enables corporations to mask undesirable outcomes and make claims that observable illnesses and disease are spontaneous occurrences without known causal factors. Frequently, Monsanto would have to rely on three external control studies to negate the adverse effects of a single one of its own. Samsel found other incidences in Monsanto’s data where 5, 7 and in one case 11 unrelated studies were necessary to diminish the severity of its own findings. In effect, glyphosate received licensure based upon a platform of junk tobacco science. By ignoring cause and effect relationships behind the onset of multiple cancers and other life-threatening diseases throughout many of its research trials, Monsanto engaged in a radical scientific denialism that has since raked in tens of billions of dollars.

But the cache of Monsanto documents, after Samsel’s and Seneff’s review, reveals much more that we should be worried about.

In addition, Monsanto’s studies included doses from low to high range. Samsel observed that low glyphosate doses were equally if not more toxic than higher doses. The company later discontinued low dose trials, relying only on higher levels because it is customarily assumed to have greater toxicological risks. Samsel’s observation has recently been confirmed by a study published in the August issue of the Environmental Health Journal by scientists at Kings College London and the University of Caen in France. The two year study found that glyphosate administered at an ultra low dose of 0.1 ppb (the EU’s safety limit) in drinking water altered over 4000 gene clusters in the livers and kidneys of rats. These alterations, the study reports, “were consistent with fibrosis, necrosis, phospholipidosis, mitochondria membrane dysfunction and ischemia.”[14] Consequently low doses of Roundup are far more toxic than US EPA limits.

During its years investigating glyphosate’s bioactivity, Monsanto conducted hundreds of trials on mice, rats, beagle dogs, rabbits and other life. Among the many cancers and diseases Monsanto’s own research found associated with glyphosate are:

•   Adenoma cancer in the pituitary gland
•   Glioma tumors in the brain
•   Reticular cell sarcomas in the heart
•   Malignant tumors in the lungs
•   Salivary mandibular reticular cell carcinoma
•   Metastatic sarcomas of the lymph gland
•   Prostate carcinoma
•   Cancer of the bladder
•   Thyroid carcinoma
•   Adrenal reticulum cell sarcomas
•   Cortical adenomas
•   Basal cell squamous skin tumors

In female mammals there were cancers of the lung, liver, thymus, stomach, bladder adrenal glands, ovaries, colon, uterus, parathyroid and mammary glands.

Samsel and Seneff also noticed that Monsanto had conducted many long-term studies, as much as two years, on mice and rats. When Gilles-Eric Seralini and his French team reproduced and extended the length of Monsanto’s 3-month GMO maize rat-fed study for the life of the animals, they observed profuse cancer and tumor development started after the 4th month of the study. Monsanto continues to stand by its 3-month study as sufficient proof of GM maize’s safety. Yet the thoroughness and variety of Monsanto’s research operations should give strong reason to suspect that Monsanto has likewise conducted long term studies and knows all too well the deleterious effects of its pesticides, herbicides and genetically modified crops.

One of Monsanto’s claims is that glyphosate doesn’t bio-accumulate in tissues, rapidly bio-degrades and is excreted from the body readily. Contrary to this claim, Monsanto carried out meticulous studies to determine levels of accumulation and the organs, tissues and cells glyphosate reaches. Glyphosate was radio labeled with carbon 14 and given in 10 mg doses to seven groups of animals, male and female. After only 24 hours, the toxic chemical was found in the lungs and all body fluids: lymph, blood, urine and cerebral spinal fluid. Glyphosate also accumulated in the bone by 30 ppm and in the bone marrow by 4 ppm. Monsanto’s studies were comprehensive. It found an accumulation of the chemical in red cells, thyroid, uterus, colon, testes and ovaries, shoulder muscle, nasal mucosa, heart, lung, small intestine, abdominal muscle and the eyes.

Samsel and Seneff noted that the bioaccumuilation in the pancreas was not reported. Why would such meticulous efforts be made to measure radio labeled carbon 14 laced glyphosate levels in all the other organs, tissues and bodily fluids and then ignore the pancreas? The scientists believe this was deliberate.

Samsel notes that glyphosate does a “particular number on the lungs.” According to a 2014 report by the National Cancer Institute, lung cancer rates have been declining. The decline is largely due to the national decrease in smoking. However, other lung cancers such as adenocarcinomas are on the rise. The NCI is unable to account for this anomaly.[15] Yet the Institute is not considering that Americans are increasingly being exposed to glyphosate in their food, water and environment?

During the PRN interview, Dr. Seneff stated that the pancreas may be driving glyphosate to gather in the lungs. The pancreas is responsible for the release of the enzyme trypsin. which in turn infiltrates the lungs. A study published by Brazil’s Universidade Federal de Santa Maria in the medical journal Ciencia Rural measured glyphosate’s reactivity with digestive enzymes including trypsin. Trypsin activity was found to increase in parallel to higher glyphosate concentrations.[16] Seneff suggests that this may be contributing to the increase of glyphosate in the lungs that is contributing to the dramatic rise in COPD and asthma conditions, as well as lung cancers.

