Here is an example of how well FBI SA and the AUSA reviewed my evidence. In this letter the AUSA claims that most of the activity occurred 2003-2005. It is well documented that 2003-2005 is when the City allowed for the non compliant to State building code structures built on Mark Conlee’s nonconforming lot to be built. If they would have actually reviewed my evidence, instead of asking that I tell them this complex story they would have discovered the chemical warfare started in 2005-2010, during that time I was unable to get any protection of the law, there was a civil trial that the court ruled in my favor, however Conlee would not comply with that court order and the chemical attack continued on a weekly basis. There is nothing in this letter that is based on the facts the evidence supports. VanderSchel has advised that he has reviewed my website. He could not have mistaken the timeline if he actually had reviewed it. VanderSchel the chemical poisoning began in 2005. Are you being intentionally negligent? I also advised you that when I was forced to flee from my property because I could get no law enforcement to stop this man from applying the toxic chemicals to my property, the full body skin condition was so severe it was unbearable to wear clothes, I was blind, and I was homeless for the following 4 years. So that takes us up to 2014 before I was able to make contact with anyone who has the duty to protect my Constitutional Rights. SA Reinwart does not know that private property rights are Federally protected rights. He does not seem to know about any Federal laws except hate crimes. He did not review my evidence, He did not interview any of my witnesses, he did not interview my Drs., he did not interview the perps or he could have easily charged them with lying to the Feds. You tell me Mr. VanderSchel just what did SA Reinwart do to investigate my allegation. You claim that the statute of limitations had expired between 2013 and 2016, am I responsible to make Reinwart investigate in a timely fashion? I couldn’t even get him to review the hard copy evidence which was the purpose for him to come to my home 16 months after I contacted him. I had previously contacted a female agent from the Hiawatha division and was waiting some time for her to respond as she advised she would, finally I telephoned the number I had previously contacted her with, Reinwart answered and advise that she had been transferred. Is it my responsibility to call and check if an agent has been transferred? I have not read that as a standard procedure for complainants. Not to mention my emails to the Omaha division, and telephone calls to the Washington DC headquarters. I have gone above and beyond reasonable efforts to contact an FBI agent. Senator Grassley advised me in 2009 that an agent would be contacting me. I waited 10 years then I got impatient. Its not as if I have physically recovered from the chemicals illegally applied to my property without any protection of the law and my private property rights for those significant 5 long years.
Feeling defeated I returned home, pretty disappointed in being deceived by the information posted on the FBI website. I continued to correspond with this particular agent. Eventually (16 months) we set a date for him to come to my home specifically to review my evidence. My evidence has to date never been reviewed by any State or Federal authority. When he arrived he informed me that he did not intend to review anything. Relevant to this case is the fact that the County Sheriff had taken it upon himself to contact a FBI friend of his. I do not know what information the Sheriff gave him. I requested that information be shared with me to give me the opportunity to prove the hearsay was false. I was denied access to that information. There is clearly a conflict of interest between the Sheriff and the opposing party. I emailed a newspaper article supporting the conflict of interest and he seemed to take a little more interest in what I was telling him.
The agent sitting on my sofa refused to review the hard copy evidence requested that I verbally tell him the story. I advised him that I could not verbally tell this story to anyone. This story is too complex to be comprehended verbally. He was not willing to accept anything else. I skipped around on different issues in this case. After 21/2 hours he advised me that he was not going to submit my case to the US Attorney because he claims there was no Federal law violated. I completely disagree. Private property rights are Federally protected rights. I also allege conspiracy against right, deprivation of rights under color of law, and torture. He advised me of three different versions of how he got this case to the AUSA. I think it was the third and final version was how he did it. He submitted my case orally to a third party who in turn verbally told the story to the AUSA. Now knowing that this agent did not have the information needed to submit a complete complaint to anyone, how can this be considered competent? Also my allegation of conspiracy against rights, I had done all the leg work in this case. I did not have the authority to look into financial records for any transaction that could be found indicating a payment (bribe) had been paid. He had that authority and never bothered to use his authority to investigate that. I allege deprivation of rights under color of law. This is easy to recognize from the hard copy evidence I have. This neighbor was attacking me with chemicals used as a weapon for over 5 years as routinely as he mows his yard. Once a week would be an accurate claim. He did it as if it were part of his yard maintenance. Again private property rights are Federally protected rights. This agent would never acknowledge this is a fact, I assume he is ignorant about Federal law. His expertise is in hate crimes. He recognized right away that this was not a hate crime. My case is not alleging hate crime so perhaps he should not have been the investigator. My case requires the knowledge of Federal rights, as described in public corruption guidelines. The FBI website claims they hold a high priority in exposing public corruption. That is a false statement. There could be no stronger case with evidence so solid in supporting public corruption in my local government officials. The violation of civil rights, civil liberties, and Constitutional rights cannot be denied. My right to equal protection of the law, assault with chemical weapons resulting in torture is undeniable by the evidence I have. The intent of my local government officials was to eliminate me from my property using chemicals as weapons. The fact that local law enforcement did not want to make this neighbor says plenty about how this brutal attack occurred. It says much more about the character of this neighbor. There is nothing he would not do to achieve his goal to acquire my property for the purpose of making his illegal property redevelopment recordable on the county plat map without having to remove the noncompliant structures from his small non conforming lot. The environmental factors putting my health in serious harm is also a Federal environmental violation.
