Here is a general google search for “illegal building permits issued” you will find none that describe a neighbors right to apply chemicals to a neighbor in order to acquire their property to make the illegal redevelopment legal. Quite the opposite, in fact.
A nonconforming use is generally defined as a land use or structure that was legal when established but does not conform to the standards of the current zoning ordinance. The term“nonconforming use” actually covers several situations, including nonconforming uses, lots and structures.
Pre-existing land uses that do not conform to current zoning are not favored. The ultimate goal of zoning is to achieve uniformity of property uses within each zoning district. At the same time, landowners have made investments in their businesses and buildings, and it would be unfair — not to mention illegal in some states — to require immediate termination or removal. Rather than require the immediate elimination of these preexisting uses, the zoning ordinance will outline a set of conditions for the continued existence of nonconforming uses.
Although state courts apply different interpretations to local zoning codes regarding nonconforming uses, the expansion, enlargement or intensification of a nonconforming use in almost all cases can be regulated or prohibited.
Resumption of a nonconforming use or structure after it has been destroyed may be prohibited in some states. In other states the right to re-establish the nonconforming use exists. Zoning ordinances traditionally have set a specific threshold– for example, a percentage of assessed value — for defining what constitutes destruction, and courts generally defer to the stated threshold. Again, the principle is to allow landowners to continue to reap the benefits of investments made in their properties. If those investments have been destroyed, however, the community may or may not have an obligation to allow a landowner to reinvest in a use prohibited by current zoning.
To prevent nonconforming uses from becoming blighted properties, zoning codes generally do allow for routine maintenance and repair, so long as such activities do not constitute expansion or enlargement.
Once a nonconforming use has been abandoned, its resumption can be prohibited. Most ordinances state a time period, usually six months to a year, that creates a presumption of abandonment if the property is not used for that period. Some states do not allow just a passage of time to establish abandonment. The issue of what constitutes abandonment is one that is generally the subject of much state court case-law, with some courts requiring that an “intent to abandon” be shown before the nonconforming use is considered to be terminated. The intent to abandon may be something like a list of criteria, in the zoning ordinance, from which “abandoned” is established from a preponderance of facts about the particular situation.
Iowa State University
For any adult with a primary school education not to recognize the attack committed against me for the purpose of acquiring my property is an adult who has no comprehension of moral law. For my local government officials to assist in the attack against me is unbelievable. These officials have acted to the extreme level of corruption on behalf of one man. I do not understand exactly why there would commit criminal offenses to this degree. To do anything to someone else’s property without their permission shows that person has no moral turpitude. When all local government officials knowingly assist the trespasser in his quest to acquire my property I have read make them as culpable as this special neighbor.
My intent is to expose these individuals and have my day in court. The evidence does not lie. I have contacted every government local, State and Federal official, organization and agency known to have the authority to investigate my allegation, all respond they do not have jurisdiction most people or agencies do not respond at all. Chemical weapons are the most damaging weapon used in war. Agent orange continues to affect those who were exposed to it from first used in the Vietnam war.
Being intentionally exposed to chemicals by my well connected neighbor continues to physically and emotionally affect me every minute of every day. To date I have suffered from a severe skin condition, I am speaking of excruciating pain 24 hours a day. So extremely painful that it was unbearable to have anything touch my skin. This started as what I at the time referred to as an allergic reaction or rash of some kind developing on my shins. I have no history of skin eruptions, not even a case of poison ivy. The severe condition lasted over 7 years.
Apparently there is no other case in which local law enforcement have not followed their duty and filed a trespassing complaint if someone trespasses on the land of another. There was no recognition that this was a moral wrong by any of the local community. No violation of the law was recognized by the local law enforcement.
I was ready to check out of this life on a day that provided no hope. I had decided that I could not stand to suffer another day with this condition.
Then out of the blue one single Dr saved my life. As of today I have it under control. This Dr. is from the University of Iowa Hospital. I developed a large lump on my back, I have no history of lumps on my back. It has since been removed. Understand when this “allergic reaction” or “rash” rapidly worsened I went to a local dermatologist. I explained to him that I was self employed with no medical insurance. I advised him that I could not afford educated guesses. I did not advise him that my neighbor had been continuously trespassing on my property and applying chemicals. I did advise him that I had been exposed to chemicals. Why did I not tell him that the chemical exposure was ongoing and continuous? Because how could that be possible? Law enforcement has the duty to protect property owners from trespassers. That Dr. would question my sanity had I told him the truth about the amount of chemicals I had been exposed to.
This does not happen in the USA. It violates my Federal right to enjoy my own property and my Federal right to equal protection of the law. The Dr. make several educated guesses, he misdiagnosed me as being allergic to the sun. When I went for a checkup a week later he believe that I had ignored his advice and had been in the sun. I had not been in the sun, what he believed to be sunburn was the chemical burn resulting from the chemicals applied to my property by my neighbor. He gave me oral steroids the first appointment, no positive effects resulted from the steroids. He then determined my condition was caused by something else. I do not recall what that diagnosis was, I recall that the steroids given for that diagnosis were ineffective. He did not consider the chemical exposure to be the cause of my condition. He did advise me to find out what the chemical was, stating that he could better treat if he knew the chemical.