The occurrence of cataracts is rising rapidly, particularly in Mid-Western states such as ND, SD, NB, IA, KS, and MO. According to Prevent Blindness America’s statistics, 17% of adults over 40 years have cataract problems. The NIH projects the rate will reach nearly 40% by 2030.[17] Monsanto’s study showing glyphosate activity in the eye may be contributing to this epidemic. Dr. Seneff stated that the eye’s exposure to sunlight reacts with glyphosate residue thereby potentially making the chemical more toxic. Farmers often apply glyphosate on crops when it is warm, moist and when there is plenty of sunlight in order for the chemical to activate more effectively. These are similar conditions to our eyes during the day.

Monsanto’s research was not limited solely to the Roundup compound. It also performed extensive research on glyphosate’s individual metabolites, the intermediate molecules that result after Roundup’s breakdown through metabolic reactions. Many of these metabolites are every bit as toxic as glyphosate. All the glyphosate metabolites in solutions fed to rats were measured before and after feeding. One of Samsel’s more disturbing discoveries was that levels of the metabolite N-Nitrosoglyphosate (NNG) were found in higher concentrations in the rats’ feces and urine excretions than the original amount in the feeding solutions. NNG is a known carcinogen and endocrine disruptor. Samsel postulates that our own body’s natural nitrous acid reacts immediately with glyphosate, without requiring a catalyst, to produce NNG. Both the EPA and the World Health Organization acknowledge that NNG is present in glyphosate during the manufacturing process. The agencies therefore have established safety limits for NNG. However, for any endocrine disruptor, there is no realistic safety limit because such chemical disruptors destroy cells on a molecule to molecule basis.

Nitrous acid naturally occurs in the colon, urinary tract and skin tissue. According to the CDC, skin cancer is the most common form of cancer in the US, and affects more men than women. The Skin Cancer Foundation estimates that “each year there are more new cases of skin cancer than the combined incidence of cancers of the breast, prostate, lung and colon.”[18,19] Basal cell and squamous cell carcinomas are the two most common forms, both which have been identified by Monsanto with glyphosate exposure, particularly in males. When glyphosate reacts in the skin along with nitrous acid the metabolites NNG contributes to skin melanomas. Other chemicals are added to Monsanto’s Roundup to increase its effectiveness such as the surfactant POEA (polyethoxylated tallow amine), which also increases its toxicity.

We don’t pay enough attention to these other ingredients, Samsel states, because the EPA permits Monsanto to add anything it wants to enhance Roundup’s potency while identifying these substances innocuously as “inert.” When Monsanto convinces the public that glyphosate breaks down quickly, we are not told that the compound’s metabolic byproducts are equally toxic.

Therefore Anthony Samsel’s unprecedented discovery and review of Monsanto’s actual scientific and toxicological data of Roundup has provided us with information that warrants a thoughtful pause. Samsel and Seneff cover the subject in more detail in a new peer-reviewed paper titled “Glyphosate Pathways to Modern Diseases IV: Cancer and Related Pathologies.” The paper has been approved for publication in October.

During recent years dozens of states are submitting bills to label GMO foods. These food crops are heavily laced with glyphosate residue. Not only GM crops, but even non-GM produce are sprayed with Roundup. According to the Organic Consumers Association, non-organic and non-GM foods such as wheat, barley, oats, flax, peas, lentils, beans and sugar cane are also being sold to farmers “as a dessicant, to dry out all their crops so they could harvest them faster.”[20] Monsanto, Dupont, Syngenta, Grocery Manufacturers of America and other agro-chemical companies are aggressively combating labeling efforts. The Big Ag lobby is today pushing for a national bill to prevent GMO labeling that would supersede individual state’s rights. We can only wonder what the voting outcome in California, Colorado, Washington and Oregon may have been had Monsanto’s own research been made available to the media and public. Is it therefore not time for full Congressional hearings to learn the truth once for all and make the disclosure of Monsanto’s Roundup research public for all?

Richard Gale is the Executive Producer of the Progressive Radio and a former Senior Research Analyst in the biotechnology and genomic industries. Dr. Gary Null is the host of the nation’s longest running public radio program on nutrition and natural health and a multi-award-winning director of progressive documentary films, including Seeds of Death about GMOs and Poverty Inc. More at the Progressive Radio Network