This SA who had done nothing to investigate my allegations advised me that he had make his determination not to further investigate based on what I had told him compared to what the Sheriff had told his colleague. This means that the Sheriff’s word was found to be more credible than my word. I have evidence that proves the Sheriff acted unethical, has made false statements to me and has received stolen property that belongs to me. The statistics support any law enforcement officer will knowingly make false statements or turn a blind eye to the officers serving under him in unethical behavior. There is no evidence that I have misled or made false statements about any of my allegations. This SA is incompetent and I am requesting new investigation based on the allegations stated in this letter. Having no contact information for a higher FBI authority this is my formal request. I am requesting a tolling of the statute of limitation due to the incompetence that has occured throughout this case. I don’t care who you are, nobody has the right to do anything to another person’s property.
I have never claimed my damages occurred in 2003-2005, that is when the illegal property redevelopment was going on. My allegations of conspiracy against rights and deprivation of rights under color of law began in 2005 with the most recent occurring in April 2017. If anyone actually felt they had a duty to actually read my complaint there would be no mistaking of timelines. But in this case we rely on what someone who was not interested in the first place tell their version of the story to a third party. That is hearsay, which is not evidence that is allowed in court or in any reasonable investigation. Mr. VanderSchel, how about I send a copy of my complaint directly to you. You read the entire complaint and then you may be more able to base a decision on what the complaint states. Your information is incorrect. I should not have to continue to beg for justice based on people being misinformed as to that the evidence supports.
I contacted Senator Grassley in 2007, he forwarded my information to the FBI. Are you telling me it has taken 11 years for my case to get from the Senator to the hands of the US attorney and the information is not based on the information in the written complaint I submitted to the local FBI agent. This local agent told me 3 different versions of what would happen after I submitted my complaint to him. I do not have any evidence that he even submitted my written complaint. I have evidence that the most recent act of conspiracy happened in April 2017 well within the statute of limitations. I have not been negligent in anyway of not submitting timely complaints. How in the hell does it take 11 years for a complaint to get from a Senator to a US Attorney.
Somebody has some splanin to do. Where is the written complaint I submitted to the local FBI?
652. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR CONSPIRACY
Conspiracy is a continuing offense. For statutes such as 18 U.S.C. § 371, which require an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy, the statute of limitations begins to run on the date of the last overt act. See Fiswick v. United States, 329 U.S. 211 (1946); United States v. Butler, 792 F.2d 1528 (11th Cir. 1986). For conspiracy statutes which do not require proof of an overt act, such as RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961) or 21 U.S.C. § 846, the government must allege and prove that the conspiracy continued into the limitations period. The crucial question in this regard is the scope of the conspiratorial agreement, and the conspiracy is deemed to continue until its purpose has been achieved or abandoned. See United States v. Northern Imp. Co., 814 F.2d 540 (8th Cir. 1987); United States v. Coia, 719 F.2d 1120 (11th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 973 (1984).
An individual’s “withdrawal” from a conspiracy starts the statute of limitations running as to that individual. “Withdrawal” from a conspiracy for this purpose means that the conspirator must take affirmative action by making a clean breast to the authorities or communicating his or her disassociation to the other conspirators. See United States v. Gonzalez, 797 F.2d 915 (10th Cir. 1986).
|songboat <email@example.com>||Aug 19, 2018, 12:33 AM|
You have never looked into the financial records of Conlee and the County Attorney or my attorney or any of the rest of this criminal enterprise, have you? I told you that Mark Conlee’s personality disorder would not allow for him not to keep a record of who he payed off. It the linked case is Federal then why would my case be exempt? My case also falls into the guidelines of violation of international human rights crimes I have been told.So I would think there would be many allegations like mine. If there is no Federal law to hold City and Countys accountable for using chemicals to force you from your property and they happen to have a conflict of interest with the local officials, but the local officials instead of recognizing the conflict, they use the situation for personal gain. Hey, I read about conflict of interest on the FBI website. Why is my case not within the guidelines for Federal conspiracy against rights and deprivation of rights under color of law? By rights I mean my rights given by Amendments 4, 7,8, 14
The FBI is the primary federal agencyresponsible for investigating allegations regarding violations of federal civil rights statutes. These laws are designed to protect the civil rights of all persons—citizens and non-citizens alike—within U.S. territory. Using its full suite of investigative and intelligence capabilities, the Bureau today works closely with its partners to prevent and address hate crime, human trafficking, color of law violations, and Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act violations
Color of Law Violations Preventing abuse of this authority, however, is equally necessary to the health of our nation’s democracy. That’s why it’s a federal crime for anyone acting under “color of law” to willfully deprive or conspire to deprive a person of a right protected by the Constitution or U.S. law. “Color of law” simply means the person is using authority given to him or her by a local, state, or federal government agency.