I went to the next monthly city council meeting to inquire as to what the chemical used on the city easement of my property was. The room went silent. The Mayor and council members stared blankly at each other. The neighbor was a sitting council member, he did not utter a word. Not one of the members spoke one word. Professional courtesy would suggest one of them may have offered to find out. I advised them when I had the floor that I needed the information for medical purposes. Nobody cared that I was standing in a weakened condition, arms clearly visible and raw. I exited the building with no answers. The following day I saw the Street dept director was coming down the street my way. I walked to the street and stopped him. I advised him what took place at the meeting and how brutal I felt I had been treated by the community leaders. His response was they could not tell me the chemical as they were not aware any chemicals had been applied on my property, or anywhere else in the city for that matter.
Only my neighbor/council member knew the answer to my question. He had an intent for his actions, he was not going to say a word about what the chemical was that he applied to my property. The dermatologist had ran his limit on educated guesses with my finances. I did not return to him. The pain I was suffering increased as rapidly as the skin condition began to cover my entire body.
I requested the neighbor be issued a trespassing complaint from the Chief of Police the day I discovered the evidence that chemicals had been applied to my property. The chief of police advised me that he did not want to make this neighbor mad and denied my request. I requested an incident report from the police chief when I first discovered chemicals had been applied to my property. I received and insufficient incident report. I rejected that report and insisted a report be given to me that had the factual information included. A week later I received a report that was substandard but I accepted it as it touched on what took place. One problem with this requested incident report was the fact that I received the report 16 months after I first discovered the chemicals on my property. The timeliness was supportive to the neighbors motive for applying the chemicals as by this time I was completely unable to function. I went to several different Drs. during this time. None could offered any remedy, all offered oral steroids having no relief from the pain. This had been ongoing now for several years, beginning in spring 2005. This neighbor had the chemicals applied to my property as part of his own yard maintenance routine. I had decided I could not suffer one more day. I was making arrangements to get to the other side.
A neighbor, a registered nurse requested that I please go to the ER as a final attempt at offering me some relief from the constant physical pain. Initially they gave me oral steroids. When she returned home from work that evening she could see that my condition if anything was worse. I advised her that they gave me a shot of steroids. She advised me that they should have given me an IV of steroids. She advised me to wait 24 hours and go back. The break of daylight I returned to the ER. At that time they gave me IV steroids. Before I had arrived back at my house, my condition was significantly improved. Barely detectable was the horrible looking skin that was present just an hour before. I felt no itching at all. Oh my god, thank you Jesus. I do not recall but the medical records will show how long the temporary fix lasted. Perhaps a couple days. I could feel it erupting by the second, Within a couple days my condition was back. As painful if not worse that before the amazing steroids.
The only option available to me for relief was to wait until I could not bare the pain any longer and return to the ER and they would administer another steroid IV. As time went on the less time relief was given by the IV steroids. To me even if I felt relief for 30 minutes it was 30 more minutes I could tolerate on this earth. It had not occurred to me the side effects that I had as a result of the IV steroids.
One day a friend stopped to check on me. She loudly mentioned if my face was any closer to the computer monitor I would have to climb on top of it. My vision had become significantly affected. I could not read, I could not recognize people. I had no business driving. I had been basically homebound throughout these years because wearing clothes was unbearable. I only drove when I had to make it to appointments. I did drive into ditches because I could not see exactly where driveways were. I had applied for disability online and only discovered I was declined because I could not read the email requesting I submit more documentation.
I applied and was approved for County general relief. At that time I was able to see an optician. The nurse had to read the patient information form for me and I orally told her the answers. When he was checking my vision he advised me that he had never seen such a severe case of cataracts from a person my age. When I told him I had been having taking oral and IV steroid injections for an extended period of time he advised me that the steroids caused of the severity of my cataract. I was not aware that steroids caused cataracts.
Prior to being intentionally exposed to these chemicals I owned an operated an upholstery shop from my property in this city when the chemicals had been applied to my property against my permission. From having no problem threading a needle to the point when I had a driver’s license exam and when asked to read the third row of letters my response was that I could not see a third row. I was issued my drivers license in spite of not being able to pass the vision test because my cataract surgeon sent a note to the drivers license division stating that I was scheduled for cataract surgery within the following 2 weeks. The timeline from the day I discovered chemicals had been applied to my property until the cataract surgery was spring 2005 through 2012. I was still having to get steroid IV’s for relief from skin condition. Still requesting law enforcement file a trespassing complaint against this neighbor and still being denied, I was forced to flee from my property to escape the chemicals in summer 2010.
I was living in a camper behind my sons home when I began feeling confused and knew that my thoughts were not right. I remember hearing Charlie Sheen speaking to me as a sort of private message to me from the television. My actions were not at all in my character. One day I remember being out back of the house and although I knew I was talking to a cedar tree I was talking to it as if it was my sister, I was asking one cedar tree why he (her boyfriend) had cut off her legs with a chainsaw. It was the strangest thing I have ever experienced in my life. I was taken to the ER and it was determined that my hallucination were caused by IV steroid overdose administered by the Ft Madison Community Hospital ER. I was kept for observation the next 2 days and released. My mental state was normal. Urine and blood tests proved negative for drugs conflicting with what the local officials claimed to defame my character publicly beginning in the year 2004.
My medical history has always been good up to the point of being exposed to the chemicals. I alway practiced preventive medicine since I was one of the many self employed Americans who was without health insurance. I had the 6 months basic living expenses saved back in case of an unexpected emergency as Suzie Orman suggests. I followed all the standard procedures to remedy the unlawful application of chemicals on my property. I was well aware that having good health was a must to being successfully self employed. I certainly never expected one man who was held above the law in the redevelopment of his newly purchased lot adjoining mine to become a threat to my health.