REFERENCES
[1] Daniel Cressey. “Widely Used Herbicide Linked to Cancer” Nature. March 25, 2015
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/widely-used-herbicide-linked-to-cancer/
[2] RT (Russian TV). “California EPA mulls labeling Monsanto’s Roundup as being ‘known to cause cancer” September 6, 2015                                                                                                                       https://www.rt.com/usa/314544-california-epa-glyphosate-carcinogenic/
[3] Alexis Baden-Mayer, “Monsanto’s Roundup. Enough to Make You Sick” Organic Consumers Association. January 21, 2015
https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/monsanto%E2%80%99s-roundup-enough-make-you-sick
[4] Mary Ellen Kustin. “Glyphosate Is Spreading Like a Cancer Across the U.S.” Environmental Working Group. April 7, 2015
http://www.ewg.org/agmag/2015/04/glyphosate-spreading-cancer-across-us
[5] Jack Kaskey, “Monsanto Raises Forecast as Profits Tops Estimates on Corn” Bloomberg Business, April 3, 2013. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-04-03/monsanto-raises-forecast-as-profit-tops-estimates-on-corn-seed
[6] Alexis Baden-Mayer, op.cit.
[7] Environmental Protection Agency “Glyphosate Fact Sheet” http://www.epa.gov/safewater/pdfs/factsheets/soc/tech/glyphosa.pdf
[8] Environmental Protection Agency. “Basic Information about Glyphosate in Drinking Water”
http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/glyphosate.cfm
[9]Zen Honeycutt, Henry Rowlands, Lori Grace. “Glyphosate Testing Full Report: Findings in American Mothers’ Breast Milk, Urine and Water,” Moms Across America. April 7, 2015 http://www.momsacrossamerica.com/glyphosate_testing_results
[10] “Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement,” Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_Master_Settlement_Agreement
[11] “Monsanto Timeline of Crime 1901-2014” Children of Vietnam Veterans Health Alliance. February 16, 2015. http://covvha.net/monsanto-1901-2014-timeline/
[12] EPA, “Glyphosate Fact Sheet” op cit.
[13] Interview with Anthony Samsel and Stephanie Seneff. Gary Null Show, Progressive Radio Network. Broadcast on September 4, 2015. http://prn.fm/the-gary-null-show-09-04-15/
[14] Mesnage R, Arno M, Costanzo M, Seralini G-E, Antoniou M., “Transcriptome profile analysis reflects rat liver and kidney damage following chronic ultra-low dose Roundup exposure”   Environmental Health 2015, 14:70  doi:10.1186/s12940-015-0056-1
[15] “Lung Cancer Fact Sheet.” American Lung Association. http://www.lung.org/lung-disease/lung-cancer/resources/facts-figures/lung-cancer-fact-sheet.html
[16] Salbero I, Pretto A, Machado da Silva V, Loro V, Lazzari R, Baldisserotto B. “Glyposate on digestive enzymes activity in piava (Leporinus obtusidens). Cencia Rural Vol. 44 no. 9. September 2014.
[17] “Vision Problems in the US,” Prevent Blindness America. http://www.visionproblemsus.org/cataract/cataract-map.html
[18] Skin Cancer Foundation. “Skin Cancer Facts.” http://www.skincancer.org/skin-cancer-information/skin-cancer-facts
[19] “Skin Cancer Statistics,” Centers for Disease Control. http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/skin/statistics/
[20] Alexis Baden-Mayer, op cit.

by song boat

INTRODUCTION to Public Corruption.

INTRODUCTION  Public Corruption, Request for Federal Investigation. Conspiracy against rights, deprivation of rights under color of law, defamation of character, conflict of interest, intentional negligence, fraud………………..

This case concerns my neighbor Mark Conlee’s redevelopment of a legally nonconforming property purchased from the Mayor of my city. He began redeveloping the property adding a new non compliant garage. He trucked in fill dirt and not only was the massive illegal roofs rotated to drain storm water onto my property he set the grade of the elevated fill dirt to drain down onto my property. The five building permits are illegal, the building official refused to address my concerns in regard to the nuisance drainage the redevelopment caused my property as his duty requires. When this neighbor discovered he could not get the illegal redevelopment recorded on the county plat map, he determined the remedy was to eliminate me. He began unlawfully applying chemicals onto my property. It took very little time before the chemicals cause me a severe skin condition. I verbally told this man not to apply anything to my property, and requested an incident report from the chief of police. Needless to say that I had developed a full body severe skin condition before the 16 months in it took the Chief of police to give me the incident report. This was so severe that it was unbearable to wear clothes. I hired an attorney to sue the City. He was onboard with the law at our first meeting. I was questioning him about his knowledge and he passed. The liability was the City. One of the building permits was not signed by the builder and had been forged at a later date from the original on file. The other permits are illegal based on the fact that this was a legally non conforming property. For those who don’t know there are very stringent rules that apply to redevelopment of such properties. As commented by Mayor Dinwiddie on public record. You’re not allowed to build any structure larger that the existing structures. This guy even went so far as to put in a garden pond that drained onto my property. I am a single middle-aged female. I owned my property outright having purchased it in 1995. I opened an upholstery shop that I operated from one of the existing structures on my property. I could not have been happier with my ideal of acquiring my American Dream.