The FBI is the lead federal agency for investigating color of law violations, which include acts carried out by government officials operating both within and beyond the limits of their lawful authority. Off-duty conduct may be covered if the perpetrator asserted his or her official status in some way. Those violations include the following acts:
Excessive force: In making arrests, maintaining order, and defending life, law enforcement officers are allowed to use whatever force is “reasonably” necessary. The breadth and scope of the use of force is vast—from just the physical presence of the officer…to the use of deadly force. Violations of federal law occur when it can be shown that the force used was willfully “unreasonable” or “excessive.” chemical weapons would fall under this catagory
False arrest and fabrication of evidence: The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right against unreasonable searches or seizures. A law enforcement official using authority provided under the color of law is allowed to stop individuals and, under certain circumstances, to search them and retain their property. It is in the abuse of that discretionary power—such as an unlawful detention or illegal confiscation of property—that a violation of a person’s civil rights may occur. Fabricating evidence against or falsely arresting an individual also violates the color of law statute, taking away the person’s rights of due process and unreasonable seizure. In the case of deprivation of property, the color of law statute would be violated by unlawfully obtaining or maintaining a person’s property, which oversteps or misapplies the official’s authority. This happened multiple times in my case, This is the most personally offensive action against me in my opinion.
Failure to keep from harm: The public counts on its law enforcement officials to protect local communities. If it’s shown that an official willfully failed to keep an individual from harm, that official could be in violation of the color of law statute. This one is a given. Did you look at the affects the chemicals had on my skin? The scars that I will carry with me on my arms the rest of my life. Nobody protected me from harm. You have the evidence that proves this without a doubt.
Title 42, U.S.C., Section 14141 makes it unlawful for state or local law enforcement agencies to allow officers to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives persons of rights protected by the Constitution or U.S. laws. This law, commonly referred to as the Police Misconduct Statute, gives the Department of Justice authority to seek civil remedies in cases where law enforcement agencies have policies or practices that foster a pattern of misconduct by employees. This action is directed against an agency, not against individual officers. The types of issues which may initiate a pattern and practice investigation include:
- Lack of supervision/monitoring of officers’ actions; City of Montrose and Lee County Ia
- Lack of justification or reporting by officers on incidents involving the use of force; Lee County Sheriff’s Dept. and City of Montrose Police Dept.
- Lack of, or improper training of, officers; and Lee County Sheriffs Dept. and City of Montrose Police Dept
- Citizen complaint processes that treat complainants as adversaries. City of Montrose, Lee County sheriff dept, State of Iowa prosecuting attorney for Lee County
ADDRESSING POLICE MISCONDUCT LAWS ENFORCED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Federal laws that address police misconduct include both criminal and civil statutes. These laws cover the actions of State, county, and local officers, including those who work in prisons and jails. In addition, several laws also apply to Federal law enforcement officers. The laws protect all persons in the United States (citizens and non-citizens).
It is a crime for one or more persons acting under color of law willfully to deprive or conspire to deprive another person of any right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. (18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242). “Color of law” simply means that the person doing the act is using power given to him or her by a governmental agency (local, State, or Federal). A law enforcement officer acts “under color of law” even if he or she is exceeding his or her rightful power. The types of law enforcement misconduct covered by these laws include excessive force, sexual assault, intentional false arrests, or the intentional fabrication of evidence resulting in a loss of liberty to another. Enforcement of these provisions does not require that any racial, religious, or other discriminatory motive existed. What remedies are available under these laws? Violations of these laws are punishable by fine and/or imprisonment. There is no private right of action under these statutes; in other words, these are not the legal provisions under which you would file a lawsuit on your own.
Federal Civil Enforcement
“Police Misconduct Provision”
This law makes it unlawful for State or local law enforcement officers to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives persons of rights protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. (42 U.S.C. § 14141). The types of conduct covered by this law can include, among other things, excessive force, discriminatory harassment, false arrests, coercive sexual conduct, and unlawful stops, searches or arrests. In order to be covered by this law, the misconduct must constitute a “pattern or practice” — it may not simply be an isolated incident. The DOJ must be able to show in court that the agency has an unlawful policy or that the incidents constituted a pattern of unlawful conduct. However, unlike the other civil laws discussed below, DOJ does not have to show that discrimination has occurred in order to prove a pattern or practice of misconduct. What remedies are available under this law? The remedies available under this law do not provide for individual monetary relief for the victims of the misconduct. Rather, they provide for injunctive relief, such as orders to end the misconduct and changes in the agency’s policies and procedures that resulted in or allowed the misconduct. There is no private right of action under this law; only DOJ may file suit for violations of the Police Misconduct Provision.