He made the choice to purchase the legally nonconforming lot adjoining mine from the Mayor. He made the choice to disregard the stringent State guidelines required to redevelop a legally nonconforming property. All with the assistance of the City building official. Had this have gone to court, the court would have required him to remove the illegal oversized structures. When he was finished with his illegal redevelopment issue by illegal city building permits he went to get this illegal property recorded on the County plat map. The accessor in no way could have recorded this redevelopment legally. I believe it was rejected. It was then that this neighbor/council member determined the remedy to his problem was to eliminate me. He had to acquire my property to ever be able to get enough land to comply with State building code. He chose to use chemicals as a weapon to accomplish his goal. He achieved his goal only with the full support of local government officials. He nearly took my life, but that was of no concern to any of them. I want the evidence reviewed with a full investigation. I am requesting an legitimate investigation into public corruption as described as the duty of the FBI, and Federal charges brought against these government subdivisions and the individuals who without participating I would still be whole.
The SHERIFF is the only elected Law Enforcement Officer in the State of Iowa.
THE DUTIES OF SHERIFF INCLUDE:
- Execution and return of all legal civil papers
- Enforce the law of the State of Iowa
- Enforce County Ordinances
- Conduct criminal investigations
- Provide Law Enforcement services to the Judicial Court System
- Supervise all jails and the custody of incarcerated offenders
- Maintain the Sex Offender Registry
- Patrol all areas of the county
- Respond to any and all disasters within the county
- Assist other Law Enforcement agencies
- Sustain Iowa VINE for Victims
This is an example of the standard procedure followed in any action in this “criminal” case. There was no local government official willing to honor their ethical oath. They were all completely devoted to Mark Conlee’s goal to acquire his goal. It was like they were hypnotized. I know full well that the County attorney should know what is a criminal violation and what is a fabricated law. Chief Shipman scratched out the last sentence as I advised him there was no law preventing a citizen from having two licensed, insured vehicles on their private property. Mark Conlee used his position as council member to push past any recognition of ethical standards. I feel like I have been raped by these public servants. I will never be the person I was prior to the physical assault by this gang.in their quest to acquire my property. No holds barred, they were intent on this goal. I was unable to assert my rights to save my life.
March 3, 2005 PAGE 196
MONTROSE COUNCIL MEETING PUBLIC HEARING & REGULAR MEETING
The Montrose City Council met for Regular meeting at 7:00 p.m. on the 3rd day of March 2005. Council met at City Hall, 102 S. 2nd St. pursuant to law with Mayor Ronald Dinwiddie presiding and the following Council members present: Brisby, Holland, Junkins, and Slater. Roberts was absent.
Call to Order. Regular meeting called to order at 7:00 p.m.
Agenda. Moved by Holland, seconded by Slater to approve Agenda without Item No. 2 under New Business. All ayes. Motion declared carried.
Page 197 MONTROSE COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 3, 2005, PAGE 2
Ordinance No. 191. Councilwoman Brisby says we had a building inspector at one time. Dinwiddie says we don’t have one now because the City didn’t want to be responsible if they inspected a home and something happened. Brisby also states the City had a building code at one time. Dinwiddie says that code was from the 1980’s. We are now adopting the International Building Code. He says even if we don’t have a building inspector, if someone has a complaint the City could enforce the International Code. Moved by Holland, seconded by Slater to pass on first reading AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF MONTROSE, IOWA 2003 BY AMENDING PROVISIONS PERTAINING TO CHAPTER 50 SO AS TO PROVIDE A NUISANCE CODE FOR NUISANCE ENFORCEMENT. Roll call voting 4-0. Brisby, aye; Roberts, absent; Slater, aye; Junkins, aye; Holland, aye. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Ordinance No. 192. Moved by Holland, seconded by Brisby to pass on first reading AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF MONTROSE, IOWA 2003 BY ADOPTING THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE. Roll call voting 3-1. Junkins, aye; Slater, nay; Brisby, aye; Roberts, absent; Holland, aye. Motion declared carried.
Ordinance No. 193. Moved by Holland, seconded by Junkins, to pass on first reading AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF MONTROSE, IOWA 2003 BY ADOPTING THE UNIFORM CODE ON ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS. Roll call voting 4-0. Roberts, absent; Brisby, aye; Holland, aye; Slater, aye; Junkins, aye. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Ordinance No. 194. Councilman Holland says the Fire Department doesn’t have the Fire Code books. They do not do inspections because of the liability. He says the City can ask the State Fire Marshal to inspect a building if needed. Moved by Holland, seconded by Brisby to pass on first reading AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF MONTROSE, IOWA 2003 BY ADOPTING THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE. Roll call voting 4-0.
Slater, aye; Junkins, aye; Holland, aye; Roberts, absent; Brisby, aye. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Ordinance No. 195. Dinwiddie says the City is responsible for the trees between the sidewalk and the street. Moved by Holland, seconded by Junkins to pass on first reading AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF MONTROSE, IOWA 2003 BY AMENDING TREES. Roll call voting 3-1. Holland, aye; Brisby, aye; Junkins, aye; Roberts, absent; Slater, any. Motion declared carried.