The chemicals continued nonstop. I was surprised when I got served notice that I was being sued by this neighbor for “loss of enjoyment of his property”. It seems that the legally installed privacy curtain that I installed on my side of the 300′ common boundary was too much for him to bear. He could not see out of his windows. Does he even realize that he was looking into his actual side yard? His lot was too narrow to set the oversized structures on. When I spoke to my attorney I was clear that my intent was to sue the City. He advised we would sue both parties adding that the City is where the money was. I know, the libel party is where the money is. I have a long line of paternal parents that held authority titles for a neighboring city. I did not know why he wanted to sue the neighbor to but that is why I hired an attorney. I did not question it. I have never needed an attorney and I am unfamiliar with the court process. The letter of intent my attorney sent the next day did state that if  no remedy in 10 days he would file an injunction. Upon receiving the letter, the neighbor removed all evidence of an existing berm he had illegally removed. He illegally changed, the frontage of his home to now be the city alley. Apparently, the repositioning of his home-made him believe that my backyard was now his backyard . He added a little roof over the side entrance door to make it look as though his frontage was the street but it clearly was the alley now. This being one of many counts of perjury he committed in the civil court case

I continued to go to council meetings each time a new Mayor was elected. That would be an unprecedented four Mayors in 5 years. As a citizen being affected by a nuisance drainage as a result of the noncompliance redevelopment I had the duty to notify the building official that there was a problem. I tried to call him on the telephone, I left messages on his answering machine. He never returned my calls. My attempts to address the city council were in vail, I had the floor and there would be a distraction caused by the former building official. I was never allowed to speak about my complaint or try to get the proper authority to make him to stop applying the chemicals. He would not stop and no law enforcement would file a complaint against him for trespassing.

I believe that if I had been a male, he would never have been brave enough to ignore my request. The Chief of Police did advise me that he did not want to file a complaint against him because he did not want to make him mad. The civil court case he filed against me was dismissed sighting my right to enjoy my property. I felt a sense of relief assuming the chemicals would stop based on the citing of my right to enjoy property I could not have been more wrong. This made him mad. He suspiciously is elected to city council for the sole purpose of “getting me back”. The chemicals continue without hesitation. I hear nothing from my attorney in regards to the case against the city even though I email him multiple times. I went to give him a payment and mentioned that the Mayor actually took my side in regards to the privacy curtain I installed. He advised me that the reason the Mayor took my side was that he had received a letter from my attorney. My attorney had lied to me all this time. He never filed the complaint against the city. He never did anything on my behalf. He did suppress evidence on behalf of this neighbor.

null

This guy and the police chief physically altered Railroad ties I had placed along the common boundary to try to divert the excessive storm water from my property to the city drainage ditch. This was a direct act in contempt of court. There was no reason but to prove to me that he was not going to abide by the court of anyone else’s ruling. He had to have my property.

7-2-2007 summons State of Iowa vs Melody Boatner .jpg

The county attorney advised me that he would decide who is prosecuted in his county. He then proceeds to file criminal charges against me several times for fabricated laws. Laws that do not exist, but I cannot get one for criminal trespassing against this neighbor whose intent is clearly to cause me serious injury or death. I suffered for five long years severe pain. I knew I was dying. Only when a former city police chief now moved on to the Sheriff Dept stopped by my home to advise me that this neighbor had no intention to cease and desist with the chemicals did I know I had no option. I had either to shoot this neighbor dead or sell my home business and property for enough funds to repay the debt I owed my friend for supplying the funds for my basic living expenses over the 5-year period and pay for my final expenses. 

I could not leave this earth without repaying my friends well over $10,000 dollars. My condition only increased, I could not bear to have anything touch my skin the pain never stopped it was 24/7, I had lost my eyesight by this time also as a result of the medical treatment administered to offer my skin some relief. This neighbor has more than less of the traits to determine a psychopath according to Hare’s list. I now know the reason the police chief or anyone else for that matter did not want to make this guy mad. However, for me to be the sacrificial lamb and live to tell about it, no way. It is the duty of law enforcement to protect the rights of the people in these United States. They take an oath to do just that, the criminal acts committed by this enterprise of local government officials is unbelievable. However, the evidence does not lie.

I did survive and I am now seeking compensation for my damages. According the stormwater management handbook, the courts see cities as having deep pockets in not complying to the State building code and drainage laws. Now I am looking for law enforcement and prosecuting attorney that is committed to protecting the rights of their fellow citizens. What is truly unbelievable this group of thugs being afraid to do their duty to the degree that they would rather commit serious criminal acts against me than make this man mad makes me concerned for the entire community. This man showed no empathy when saw my skin. His intent was to acquire my property at any cost. Something’s not right here. I have known these individuals most of my life and I have never witnessed or heard rumor of any of them committing criminal offenses on someone else’s behalf. Mayor Dinwiddie clearly had a personal financial gain when he sold this otherwise worthless piece of property to Mark Conlee. I question whether Dinwiddie disclosed the property to be legally nonconforming. Nevertheless, the city building official intentionally allowed the illegal construction, and avoided his duty to address my concerns. Lee County Attorney Michael Short recently retired and I believe the shuffling of the new County Attorney is finished so I believe it should be possible to hold those who have committed criminal acts be prosecuted and I should be compensated for being the victim of the criminal acts that were committed against me. As it stands, I am forced to watch these individuals living large from the guts of my property. I sit here with chronic health problems in a small section 8 rental houses that is not satisfactory for my lifestyle or sewing machine. I do not know how long I can contain my patience. It has been an extended period. The chances I will be diagnosed with cancer are overwhelmingly a high percent based on the studies on glyphosate. These people have new homes and garage no worries. My achieved American dream has been ripped (taken) from my hands causing injury not compensation. If you read my webpage, you will find much more about this story and the others who conspired to deprive me of my rights under color of law. There just is no other way to view or excuse these events.