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
and the “OJP Program Statute”
Together, these laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, and religion by State and local law enforcement agencies that receive financial assistance from the Department of Justice. (42 U.S.C. § 2000d, et seq. and 42 U.S.C. § 3789d(c)). Currently, most persons are served by a law enforcement agency that receives DOJ funds. These laws prohibit both individual instances and patterns or practices of discriminatory misconduct, i.e., treating a person differently because of race, color, national origin, sex, or religion. The misconduct covered by Title VI and the OJP (Office of Justice Programs) Program Statute includes, for example, harassment or use of racial slurs, unjustified arrests, discriminatory traffic stops, coercive sexual conduct, retaliation for filing a complaint with DOJ or participating in the investigation, use of excessive force, or refusal by the agency to respond to complaints alleging discriminatory treatment by its officers. What remedies are available under these laws?DOJ may seek changes in the policies and procedures of the agency to remedy violations of these laws and, if appropriate, also seek individual remedial relief for the victim(s). Individuals also have a private right of action under Title VI and under the OJP Program Statute; in other words, you may file a lawsuit yourself under these laws. However, you must first exhaust your administrative remedies by filing a complaint with DOJ if you wish to file in Federal Court under the OJP Program Statute.
Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 prohibit discrimination against individuals with disabilities on the basis of disability. (42 U.S.C. § 12131, et seq. and 29 U.S.C. § 794). These laws protect all people with disabilities in the United States. An individual is considered to have a “disability” if he or she has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, has a record of such an impairment, or is regarded as having such an impairment.
The ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in all State and local government programs, services, and activities regardless of whether they receive DOJ financial assistance; it also protects people who are discriminated against because of their association with a person with a disability. Section 504 prohibits discrimination by State and local law enforcement agencies that receive financial assistance from DOJ. Section 504 also prohibits discrimination in programs and activities conducted by Federal agencies, including law enforcement agencies.
These laws prohibit discriminatory treatment, including misconduct, on the basis of disability in virtually all law enforcement services and activities. These activities include, among others, interrogating witnesses, providing emergency services, enforcing laws, addressing citizen complaints, and arresting, booking, and holding suspects. These laws also prohibit retaliation for filing a complaint with DOJ or participating in the investigation. What remedies are available under these laws? If appropriate, DOJ may seek individual relief for the victim(s), in addition to changes in the policies and procedures of the law enforcement agency. Individuals have a private right of action under both the ADA and Section 504; you may file a private lawsuit for violations of these statutes. There is no requirement that you exhaust your administrative remedies by filing a complaint with DOJ first. It was the misconduct of these officers that causes my disability.
It seems it would be appropriate to bring a complaint in violation of fair housing act, I would need to speak with the US Attorney about this issue;
I have also been advised this case is one of environmental protection violations. This case has some elements of all Federal law violations. If you have read this reply “ok”
The letter stated that the statute of limitations has expired. WHAT? I contact Senator Grassley in 2007. I have been complaining the last several years that the timeliness is unacceptable. Seems the US Attorney is just recently getting my complaint. I am sorry but I am not responsible for any statute of limitations expiring in this case. Whoever received it from Senator Grassley is responsible for any mishandling of my case. A case that is unprecedented. A case in which the most brutal means of attack were used. Chemical weapons were used with intent to cause serious injury or death. They did cause serious lifelong injury and had I not fled I would be dead. If I would have done this to another human being I would be in prison the rest of my life. How can the statute of limitations be expired if the FBI was investigating this case appropriately? Who is the victim of mishandling of a complaint. I am. So what now. I have followed all the proper procedures, except during the time I was blind and unable to function normally. I could not get my vision restored until 2012. I could not read. This is really a disappointment, I thought my case was being investigated all this time, but it seems the US Attorney is just recently getting my complaint. Come on now, this is unacceptable. Senator Grassley will hopefully deal with incompetence. He supports whistleblowers and exposing corruption. I hope he gets to the root of the problem with my case. The evidence supports all my allegations, the perps implicate themselves on public record. What could go wrong?