Hiring Police Chief. Clerk/Treasurer Cirinna says she received ten applications. All had been notified of the physical given by the Sheriff’s Office on March 10, 2005 at Central Lee. Council will meet at 5:00 p.m. on March 10, 2005 to review applications of the persons who have passed.
Dinwiddie went to the ILEA Records Requirement School. He says they realize not all towns hire a Police Chief the proper way. The City will now follow ILEA hiring standards. First there is a physical, the first interview, the MMPI and a second interview; all the while weeding out applicants.
Hiring Reserve Officers. Dinwiddie says we should wait. Kent Rubey concurred, saying we should wait until a Chief is hired.
Authors Note: The City ordinances code does include nuisance drainage ordinance. That code was never recognized when Mark Conlee’s illegal property redevelopment was diverting a significant amount more of stormwater onto my property, causing adverse effects to my property. Including uncontrollable flooding and loss of value. The Mayor states the city could enforce the State uniform building code if needed. There was no effort to do that when Conlee was in violation. The Mayor is mistaken, the city is responsible for any damages due to negligence of the city. Any city who issues building permits, has an appointed building official (in this case Mark Holland) is obligated to oversee compliance to State building code and drainage laws. It is my opinion the Mayor was making this statement to dumb down the citizens attending this meeting. Are people really ignorant to believe these falsehoods? Are there no experts that have access to my posts. Nobody has an educated opinion. WTH is wrong with people who are silent when a brutal intentional attack has taken place against a neighbor, friend and fellow citizen? Any opinion is welcome. If anyone has evidence that a City can legally issue a building permit, have an appointed building official and not be responsible for damages occurred due to the building officials failure to address the concerns of a neighboring property owner, not review the building plans and assure compliance to State building code the show me what I do not know about. Just say something about any of the information I have and will continue to post. I believe the actions of my local government officials are criminal. In violation of my State and Federal Constitutional Rights. I am angry that nobody locally has answered even one of my questions. Now I am posting it publically and nobody has an opinion. GRRRR.
Evidence based on hearsay, “Mark Conlee says” when my evidence was hard copy documents, photos and witnesses described as “experts in their own right” and compelling list of witnesses in its own right.
APRIL 7, 2005, PAGE 204 MONTROSE COUNCIL MEETING PAGE 2
1. Drainage ditch. Mark Conlee spoke with Council regarding runoff from his property into a neighbor’s yard. He says Craig Junkins dug a trench and all is well now.
a. Standard procedure would be that the complainant would confirm whether an issue has been resolved.
b. Mark Conlee saying all is well now was far from the truth. Nothing had changed at all.
c. There was no excavation of a ditch in front of the Conlee property. Easily detected with the naked eye
d. The drainage problem was caused by the non conforming in size of the new structures and illegal change of the frontage of Conlee’s property. Easily detected with the naked eye.
May-5-2005 MONTROSE COUNCIL MEETING
2. Councilman Junkins said he talked to Mark Conlee and according to Mr. Conlee his lawyer told him there wasn’t a problem.
a. Jeff Junkins has an existing conflict of interest as he is a fellow employee of Mark and Linda Conlee.
b. Junkins made this statement at a public meeting as if it were a fact, possibly giving the general public attending a false opinion of the law.
c. The lawyer Conlee is speaking of, is not a lawyer at all, he is misrepresenting his brother, Lee County Detective Bob Conlee to be a lawyer. Conlee did not seek legal advice from a licensed attorney until later in the year.
OCTOBER 6, 2005 MONTROSE COUNCIL MEETING
3. He (Mark Conlee) said her fence blew over during a recent storm.
a. Mark Conlee is lying about my curtain blowing over, had that of happened he would have had pictures for evidence
4. Conlee says there is a lot of traffic there.
a. Mark Conlee has no view of my driveway from any spot on his property.
b. He fails to mention there is a 4 way stop on my corner. Everyone stops at that corner from any direction.
c. He is defaming my character to be involved with illegal drug activity to collude with his brother’s, Lee County Detective Bob Conlee’s, defaming statements about my character.
d. The fact that I operated a successful upholstery business does bring clients to my home, however it’s not a lot of traffic.
5. Conlee stated Mark Holland told him he could put a fence on his side of the line he shares with Melody Boatner.
a. By making this statement Conlee indicates Holland has responded to his questions.
b. In my complaints against Conlee’s redevelopment, Holland refused his appointed duty.
c. Holland stated that he had no intention of addressing my concerns about the nuisance drainage caused by the illegal redevelopment.
6. He (Mark Conlee) says he has put weed killer on his side of the fence.
a. Photo evidence proves this is a false statement made by Mark Conlee
7. He states Melody Boatner has put a black curtain on an insecure structure.
a. I did put a privacy curtain up, however it was not insecure. I was well within my rights to install a privacy curtain. I have the right to enjoy my own property. However what I could control on my own property was very little without taking up arms. I have the right to take up arms to defend my property and my person. Being a reasonable person I expected the law to intervene they did, but not upholding the law, what they did was in violation of State and Federal law.
b. Mr. Conlee made a habit of hollering across the yard at me telling me that he was over the setbacks and such. Out of sight, out of mind.
c. He would make sure my customers saw him by walking to the center of his yard by giving them an intense look of disapproval. This made my customers uneasy. His actions were not that of a reasonable normal person.
d. Had Conlee not been allowed to violate the law and change the frontage of his property to be the alley he may not have had the impression that my backyard was his backyard. It is actually his side yard. He committed perjury in his civil case against me stating he did not change the frontage of his property.
e. Conlee has no backyard to speak of as his entire property lot is filled with oversized structures that overfill his allotted space.