This cannot be allowed in the USA under any circumstances. I certainly do not intend to be the first and only citizen who has been subject to such brutal criminal acts by my local government officials. There is no more time for excuses this needs to be addressed. These crimes are in violation of the Constitution of the State of Iowa and The Constitution of the United States of America. I am requesting an investigation into the evidence that I have that has never been reviewed by any authority.

Original property layout

 

This building permit is fraudulent as it is impossible to construct this building from pouring a slab to complete finish in the timeline of 5 days, It is incomplete as there in no fill dirt amount, setbacks or other information required by the State of Iowa. This document is folded for scanning purposes. Boatner was initially informed the this structure was noncompliance because the owner intended to build a living quarters in the second story.

 

After a suspicious fire supposedly destroyed the existing double-wide mobile home this building permit was issued. Fraudulent building permit issued by City of Montrose, Ia. Not signed by builder, no fee charged, no fill dirt or setbacks recorded. This permit is also folded for purposes of scanning.

When the city building official refused to address my concerns about a nuisance drainage issue according to city ordinance I contacted Lee County extension agent for an opinion. He wrote a letter to me and a copy to Mayor Dinwiddie including a copy of the Iowa drainage laws. There was no immediate response.  Only after Mark Conlee was elected to the city council and I followed standard procedure to get the nuisance drainage issue address by a newly elected mayor, City clerk Cirinna altered the fee charged on this original permit to conflict with Lee County Ext. Agents observation. Cirinna’s criminal act of fraud is one of several crimes she committed conspiring with Mark Conlee in order for Conlee to acquire Boatner’s property.

 

Water standing in yard

Water standing in yard. Note upper right hand corner retaining fill dirt on neighbors new garage.

Ground in crawl space saturated with groundwater caused by increased storm water runoff from neighbors new redevelopment and illegal removal of existing berm foundation washed out. This side of the house had never received water like this because of the existing berm that Conlee removed unlawfully.

Neighbor’s allegation that my nuisance drainage was caused by from city street is false. This photo shows crawl space toward street is dry. Dark area of soil is saturated from side of home that faces neighbors property

 Common boundary supporting neighbor applied chemicals to my property (on rights side of photo). This boundary is 300’ long and there was never any action by law enforcement to stop the application of chemicals to my property.I began to report the unlawful acts in late April 2005 and nothing was ever done on my behalf until I was forced to escape from them in Aug 2010. 

request for ditch

request for ditch

I know that most people do not realize what a liar Conlee is. First he claimed in court he thought Boatner wanted a fence. The evidence shows He knew Boatner wanted a ditch dug diverted the storm water from his property to the city ditches as it is written in the first notification Boatner gave him. Anyone with a reasonable mentality could easily predict the foreseeable consequences Conlee’s illegal redevelopment was going to have on Boatner’s property. Boatner’s property lost value after the construction of the garage only.  Conlee installed the wire fence to keep Boatner from digging a ditch down the common boundary. Even though no other neighbor’s are required to protect their property from a neighbors redevelopment. Boatner should not have had to be concerned with flooding of her property had Conlee not been held above the law.

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

Harassment, (simple misdemeanor) defendant with intent annoy another person by flipping the middle finger, continuously

5-5-2005 council meeting Dinwiddie implicates himself, State Rep Phil Wise assisted Boatner

Mayor Dinwiddie states City liability ends when building permits are signed by builder and Building Adm. I then presented the building permit that is signed by Building Administrator Holland but not signed by owner/developer Mark Conlee

If the building codes would have been recognized Conlee would have never been allowed to expand the size of the new structure larger that the existing structures. The Mayor and building official were well aware of the legality of Conlee’s redevelopment that is why they refused to address her grievances. They violated their oath of office. They conspired with Conlee to allow Boatner’s State and Federal RIght to be violated. They conspired with Conlee by allowing him to use chemicals as a weapon to eliminate her from her property.

Poisoned by my neighbor from hell #8 (9).jpg

Boatner did not notice the chemicals until the grass was getting green in the spring 

 The day Boatner discovered the chemicals applied to her property she suspected that was the  cause the “rash” on her shins.  On that day she advised neighbor not to apply anything to my property and requested an incident report from the Police Chief Brent Shipman.

Spreading

Spreading

Condition continues to get worse. No action from law enforcement to protect of private property rights

Poison continued to be applied to my property on a routine basis. By this time the “rash had developed into a full body severe skin condition that cause severe pain to the degree it was unbearable to wear clothes. Poison continues to be applied to my property without my permission against my control

I can think of no more of a brutal way to eliminate a neighbor. In the background is the Steel Roofing I had just purchased to put on my home. It was in no way my decision to move. This was heavy 1/4 “ j channel steel.

