You know full well that there are laws that protect citizens from aggressive neighbors. There is no record of a citizen having to shoot a neighbor in the knee caps to keep him from applying chemicals to their property. I would think if all you had to do was apply chemicals to a neighboring property until they have no option of excaping the chemcials except by fleeing, it would be happening everyday. It is not happening everyday, it does not happen everyday and the reason is because it is against the State and Federal law to do anything to the property of another person. They cannot do it and if they do they are subject to arrest by law enforcement. They do not get to continue the terrorist crimes against humanity until the people who are being poisoned flee. It does not happen and It is not going to happen to me. So whoever had the duty to file a trespassing complaint against this neighbor, I want to know right now. Is it the City police chief? Is it the County Attorney? Because I am going to challenge them to a fist fight. How dare they treat me as an undeserving citizen. How dare they use attorney discrection when the acts agaisnt me were life threatening. Kevin Vanderschel I am coming to town and I am going to request that you review the factual evidence, not the hearsay that you have gotten from third parites. If you collude with these local imposters I am going to swing on you. You do not have the right to violate my rights and you do not have the right to allow anyone to get away with intentionally causing me physical harm. I do not care if you can show me where it is written that you do, I am telling you you can find someone else to violated because I am not going to allow you or anyone else to do it to me . You oath or you office, which is it going to me, I am pissed off. I spent the last two years with an FBI agent who is either ignorant to the natural rights given to the people or he simply is protecting those people who gave him false information and he used it as facts. He has lied to you, I can prove it and you are going to give me the opportunity to prove not one of these locals are credible. I think I could take you in a fist fight, I don’t care how big you are. I am bigger because I have not violated anyone, I have not lied to anyone and most of all I have not critially harmed anyone. Be expecting me as I intend to come to your city on business, perhaps we could have lunch, my treat. Have your evidence prepared because I have mine all ready to battle it out, I do not want you on my case. You are not committed enough to your job to represent my case. You have already as much as told me you are going to allow my property to be taken by force and leave me with only the calassed hands from building my home, business and happiness. You should be ashamed to call your self a public servant just as the rest of them are. Collusion comes to mind.
“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.”
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 […]
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.
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
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.).
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. 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.
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. 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. 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.
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. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.” 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. 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. 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. 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.” 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
 Daniel Cressey. “Widely Used Herbicide Linked to Cancer” Nature. March 25, 2015
 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/
 Alexis Baden-Mayer, “Monsanto’s Roundup. Enough to Make You Sick” Organic Consumers Association. January 21, 2015
 Mary Ellen Kustin. “Glyphosate Is Spreading Like a Cancer Across the U.S.” Environmental Working Group. April 7, 2015
 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
 Alexis Baden-Mayer, op.cit.
 Environmental Protection Agency “Glyphosate Fact Sheet” http://www.epa.gov/safewater/pdfs/factsheets/soc/tech/glyphosa.pdf
 Environmental Protection Agency. “Basic Information about Glyphosate in Drinking Water”
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
 “Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement,” Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_Master_Settlement_Agreement
 “Monsanto Timeline of Crime 1901-2014” Children of Vietnam Veterans Health Alliance. February 16, 2015. http://covvha.net/monsanto-1901-2014-timeline/
 EPA, “Glyphosate Fact Sheet” op cit.
 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/
 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
 “Lung Cancer Fact Sheet.” American Lung Association. http://www.lung.org/lung-disease/lung-cancer/resources/facts-figures/lung-cancer-fact-sheet.html
 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.
 “Vision Problems in the US,” Prevent Blindness America. http://www.visionproblemsus.org/cataract/cataract-map.html
 Skin Cancer Foundation. “Skin Cancer Facts.” http://www.skincancer.org/skin-cancer-information/skin-cancer-facts
 “Skin Cancer Statistics,” Centers for Disease Control. http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/skin/statistics/
 Alexis Baden-Mayer, op cit.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
First offer to settle out of court. Plaintiff offer to defendant is admission to guilt. Boatner’s attorney suppressed this from the court.
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
Council Member/Building Admin/ Mark Holland(Fire Chief)
Council Member Jeff Junkins
Council Member Jeff Junkins Council Member Mark Conlee
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
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