In this case the County Attorney could not be more involved with enabling violations of these codes. He recently retired. I pray that the new County Attorney stands beh
703.4 Responsibility of employers. An employer or an employer’s agent, officer, director, or employee who supervises or directs the work of other employees, is guilty of the same public offense committed by an employee acting under the employer’s control, supervision, or direction in any of the following cases:1. The person has directed the employee to commit a public offense.2. The person knowingly permits an employee to commit a public offense, under circumstances in which the employer expects to benefit from the illegal activity of the employee.3. The person assigns the employee some duty or duties which the person knows cannot be accomplished, or are not likely to be accomplished, unless the employee commits a public offense, provided that the offense committed by the employee is one which the employer can reasonably anticipate will follow from this assignment.[C79, 81, §703.4]
703.1 Aiding and abetting. All persons concerned in the commission of a public offense, whether they directly commit the act constituting the offense or aid and abet its commission, shall be charged, tried and punished as principals. The guilt of a person who aids and abets the commission of a crime must be determined upon the facts which show the part the person had in it, and does not depend upon the degree of another person’s guilt.[C51, §2928; R60, §4668; C73, §4314; C97, §5299; C24, 27, 31, 35, 39, §12895; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75, 77, §688.1; C79, 81, §703.1]
703.2 Joint criminal conduct. When two or more persons, acting in concert, knowingly participate in a public offense, each is responsible for the acts of the other done in furtherance of the commission of the offense or escape there from, and each person’s guilt will be the same as that of the person so acting, unless the act was one which the person could not reasonably expect to be done in the furtherance of the commission of the offense.[C79, 81, §703.2]Referred to in 717A.3A
703.3 Accessory after the fact. Any person having knowledge that a public offense has been committed and that a certain person committed it, and who does not stand in the relation of husband or wife to the person who committed the offense, who harbors, aids or conceals the person who committed the offense, with the intent to prevent the apprehension of the person who committed the offense, commits an aggravated misdemeanor if the public offense committed was a felony, or commits a simple misdemeanor if the public offense was a misdemeanor.[C51, §2929; R60, §4669; C73, §4315; C97, §5300; C24, 27, 31, 35, 39, §12896; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75, 77, §688.2; C79, 81, §703.3; 1981 Acts, ch 204, §1]Referred to in 717A.3A
703.4 Responsibility of employers. An employer or an employer’s agent, officer, director, or employee who supervises or directs the work of other employees, is guilty of the same public offense committed by an employee acting under the employer’s control, supervision, or direction in any of the following cases:1. The person has directed the employee to commit a public offense.2. The person knowingly permits an employee to commit a public offense, under circumstances in which the employer expects to benefit from the illegal activity of the employee.3. The person assigns the employee some duty or duties which the person knows cannot 703.5Liability of corporations, partnerships and voluntary associations.1. A public or private corporation, partnership, or other voluntary association shall have the same level of culpability as an individual committing the crime when any of the following is true:a. The conduct constituting the offense consists of an omission to discharge a specific duty or an affirmative performance imposed on the accused by law.b. The conduct or act constituting the offense is committed by an agent, officer, director, or employee of the accused while acting within the scope of the authority of the agent, officer, director or employee and in behalf of the accused and when said act or conduct is authorized, requested, or tolerated by the board of directors or by a high managerial agent.2. “High managerial agent” means an officer of the corporation, partner, or other agent in a position of comparable authority with respect to the formulation of policy or the supervision in a managerial capacity of subordinate employees.[C79, 81, §703.5]2013 Acts, ch 30, §261be accomplished, or are not likely to be accomplished, unless the employee commits a public offense, provided that the offense committed by the employee is one which the employer can reasonably anticipate will follow from this assignment.[C79, 81, §703.4]
704.4 Defense of property. A person is justified in the use of reasonable force to prevent or terminate criminal interference with the person’s possession or other right in property. Nothing in this section authorizes the use of any spring gun or trap which is left unattended and unsupervised and which is placed for the purpose of preventing or terminating criminal interference with the possession of or other right in property.[C51, §2774; R60, §4443; C73, §4113; C97, §5103; C24, 27, 31, 35, 39, §12922; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75, 77, §691.2(2); C79, 81, §704.4]
706.1 Conspiracy.1. A person commits conspiracy with another if, with the intent to promote or facilitate the commission of a crime which is an aggravated misdemeanor or felony, the person does either of the following: a. Agrees with another that they or one or more of them will engage in conduct constituting the crime or an attempt or solicitation to commit the crime’s. Agrees to aid another in the planning or commission of the crime or of an attempt or solicitation to commit the crime.2. It is not necessary for the conspirator to know the identity of each and every conspirator.3. A person shall not be convicted of conspiracy unless it is alleged and proven that at least one conspirator committed an overt act evidencing a design to accomplish the purpose of the conspiracy by criminal means.4. A person shall not be convicted of conspiracy if the only other person or persons involved in the conspiracy were acting at the behest of or as agents of a law enforcement agency in an investigation of the criminal activity alleged at the time of the formation of the conspiracy.[C51, §2758, 2996; R60, §4408, 4790; C73, §4087, 4425; C97, §5059, 5490; C24, 27, 31, 35, 39, §13162, 13902; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75, 77, §719.1, 782.6; C79, 81, §706.1]1987 Acts, ch 129, §1