I had no authority to stop this neighbor from unlawfully applying chemicals to my property except to take up arms. It was my opinion that law enforcement had the duty to provide protection of my private property rights. effects on my life.

chemical poisoning

chemical poisoning

This is a chemical burn. I was completely unable to function. This was an intentional brutal attack that had serious

 

I advised Conlee not to apply anything to my property in May of 2005 upon discovery of the chemicals unlawfully applied to my property. I followed up directly contacting Police Chief Shipman requesting an incident report.  This was sixteen months after I requested an incident report. By this time the skin condition had progressed into full body condition.

severe skin condition caused by illegal application of chemicals to my property

this is what resulted from Mark Conlee’s intentional exposing me to toxic chemcals, at not time were my Federal Constitutioan Rights to equal proctection of the law, or my right to enjoy my own property protected,

9-16-2006 intentional untimely incident report requested by Boatner 16 months after the discovery of chemicals on her property. By this time it was too late the skin condition had become chronic. There was never any intervention from local city and county law enforcement to protect my right to private property. Police chief Shipman advised me that he did not want to make this neighbor mad.

Lee County Attorney evidence deprivation of rights under color of law

null

Lee County attorney dismissed the photo evidence and advised me that the neighbor had told him (hearsay) that he only applied the chemicals to his side of the fence.

 

exibit # A

Letter of Intent Boatner attorney to Mark Conlee. This fact Conlee and his attorney lied about under oath in a civil court. Perjury, The judge did determine that Boatner’s failure to act, based on Conlee and his attorney’s perjury was a factor in his decision against Boatner.

Boatner hired an attorney very early in this case. He was hired to file a complaint against the City of Montrose early on. Her attorney requested $100 to cover th cost of the complaint that day. Her attorney advised her that he would file a complaint against both parties. He added that the city is where the money is at. 

Strom water regulations FEMA

Stromwater regulations FEMA

In fact Boatner’s attorney did nothing in her best interests except the letter of intent, though it was sent to the wrong party. Attorney Swan advised Boatner at their first meeting that he had already spoken to Lee County Detective Bob Conle about the situation between Boatner and Mark Conlee (the detectives brother). Attorney Swan advised Boatner that Detective Conlee had already lied to him about the property redevelopment.

8-16-2006 Garry Dinwiddie Affidavit

8-16-2006 Garry Dinwiddie suppressed Affidavit

8-16-2005 Affid Stuart Westermeyer supressed from civil case Conlee vs Boatner

8-16-2005 Affid Stuart Westermeyer suppressed from civil case Conlee vs Boatner

8-16-2005 affid. Sally Fowler

8-16-2005 affid. Sally Fowler

8-16-2005 Affid Randy Riddle

8-16-2005 Affid Randy Riddle

8-16-2005 Affid Jake Holland former tenant of 105 N 5th St

8-16-2005 Affid Jake Holland former tenant of 105 N 5th St suppressed

Her attorney could not be so incompetent to fail to question her witnesses or submit the photo evidence as well as the witness affidavits without doing so intentionally. Attorney Steve Swan’s negligence can only be explained by he conspired to violate Boatner’s rights. 

Petition in Equity

Petition in Equity

Boatner was served a summons by Mark and Linda Conlee months later, in Sept 2005. The complaint was for loss of enjoyment of their property. The Conlee’s claimed that by Boatner installing a privacy curtain legally on her own property, she caused them severe distress.

 

Conlee commits perjury in the civil case Conlee vs Boatner also. Her attorney knowingly lie to her. He reassured her that he had filed the complaint. That Sept the neighbor filed a civil complaint against Boatner for loss of enjoyment of his property in regards to a privacy curtain she installed. Legally on her own property along the common boundary.

null

His case was dismissed. The judge, citing Boatner’s right to use her property as she see fit . Boatner believes that Attorney Swan was eager to take her case that it leaves to question whether arrangements were premeditated by Conlee and Swan for him to do just what he did, nothing except suppress evidence that is right here in this file. Suppress testimony of witnesses that he advised Boatner were “experts in their own right” and “compelling”.  He did not ask a question to any of them. He suppressed the written affidavits that were supposed to be submitted to the court. This case followed no standard procedures. What began as a simple nuisance drainage issue that could have been easily remedied. Turned into a criminal conspiracy. Because one of the good old boys was held above the law in redeveloping his otherwise worthless lot of  land. Site layout and drainage is step #1 in redevelopment.  He should have known his nonconforming lot have stringent laws in redevelopment. Dinwiddie acknowledges this in the public record. The building official should have known this, if not there is a reference manual at city hall. This entire five years was a complete mockery of the law. The presentation for the public was stellar in that they kept Boatner oppressed from speaking to the public. Only presenting falsehoods to the general public. Defaming Boatner’s character by claiming she is “crazy”. This was instigated by a third-party who had nothing to do with the drainage issue.