8. Conlee says Boatner has broken the law with her wording.
a.This is another false statement made in a public forum for the purpose of giving the community an unfavorable opinion of my character.
b. I was well within my right to post “Do not spray weed poison on my property.
c.The sign was on my property
9. Conlee says the black plastic on the lawn is a nuisance.
a. There is no ordinance stating black plastic is a nuisance, the material was not black plastic it was commercial landscape fabric.
10. The Conlee’s say they have never had words with her and they have done nothing wrong.
a. He has had words with me such as hollering across the yard to inform me that he was over the setbacks.
b.He along with the police chief acting as a witness advised me that he was going to violate the civil court ruling that cited my right to enjoy my property, by physically moving the landscape timbers I had placed on my side of the common boundary to divert the excessive stormwater runoff that he intentionally diverted onto my property.
c. They have violated every law in the book regarding redeveloping a legally nonconforming property.
d. However it is the duty of the City of Montrose to oversee that the redevelopment is compliant to State law.
e. The false statements he made to the public defaming my character were enough to give an unfavorable opinion of the general public, I was unable to wear clothes and was unable to function enough to publicly challenge him on his false statements. Not that I have the duty to hold him accountable to the law, that is the duty of law enforcement and the city.
11. They were attacked with the writing on the curtain and are emotionally upset.
a. This is not even debateable, I had every right to post “do not spray” and to install a privacy curtain
b. At the time there was no city fence ordinance.
c. I was physically and emotionally and financially destroyed by the intentional terrorist acts committed against me by Mark Conlee and his conspirators of local government authorities. Using chemicals as a weapon is according to law an act of terrorism.
d. My right to equal protection of the law was violated by the criminal offenses committed by Conlee and the other officials who acted on his behalf.
e. Evidence shows Conlee was actually advised by Mayor Dinwiddie not to encroach on the property line, to set the fence back from it. Conlee did not take Mayor Dinwiddies advice. Conlee installed his wooden fence with the wrong side out, however no person ever made him do it correct and compliant to State building code.
e. Conspiracy against rights and Deprivation of rights under color of law. Both of which are violations of Federal law.
12. According to Chief of Police Brent Shipman the reason he acted as a witness that Mark Conlee gave me advance verbal notice that he was going to violate the civil court order was because “Mark Conlee told him” that the wooded staubs I had put as markers 36″ away from the common boundary were survey markers.
- a. Police Chief told me this several hours after he acted as a witness for Conlee giving me advanced verbal notice
- b. Who would take a man’s word for something knowing there was a civil dispute between the parties involved
- c. Police Chief also advised me that Mark Conlee told him that I had paid for half of the survey. Complete fabrication, Conlee stated in court that he was going to have a survey done, he never did. I certainly did not pay for half of it.
- d. How ignorant for any reasonable adult to believe a survey marker is made from wood, wood rots. Survey markers are metal and do not rot away.
- e. It is hard to decide if Shipman is fabricating this information about Conlee or if Conlee actually told his this fabricated story. Chief Shipman had issues with being truthful early on in his short career as City of Montrose Police Chief. He was given the option of resigning and the City would give him a favorable recommendation at whatever department hired him next or he would be terminated for ethical violations. He slipped his resignation under the door of City Hall. He was hired as an officer in the Quad Cities, I believe Davenport but not positive. The staubs are 1½” X 8″ commonly used by construction companies.
- f. On one of the occasions when the city charged me with frivolous charges Officer Shipman was in the courtroom and made the statement that “he was wrangled into filing the complaint against me.” The city attorney immediately requested the judge to dismiss the case and the City of Montrose, Ia would pay all court fees. I never had to utter one word.
PROTECTING CIVIL RIGHTS:
A Leadership Guide for State, Local, and Tribal Law Enforcement
Protecting Civil Rights: A Leadership Imperative
All law enforcement leaders recognize the ethical and legal imperatives to which they and their officers must adhere to ensure that civil rights of all individuals in their communities are protected. Law enforcement officers, in fact, are the most visible and largest contingent of the nation’s guardians of civil rights. Every police officer commits to upholding the nation’s prime guarantor of rights, the U.S. Constitution, when sworn into office. To be effective, a police department and its individual officers must be seen primarily as protectors of civil rights, rather than agents of social control whose main purpose is to limit individual freedoms. The effectiveness of police in their varied missions—from law enforcement to community service—depends on the trust and confidence of the community. Public trust and confidence are severely reduced when individuals’ civil rights are compromised. And when any community perceives that its civil rights are systematically violated by the police, all sense of trust, cooperation, and partnership between the police and that community will be undermined. Understanding these ethical imperatives, law enforcement leaders must be continually vigilant to ensure that the actions of their officers do not violate civil rights and do not compromise public support. Officers are granted a tremendous amount of authority and discretion to enforce the law, that is, to protect individual rights from being infringed upon by others in the community. At the same time, officers themselves must act within the confines of the Constitution while executing their tremendous power and wide discretion. They must never consider themselves above the law while executing their responsibility to enforce the law. This commitment is what distinguishes police in constitutionally based, democratic societies like ours from police in nondemocratic countries, where they too often are perceived as oppressive agents of a government whose main purpose is to restrict, rather than protect, the rights of civilians.