706.2 Locus of conspiracy. A person commits a conspiracy in any county where the person is physically present when the person makes such agreement or combination, and in any county where the person with whom the person makes such agreement or combination is physically present at such time, whether or not any of the other conspirators are also present in that county or in this state, and in any county in which any criminal act is done by any person pursuant to the conspiracy, whether or not the person is or has ever been present in such county; provided, that a person may not be prosecuted more than once for a conspiracy based on the same agreement or combination.[C79, 81, §706.2]
706A.2 Violations.1.Specified unlawful activity influenced enterprises. a. It is unlawful for any person who has knowingly received any proceeds of specified unlawful activity to use or invest, directly or indirectly, any part of such proceeds in the acquisition of any interest in any enterprise or any real property, or in the establishment or operation of any enterprise .b. It is unlawful for any person to knowingly acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise or real property through specified unlawful activity .c. It is unlawful for any person to knowingly conduct the affairs of any enterprise through specified unlawful activity or to knowingly participate, directly or indirectly, in any enterprise that the person knows is being conducted through specified unlawful activity .d. It is unlawful for any person to conspire or attempt to violate or to solicit or facilitate the violations of the provisions of paragraph “a”, “b”, or “c”.2.Facilitation of a criminal network. It is unlawful for a person acting with knowledge of the financial goals and criminal objectives of a criminal network to knowingly facilitate criminal objectives of the network by doing any of the following: a. Engaging in violence or intimidation or inciting or inducing another to engage in violence or intimidation .b. Inducing or attempting to induce a person believed to have been called or who may be called as a witness to unlawfully withhold any testimony, testify falsely, or absent themselves from any official proceeding to which the potential witness has been legally summoned. c. Attempting by means of bribery, misrepresentation, intimidation, or force to obstruct, delay, or prevent the communication of information or testimony relating to a violation of any criminal statute to a peace officer, magistrate, prosecutor, grand jury, or petit jury. d. Injuring or damaging another person’s body or property because that person or any other person gave information or testimony to a peace officer, magistrate, prosecutor, or grand jury. e. Attempting to suppress by an act of concealment, alteration, or destruction any physical evidence that might aid in the discovery, apprehension, prosecution, or conviction of any person. f. Making any property available to a member of the criminal network. g. Making any service other than legal services available to a member of the criminal network. h. Inducing or committing any act or omission by a public servant in violation of the public servant’s official duty. i. Obtaining any benefit for a member of a criminal network by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representation, promises, or material omissions. j. Making a false sworn statement regarding a material issue, believing it to be false, or making any statement, believing it to be false, regarding a material issue to a public servant in connection with an application for any benefit, privilege, or license, or in connection with any official investigation or proceeding.
706A.2 Violations.1.Specified unlawful activity influenced enterprises. a. It is unlawful for any person who has knowingly received any proceeds of specified unlawful activity to use or invest, directly or indirectly, any part of such proceeds in the acquisition of any interest in any enterprise or any real property, or in the establishment or operation of any enterprise. b. It is unlawful for any person to knowingly acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise or real property through specified unlawful activity. c. It is unlawful for any person to knowingly conduct the affairs of any enterprise through specified unlawful activity or to knowingly participate, directly or indirectly, in any enterprise that the person knows is being conducted through specified unlawful activity. d. It is unlawful for any person to conspire or attempt to violate or to solicit or facilitate the violations of the provisions of paragraph “a”, “b”, or “c”.2.Facilitation of a criminal network. It is unlawful for a person acting with knowledge of the financial goals and criminal objectives of a criminal network to knowingly facilitate criminal objectives of the network by doing any of the following: a. Engaging in violence or intimidation or inciting or inducing another to engage in violence or intimidation. b. Inducing or attempting to induce a person believed to have been called or who may be called as a witness to unlawfully withhold any testimony, testify falsely, or absent themselves from any official proceeding to which the potential witness has been legally summoned. c. Attempting by means of bribery, misrepresentation, intimidation, or force to obstruct, delay, or prevent the communication of information or testimony relating to a violation of any criminal statute to a peace officer, magistrate, prosecutor, grand jury, or petit jury. d. Injuring or damaging another person’s body or property because that person or any other person gave information or testimony to a peace officer, magistrate, prosecutor, or grand jury. e. Attempting to suppress by an act of concealment, alteration, or destruction any physical evidence that might aid in the discovery, apprehension, prosecution, or conviction of any person. f. Making any property available to a member of the criminal network. g. Making any service other than legal services available to a member of the criminal network. h. Inducing or committing any act or omission by a public servant in violation of the public servant’s official duty. i. Obtaining any benefit for a member of a criminal network by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representation, promises, or