HOW MANY PLAINTIFFS MAKE OUT OF COURT OFFERS TO THE DEFENDANT? NONE?

image

First offer to settle out of court. Plaintiff offer to defendant is admission to guilt. Boatner’s attorney suppressed this from the court.

image

2nd offer to settle out of court. This was suppressed from the court. This offer is completely ridiculous being Boatner is not responsible for the new developments storm water drainage.

This is the privacy curtain Boatner installed. It was within her legal right as there was no fence ordinance at that time. You can also see Conlee’s property is graded down toward her property. The existing berm prior to the redevelopment was located on the left hand side of this photo, Conlee has put some bricks where the berm used to be. You can see the Conlee’s new home has the roof rotated from the original home to divert storm water directly onto Boatner’s property. Prior to the removal of the berm a heavy rain would develop a small pond in this front yard of the Conlee’s property. Boatner’s property received no storm water runoff from the Conlee property. The judge erred in what he stated Conlee’s witness actually stated in her testimony. She actually stated the her (Boatner’s) property NEVER received storm water runoff from the Conlee property. Boatner’s attorney recognized this as a fact in an email exchange. No attorney could be so incompetent not to raise issue with what he acknowledges in an email. The attorney oath swears that he will represent the best interests of his client. Boatner’s attorney failed her in violation of that oath. His action support  a conspiracy with intent to cause Boatner harm.

Finding of Fact, The dismissal of Conlee’s this case only made Conlee more aggressive toward Boatner. He decided he would get elected to council member. The timeline for announcing candidacy was not within the guidelines. We never got the decision on the civil case until the end of Oct. and I believe you must have your position announces before that. Conlee went to the city hall every afternoon when he got off work for a week, and read the city codes before he announced. Having known Conlee for the period Boatner had gotten to know him, he gave her a thumbs up that he had made a deal for his position and was going to be elected to city council, his intent as a council member was to force me to take that curtain down. He intended to harass me financially. Clerk Cirinna obediently began to take orders from Conlee. She fabricated an ordinance specially for Boatner telling her the ordinance meant Boatner had to take the curtain down. Boatner plead not guilty. On the bottom of the court order the judge noted the the issues in this case been remedied by a previous court of law. These type of crimes continued along with the chemicals exposure until 2010. At that time Boatner’s condition had become dire. She also lost her eyesight. She was helpless to defend herself or her property. Conlee’s troops did not waver in their fight to acquire Boatner’s property.

Boatner understood the court ruling, citing Boatner’s right to enjoy her property meant she has been returned complete control of her own property.

She was wrong. Lee County Deputy David Hunold, who came to her home investigating a second of the same fabricated law complaint against her by Lee County Attorney Mike Short on behalf of Mark Conlee. The first complaint stated that Boatner had driven by Conlee’s home and given him the middle finger. According to Officer Hunold Boatner was wrong, since the Judge did not specify Mark Conlee was not allowed to continue to apply chemicals to her property. He could continue and he did continue to apply chemicals to her property. She had just been to court over this same allegation that she had given him the finger and it was dismissed. She never even got to see the judge. Mark Conlee in contempt of court did not show up for court. He was on vacation in Florida. The newest Police Chief Karl Judd advised Boatner that he knew Conlee was on vacation and would be a no-show prior to the court date. These frivolous charges were made against me by Lee County attorney Mike Short in State of Iowa vs Boatner. This 2nd complaint was altered from the original simply by adding the words “he is tired of this happening all the time” therefore bumping it up to a harassment charge. Someone should have advised the County Attorney that there is no law against giving anyone the finger. In Boatner’s opinion the judge would have commented that Conlee deserved for her to give him the finger. Boatner was still was being denied a trespassing complaint against Conlee. As Officer Hunold was leaving her home she told him wait, she wants to file a complaint for trespassing, having just shown him the court document. Officer Hunold advised her that he was only there to investigate a complaint from Conlee that she had given him the finger. Lee County Attorney Mike Short had sent him in case there was a conflict of interest involved. There definitely was a conflict of interest in this case. This case reeks of violations of Federal law.

May 23 2008 Mark Conlee assisted by Police Chief Shipman violates the civil court order. Somehow Chief Shipman feels he has the authority to overrule a court order and authorize Conlee to alter the railroad ties Boatner had placed on her property along the common boundary to divert the excessive amount of storm water runoff. Boatner’s property now receives 90% of Conlee’s stormwater runoff after the illegal property redevelopment. He pulled the plastic edging out that Boatner had installed, he pushed the ties out of alignment. You can see a broken stab in the foreground of this photo. The stab’s were broken off at ground level all the way down the row of ties. Boatner was putting myself in danger by being out in her yard to place these ties and edging as there was chemicals that had been applied to the entire common boundary. Boatner had no chance to secure her private property rights. Her only option other than to flee would be to shoot this man dead.