Across the United States, law enforcement personnel have an overwhelmingly positive record of accomplishment for respecting and protecting civil rights. Leaders should find it heartening and a source of pride that the vast majority of the countless interactions that officers have with civilians result in actions that are conducted lawfully, professionally, and within constitutional boundaries. The fact that the overwhelming majority of police officers routinely respect civil rights under the most trying and volatile conditions is remarkable. Given the risks inherent in police work and the grave consequences that can occur when civil rights are violated, law enforcement leaders must be unwavering in holding their officers accountable. Their officers are vested with authority and discretion that can be abused. Unlike any other profession, the possibility of violating civil rights, or being perceived as violating civil rights, is inherent in many of the duties officers are required to perform on a day-to-day basis. Unfortunately, the notoriety and harm that arise from even isolated instances of civil rights violations can easily overshadow the vast majority of police-civilian encounters that are performed respectfully and professionally. Law enforcement leaders bear the tremendous responsibility to ensure that individual officers and units within their agencies uphold the law and its most basic guarantees.
Realistically, law enforcement leaders recognize that on rare occasions officers will violate a civilian’s civil rights, wittingly or unwittingly. On even rarer occasions, groups of officers or small factions within an agency may act without regard for civil rights, perhaps even asserting that effective law enforcement can come only at the expense of civil rights. Leaders must be resolute in their responses to isolated incidents of civil rights violations to minimize damage and set a clear example. In the case of officers who systematically violate civil rights, their behavior must not be tolerated and action must be decisive and uncompromising.
Effective leaders, supported by the managers who serve them, must strive to identify and intervene when officers exhibit potentially problematic behavior before it escalates to the point of violating civil rights. Against this backdrop, the seriousness of law enforcement leaders’ responsibility to communicate a consistent and far-reaching commitment to civil rights protections cannot be overstated. Although laws, departmental policy directives, and standard operating procedures are critically important, law enforcement executives’ leadership and communication skills are the most critical elements for ensuring that officers regularly exercise sound judgment and engage in professional and ethical policing. Law enforcement leaders can and must demonstrate a fundamental and complete allegiance to civil rights protections in a coordinated manner using multiple approaches. They must clearly convey a simultaneous commitment to effective law enforcement and civil rights protection; they must codify this commitment in their agency’s mission statements; they must ensure that their department’s policies are clear, sound, and consistent with civil rights guarantees; they must train and supervise officers in manners that are consistent with this commitment; and they must respond to alleged civil rights violations with vigilance and with fair and decisive action. As law enforcement leaders succeed in these regards and make these efforts transparent to the public, they validate the core premise that civil rights protection is not only an ethical and legal imperative but a practical imperative as well. Protecting civil rights is good for police, good for the community, and essential for maintaining the partnerships that must exist between the two.
Federal Investigations: A Response to “Patterns or Practices” of Civil Rights Violations Despite the ethical, legal, and practical imperatives to protect civil rights, law enforcement officers occasionally abrogate their oaths. When these unwitting or intentional violations of citizens’ civil rights go unaddressed, they can escalate into more widespread patterns or practices of civil rights violations that can undermine the credibility of an entire law enforcement agency and erode public trust and confidence. Moving beyond isolated instances, pattern or practice violations of civil rights comprise an urgent call to law enforcement executives and the municipal, county, or state governments under which they serve to reassume the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that officers uphold their oaths of office and adherence to constitutional guarantees.
During the last decade, the federal government has responded to such situations in the rare, but urgent circumstances where allegations of pattern or practice civil rights violations have arisen. The passage of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law No: 103-322) enabled the federal government to take action to remedy any pattern or practice of conduct by state and local law enforcement agencies “that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.” In response to this enabling legislation, the Special Litigation Section of the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice assumed the responsibility for investigating alleged pattern or practice civil rights violations and for establishing remedies to such violations.
During the last decade, the Special Litigation Section has investigated an array of alleged pattern or practice civil rights violations including the following:
- Unlawful or excessive use of force
- Inadequate training on use-of-force techniques
- Racial profiling
- Illegal stops and searches
- Intimidation by police
- Harassment of civilians in retaliation for reported misconduct
- Inadequate supervision
- Failure to investigate alleged officer misconduct.
Investigations by the Special Litigation Section resulting in a determination of actionable civil rights violations generally have been resolved through negotiated agreements in the form of memorandums of agreement (MOA) or consent decrees. Through such agreements, the federal government and law enforcement agencies agree to a course of action to correct the patterns of civil rights violations and to remedy the conditions that allowed the violations to occur. Since 1994, 14 agencies have been or currently are under federal monitoring as a result of civil rights violation investigations. While these 14 agencies represent an infinitesimal fraction of the country’s nearly 18,000 state, county, local, tribal, and special jurisdictional law enforcement agencies, the impact of these federal investigations and agreements has been and continues to be profound and far-reaching.