material omissions. j. Making a false sworn statement regarding a material issue, believing it to be false, or making any statement, believing it to be false, regarding a material issue to a public servant in connection with an application for any benefit, privilege, or license, or in connection with any official investigation or proceeding.3.Money laundering. It is unlawful for a person to commit money laundering in violation of chapter 706B.4.Acts of specified unlawful activity. It is unlawful for a person to commit specified unlawful activity as defined in section 706A.1.5.Negligent empowerment of specified unlawful activity. a. It is unlawful for a person to negligently allow property owned or controlled by the person or services provided by the person, other than legal services, to be used to facilitate specified unlawful activity, whether by entrustment, loan, rent, lease, bailment, or otherwise. b. Damages for negligent empowerment of specified unlawful activity shall include all reasonably foreseeable damages proximately caused by the specified unlawful activity, including, in a case brought or intervened in by the state, the costs of investigation and criminal and civil litigation of the specified unlawful activity incurred by the government for the prosecution and defense of any person involved in the specified unlawful activity, and the imprisonment, probation, parole, or other expense reasonably necessary to detain, punish, and rehabilitate any person found guilty of the specified unlawful activity, except for the following: (1) If the person empowering the specified unlawful activity acted only negligently and was without knowledge of the nature of the activity and could not reasonably have known of the unlawful nature of the activity or that it was likely to occur, damages shall be limited to the greater of the following: (a) The cost of the investigation and litigation of the person’s own conduct plus the value of the property or service involved as of the time of its use to facilitate the specified unlawful activity. (b) All reasonably foreseeable damages to any person, except any person responsible for the specified unlawful activity, and to the general economy and welfare of the state proximately caused by the person’s own conduct. (2) If the property facilitating the specified unlawful activity was taken from the possession or control of the person without that person’s knowledge and against that person’s will in violation of the criminal law, damages shall be limited to reasonably foreseeable damages to any person, except persons responsible for the taking or the specified unlawful activity, and to the general economy and welfare of the state proximately caused by the person’s negligence, if any, in failing to prevent its taking. (3) If the person was aware of the possibility that the property or service would be used to facilitate some form of specified unlawful activity and acted to prevent the unlawful use, damages shall be limited to reasonably foreseeable damages to any person, except any person responsible for the specified unlawful activity, and to the general economy and welfare of the state proximately caused by the person’s failure, if any, to act reasonably to prevent the unlawful use. (4) The plaintiff shall carry the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the specified unlawful activity occurred and was facilitated by the property or services. The defendant shall have the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence as to circumstances constituting lack of negligence and on the limitations on damages in this subsection.1996 Acts, ch 1133, §27; 1998 Acts, ch 1074, §33Referred to in 706A.3, 706A.4
708.4 Willful injury. Any person who does an act which is not justified and which is intended to cause serious injury to another commits willful injury, which is punishable as follows:1. A class “C” felony, if the person causes serious injury to another.2. A class “D” felony, if the person causes bodily injury to another.[C51, §2577, 2594; R60, §4200, 4217; C73, §3857, 3875; C97, §4752, 4771, 4797; S13, §4771; C24, 27, 31, 35, 39, §12928, 12934, 12962; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75, 77, §693.1, 694.6, 697.2; C79, 81, §708.4]99 Acts, ch 65, §5, 2013 Acts, ch 90, §184 Referred to in 80A.4, 702.11
What about this situation am I not understanding? I get no response from those who are supposedly experts in this field. This is one example of many that I understand clearly to be a violation of Federal Law.
In my mind is a not questionable. Why am I mistaken in my conclusion? Include references please as the local law enforcement have been far less that honest in anyway in their involvement.
So my neighbor was putting chemicals on my property for an extended period of time, right?
That act is described as trespassing, right?
I requested an incident report stating that I had verbally told the neighbor to cease and desist the the day I noticed the chemicals from the Police chief, right?
The police chief did not act in a timely manner, 16 months is not acceptable by any reasonable person to receive a request for a document, right?
The neighbor in the mean time sued me because I installed a privacy curtain, claiming loss of enjoyment of his property, right?
The civil court dismissed his case citing my right to enjoy my property, right?
The neighbor violated that court order without missing a beat, right?
I notified in person the county attorney that I wanted to file a complaint against this neighbor/council member and the city clerk bringing with me the evidence that proves my allegations, right?
I was denied filing a complaint against this neighbor by the police chief and the county attorney, right?
The right to enjoy property is a Federal law, right?
A criminal conspiracy exists when two or more people
agree to commit almost any unlawful act then take some action toward its completion. The action taken need not itself be a crime, but it must indicate that those involved in the conspiracy knew of the plan and intended to break the law. One person may be charged with and convicted of both conspiracy and the underlying crime based on the same circumstances.–
For example, Andy, Dan, and Alice plan a bank robbery. They 1) visit the bank first to assess security, 2) pool their money and buy a gun together, and 3) write a demand letter. All three can be charged with conspiracy to commit robbery, regardless of whether the robbery itself is actually attempted or completed.