This photo is easier to indicate the broken staub’s and edging that was pull from the ground and laying on top of the soil. This action was don’t in contempt of the civil court order citing Boatner’s right to enjoy my own property. He never did this to the upper half of the property. He did this in the middle of the night. Earlier that day Conlee along the Police Chief approached Boatner and informed her that he was going to move her railroad ties. Boatner went in her house and returned with a single shot pellet gun. Boatner stood guard and defended her property till after dark. Boatner is human she was still trying to operate her upholstery shop business and did goe in the house to try to get some rest. The next morning this is what took place on her property. Several weeks later Conlee calls a false report into the police stating he heard shots fired from Boatner’s property. The purpose for the false police report was to know if Boatner had weapons. It is a violation of the law to make false police reports. There is no law that applies to Mark Conlee. You can see the amount of fill dirt that was brought into Conlee’s property by the retaining timbers on the left of the photo. He committed perjury in the civil case denying the amount of fill dirt he had trucked in. As you can see Boatner’s property has mature trees and his property has nothing that would prevent him from installing a drain pipe to divert his storm water to the city drainage ditch as required by State drainage law.

This is the finished illegal property redevelopment of Boatner’s neighbor. Completely not in compliance with state building code, Conlee went to get this recorded on the County plat map and apparently it was denied. This is the reason that he determined the remedy was to eliminate Boatner. It took 5 years of severe suffering, emotional and physical before she had no choice but to flee. The only other option she had,  was to shoot this man dead or flee. This was her home, business and property. It was apparent that Boatner or Conlee was going to die if she stayed, Due to the intentional negligence and conspiracy against her rights by local government officials She is still being denied justice. These government officials have been allowed to commit serious criminal offenses. why? Boatner will not go away, No way no how. Her assets were in her property, Her property has been forcibly taken. Her credit rating before Conlee came to the worthless lot next door was 760. Two trips to the ER in the first few days of this attack wiped her credit out. Then as a council member Conlee uses his position in an attempt to cause her more financial harm. By involving the City clerk, who has no problem forging documents of file or fabricating city ordinances. There is a slough of things the clerk preformed that were criminal and ethical violations, Anyone who looks at this evidence a see that.

There is no excuse for the treatment of a human being as brutal as this attack waged against me. Boatner has EPA results and much more evidence that she has the right to submit. To date no authority has given her the opportunity.

Does anyone recognize a conspiracy against rights? Deprivation of Rights under color of Law? These are violations of Federal law.

Anyone who does not visually recognize that these oversized structures set sideways on the Conlee property has changed the frontage of his property to be the city alley is not qualified to oversee the first step taken when redeveloping begins, site layout and storm water drainage.

Anyone who does not visually see the significant increased storm water being diverted onto Boatner’s property is not qualified to oversee new property redevelopment.

Anyone who does not recognize the violations against Boatner’s State and Federal Rights please explain how Boatner’s rights have not been violated.

Boatner wants to know the process needed to redress grievances. Her attempt to get any answers from anyone has been in non productive. She has been put through hell by the chronic skin condition and the loss of her eyesight. Yet expected to continue to defend her person and property. For five years she has been disabled and unable to simply bear to wear clothes.

Had she have invoked her second amendment rights where would she be now? Would she have been found not guilty of murder and at home enjoy life as it was prior to Conlee purchasing the lot next door from the Mayor? Would she be in prison for murder. We will never know. We know that she is still burdened by the events that took place in violation of Federal law from Spring of 2005  – Fall of 1010. Her ability to enjoy life is blocked by the crimes committed against her by an entire local government subdivision. This cannot be dismissed as the basic fundamental rights are what we as Americans base our freedoms on.

Existing Conflicts of Interests Among City of Montrose and Lee County Iowa Officials

In Regard to the property redevelopment Property 105 N TH St Montrose, Ia

Mayor Ron Dinwiddie             Seller                                                                    Buyer                 Mark Conlee

                                    Members on Montrose Volunteer Fire Department

Mayor Ron Dinwiddie
Mark Conlee
Council Member/Building Admin/ Mark Holland(Fire Chief)
Council Member Jeff Junkins

                                                                   Co-workers

Council Member Jeff Junkins                                                                       Council Member Mark Conlee

                                                             Family Members

Lee County Detective Robert (Bob) Conlee                       Brothers                                  Mark Conlee
Council Member Mark Holland                          Siblings                          Council Member Judy Brisby
Lee County FEMA Officer Steve Cirinna         Spouses              City of Montrose Clerk Celeste Cirinna

                      City of Montrose and Lee County, Iowa Law Enforcement

Lee County Detective Robert Conlee     special relationship            Lee County Attorney Michael Short
Lee County Deputy David Hunold          special relationship                Montrose Chief of Police Karl Judd
Montrose Chief of Police Brent Shipman                                  Lee County FEMA Officer Steve Cirinna
by song boat

Unlawful application of chemicals to my property with intent to cause serious injury.

Did you know that occupying on private land protected by Property rights is considered a trespass? The law will find you guilty and can send you away for a couple of months or pay some hefty fee you’ll probably regret. So to avoid such a debacle, here are some facts about property rights and trespassing

via Property Rights And Trespassing — The Judge’s Chamber: Law Blog