I had no protection of law enforcement to prevent my neighbor from applying roundup to my property against my wishes, this went on as if it were part of his maintenance routine for his yard, The effects were brutal, my health went from excellent to unable to function within the first years. I suffered through this for over five years, the neighbor did not let up on the unlawful application of the toxic chemicals for five years. My many pleas for law enforcement to protect my right by filing trespassing complaints against this psycho were ignored. This man actually sued me in civil court for “loss of enjoyment of his property”. That case was dismissed with the judge citing my right to enjoy my own property. I felt a sense of relief because my interpretation of that ruling meant for him to stop applying chemicals to my property. I couldn’t have been more wrong, even though there is no doubt in my mind that is what the judge was implying, Within a matter of months this neighbor along with the chief of police (acting as a witness) approached me in my yard to let me know in advance that the neighbor was going to physically invade my property and move some railroad ties that I had put in place to divert the initial problem which was a nuisance drainage issue resulting from the Illegal property redevelopment on the nonconforming lot he purchase from the mayor. The building permits could not have been and still are illegally issued by the city building officials. I following standard procedure requested the building official come to the location to discuss a remedy to the nuisance drainage issue that left my property with an uncontrollable flooding situation. Three of my undeveloped lots lost a value of over $10,000. The person who did show up misrepresenting himself to be an authority for the City building official was this neighbor’s brother, he was the highest ranking member of the County Sheriffs dept. He had no jurisdiction to act as an authority of any kind in the City of Montrose, Iowa, Not to mention that there is no doubt about an existing conflict of interest between this Sheriff’s officer and the neighbor due to the fact that they are blood brothers. With that and after the fact a different County deputy showed up at my house the reason told to me by the deputy that he was sent to my house due to concern by the County Attorney that there may be of a conflict of interest. I thought this may be legitimate and sat down with this officer, showed him all the hard copy evidence of this neighbor and his attorney committing perjury multiple times in the civil case he filed against me. I showed him the court ruling, specifically the citing of my right to enjoy my own property by the judge, This officer, who is not an attorney, explained that since the judge did not specify the neighbor could not apply toxic chemicals then the neighbor was within his rights. This deputy also informed me that “Roundup” is not harmful to humans, he uses it all the time. He completely ignores the laws that it is my property and I have the right to say what can and cannot be done on my property, Roundup when applied correctly may not be directly as extreme as the effect is had on me but, no rules were followed in the application to the chemical to my property. I have never even had poison ivy so for me to have an itchy place on both shin was unusual to say the least. I call BULLSHIT. I SAY THAT NOT ONE OF THESE INDIVIDUALS ARE ACTUALLY SO IGNORANT THAT THEIR ACTIONS CAN JUSTIFY ANYTHING OTHER THAN A CONSPIRACY TO DEPRIVE ME OF MY FEDERAL RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW, THE USE OF THESE CHEMICALS AND THE EFFECT THAT HAD ON MY BODY WERE ALMOST IMMEDIATE, WHEN I TOLD THIS NEIGHBOR THAT I THOUGHT THE CHEMICALS MAY BE CAUSING ADVERSE EFFECTS TO MY HEALTH HE CONTINUE TO APPLY THE CHEMICALS WITHOUT HESITATION, THE CHIEF OF POLICE REFUSED TO GIVE ME AN INCIDENT REPORT IN A TIMELY FASHION (16 months) AND BY THE TIME HE DID I WAS TO THE POINT OF COMPLETELY UNABLE TO FUNCTION, BOTH SHERIFF’S OFFICERS VIOLATING, MISREPRESENTING AND DETERMINING THEIR OWN INTERPRETATION THE COURT RULING, THE COUNTY ATTORNEY DENYING MY RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW AND MY RIGHT TO ENJOY MY OWN PROPERTY. Can only be recognized as a conspiracy against my rights, intent to cause serious injury or death. Conspiracy against rights under color of law. Had I not fled, the only way possible for me to escape the chemicals that were illegally applied on my property offered me three option, Shoot this neighbor dead, which in my opinion is pretty extreme due to the fact that law enforcement get paid to do that job so I would not be pushed to that extreme. Stay in my home and die from chemical poisoning or sell my home, business and property to the first person who would offer me $25,000 for it which would allow me to repay my debts to friends who supported my basic living expenses for the previous 5 years that it was unbearable for me to even wear clothes and cover my final expenses, There was no doubt that I was dying, the question was how long would it take before my suffering would end. Now if any of you can find what in this story is not a violation of Federal law please inform me of what and why. The county attorney being the highest authority of the law in my county clearly has a conflict of interest, the evidence I have supports he conspired to deny me of my rights to equal protection of the law and my right to enjoy my own property. He denied my right to access the court by refusing to file a trespassing complaint against my neighbor, and the brother of his colleague of 17 years. Trespassing is a criminal offense. Every action that was committed against me by this enterprises of self-serving imposters was criminal. I have no authority to prosecute criminal offenses. As the County attorney stated to me. “he will decide who is prosecuted in Lee County, Iowa. His job description clearly states his duty is to prosecute all criminal offenses in his county. I have been patient, more patient that most. This is the type of thing that would cause a citizen to go armed to a city council meeting and just start shooting from one end of the seated members to the other, Then the media not having any information relevant to the shooters situation the headlines in the next day’s news would say something like “Tragedy at City Hall, lone crazed gunman enters city hall and begins random shooting”. I am stating right now that I am of sound mind, The chemical poisoning began in 2005 and continued nonstop until the late summer of 2010. I lost my eyesight to the point I could not read or recognize people in 2007-2012, Only when I was approved for SSID was I able to get the massive cataracts removed from what the dr stated was the worst case of cataracts he had ever seen from a person of my age.The purpose of adding that was that I was completely dependent on the word of my attorney, who simply lied about everything, I hired him to file a complaint against the city he told me he did, he took my money and he never filed a damn complaint against anyone on my behalf. So it is my opinion he also conspired to deprive me of my rights, no attorney could be so incompetent as this man was by accident. I purchased my property in 1995 is was a fixer upper to say the least, But I was well aware of what my ability were and I could do this and it was within my budget, I put much money into my home and workshop, new updated electrical service and service panel, new furnace and hot water heater for house, used furnace for workshop, insulated both structures completely. I have every receipt for everything I bought to renovate this dilapidated property. So when the neighbor claims he put much work into his home, I want him to know that every professional contractor will tell him that renovating an old home compared to new construction is not even comparable when it comes to the time and difficulty. I did not have insurance money from a suspicious fire of the existing home to redevelop my property and build huge nonconforming structures that causes adverse effects to my neighbors property. My credit rating prior to this was 760, I had established a successful upholstery business and satisfied the loan earlier that the 5 years that I took the loan for. I knew when I purchased my legally nonconforming property that there are strict regulations in place for redeveloping my property. You Mr neighbor may not have researched your options that were available in redeveloping your property, until you went to get it recorded on the county plat map and were refused because your new redevelopment was not complaint to State building code and drainage laws. Your buddies did though, the Mayor, the building official did for sure, Witnesses have been and are still willing to testify that in their new construction the building administrator followed the standard procedure as required. The Mayor even though he did ask me at one council meeting, “who knows building codes”, I never got to answer that evening but I can tell the Mayor now that I certainly do, the building officials certainly should or if not the manual at city hall contains all the information on the subject. The Mayor should know the building codes since he built himself a beautiful new home on the riverfront soon after liquidating his properties around town including the one my neighbor purchased from him. So this violation to me, seems similar to what a rape victim must feel. In regard to a statute of limitations running our, anyone who has the balls to use that as an excuse and tell me to my face, I can promise I will try to be calm and patient. Then if we are working together I will have available the next higher level of law that what has happened to me by my local government officials does fall within violations that have no statute of limitation. I have done my homework. I can comprehend the english language. I expect these individuals to be held to highest degree of the law for an unprecedented case of what could easily fall into what is defined by international complaint as crimes against humanity. I am not certain how long this enterprise has been happening but I know of one other person who if there were to be a Federal investigation into her ordeal with the City officials may turn up evidence that, my story is the only on in which chemicals were used with the intent to eliminate me from my property, shows repeated plans and practices were the cause of her leaving the City also. In both cases the personal attack was against single middle-aged women. According to the FBI website they hold public corruption as a high priority. As well they should. There is no case on record in which chemicals weapons were used with intent to cause serious injury and those chemicals being applied to the victims property. For any authority to tell me that this is not in violation of Federal law when there is no other case for reference it is not debatable, a court and a jury are the only authority qualified to make any decisions in regard to this case. This case should be tolled from my initial complaint to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. I also recently read a piece regarding for example a County attorney being inaccessable to sue while he is in office so a complaint against him and a statue of limitation does not begin until he is not longer holding that office can anyone offer me more information in regards to this. 💀💀
After being told by Mayor Dinwiddie that this was a private issue I went to City Hall. I got copies of the building permits on file for Mark Conlees new garage and his new home. This one for his new home.
Boatner followed standard procedure provided for all citizens to remedy issues caused by a neighbor’s property redevelopment. This property is legally nonconforming. The new neighbor purchased the lot from the Mayor of the City. City building official Mark Holland admitted he did not intend to do his duty and follow standard procedures to address and remedy the situation. Boatner contacted State Representative Phil Wise. Having explained the situation to Mr. Wise he showed the professional courtesy to contact City Hall and have Boatner put on the agenda so she could direct her questions to Council member/Building official Mark Holland in regards to the building permits issued for Mark Conlees property redevelopment. Having Contacted the Mayor and city clerk previously, she was always told to contact the building official. Again she was denied the opportunity to point out the fact that Conlee’s property is a legally nonconforming property and Iowa building code restricts the size of structures to be no large that the existing structures and they must comply with current building codes. These nonconforming structures are much larger that the existing double-wide mobile home and single car garage. Having reviewed the blueprints and following standard procedure Mark Holland would have never legally been able to issue building permits for these nonconforming structures. Holland was absent from this meeting. Based on the record of attendance at these meetings one may consider his absence was intentional. He was aware that Boatner was on the agenda for the purpose of getting answers to her questions concerning how these illegal redevelopment were approved, and the foreseeable nuisance drainage issue caused by the redevelopment had not been addressed and remedied.Conlee was unable to get the illegal redevelopment recorded on the County plat map. That is when he determined I was going to be eliminated. He had to have my property to get his illegal redevelopment recorded on the County plat map. He chose to use toxic chemicals to eliminate me. He applied chemicals to my property as if it were a normal part of his routine yard maintenance. My Federal 1st Amendment right was violated by the chief of police and the County attorney. I was literally begging County attorney Mike Short to protect my rights. I knew the chemicals were causing my death. Many people knew I was dying. They just did not care. They refused to file a trespassing complaint on my behalf. Their acts were blatant and intentional. State Representative Phil Wise retired soon after I contacted him. Since Jerry Kearns has been elected to State Rep. I have contacted him multiple times. He has made no comment. I want to know who he is representing. He is not representing me. He is not representing the State law. That only leave Mark Conlee’s best interest to be what he is representing.