The “Agreement” Requirement
You might be wondering how exactly the agreement between two co-conspirators actually takes place. First, the agreement does not need to be expressly conveyed. For instance, in the above example,Andy isn’t required to tell Dan and Alice in unequivocal terms,”I agree to commit a conspiracy with you,” (although, that statement would surely be a prosecutor’s dream and strong evidence of a criminal conspiracy). Instead, the agreement may be implicit or shown by the action of “two or more guilty minds,” as required under common law. Examples of evidence of an implicit agreement can include the appearance of the co- defendants at transactions and negotiations in furtherance of the conspiracy such as a planning meeting It is important to note that courts have found that mere presence or association with those committing a crime doesn’t, by itself, make someone a co-conspirator unless there are other factors that collectively point to an implicit agreement.
The Element of “Intent”
As with other specific intent crimes, your intention means everything. But that’s not the only intent the court will care about. Not only does one other individual in the conspiracy need to intend to agree, all parties must intend to achieve the outcome. Simply put, knowledge of a crime isn’t enough to get you thrown behind bars. For instance, just because your friend tells you he is going to burglarize a house, doesn’t mean you are part of the conspiracy to burglarize it. Not unless you also agree to help by acting as a getaway car or helping him scope out the property ahead of time.
A conspiracy conviction can yield some pretty tough penalties depending on the underlying crime. You can be punished for both the conspiracy and the actual crime itself if, it were completed. For example, if you are charged and convicted of conspiracy to commit robbery and the actual crime of robbery, you may have to suffer the consequences of both. Additionally, in some cases if you are convicted of a conspiracy to commit a felony, you may have to serve a mandatory minimum sentence.
So what is different about my evidence that is would not be considered a criminal conspiracy between the neighbor and the Police Chief, and the neighbor and the County Attorney? I see just this part of the attack against me as a conspiracy against my rights. And since it was committed by officers of the law, why would this not be considered Deprivation of rights under color of law
crime (krim) n. ca.1920. An unethical or immoral act against fellow man.
Here are a few of the documents that prove Federal law was violated. The most recent date a public official participated in an act of public corruption was April 2017. That person was newly elected Sheriff and City of Montrose clerk, Celeste Cirinna. At that time these two public officials conspired to suppress evidence that was posted on the City of Montrose website. It really was a brutal attack on my physical and private property. This man is not fit for society, he intended to acquire my property the cost was of no concern to him. I had only two options, stay at my property and die from chemical exposure or flee from my property in an attempt to save my own life. I felt forced to flee. I had obligations to make good on. During the five years that the chemicals were unlawfully applied to my property I was unable to function. I had borrowed basic living expenses from friends, well over $10,000 during these five long years of intentional negligence or in my opinion full out conspiracy against my rights and deprivation of rights under color of law committed by my corrupt city and county officials. I could not just leave this earth owing that much money to friends who really did not have it to loan it the first place. I suffered for 5 years of excruciating pain, believing that at some point someone of authority would feel obligated to step up, uphold the law and issue this man a trespassing complaint. One of my witnesses, a County Deputy stopped by my home in 2010 and advised me that this neighbor/council member had no intention of stopping with the chemicals.
Understand the basics of this case. This neighbor purchased a legally nonconforming property from the Mayor. He began redeveloping the lot in 2003, beginning with the removal of the existing two story single car garage shown in the upper center of the heading photo of this post. The State building code requires a standard procedure in issuing building permits. illegal building permits issued by the City building official. The redevelopment was illegal from day one. The building permits are not completed as required by the State of Iowa. From the words of the Mayor himself at a city council meeting, “you cannot increase the size to be bigger than the existing buildings”. Even though he had a conflict of interest with every local authority and was allowed to commit these illegal acts, the one thing that caused problems and the most important thing of all was that he could not get the illegal redevelopment recorded on the county plat map. He simply did not have enough square ft. of legally nonconforming property to accommodate the oversized nonconforming structures to comply with State building code or State drainage law. He decided the answer to his problem was to eliminate me. This was an easy task for him have the local authorities for whatever reason do whatever this neighbor requested of them. Had the attorney I hired to file a complaint done what he was hired to do and we had gone to court, the court would have order removal of the structures and return the lot to existing condition. There was no option in this case.
It is true, a person does know when they are dying. I knew my days were numbered. I was ready to go, I had suffered long enough. To me it was worse than cancer as I had no timeline to estimate how much longer I would have to suffer. Cancer patients generally get told a timeline. I would not be here to tell this story if not for reasons unknown to me, months later I received a call from the University of Ia hospital. They said they had a member of staff waiting for me in the ER and to get there asap. I did and this Dr. did save my life. To answer your questions, yes I was forced to flee from my property in order to escape the chemicals. The EPA field investigator advised me that he had never heard of a case in which a neighbor intentionally applied chemicals to his neighbors property. I understand that is because trespassing laws exist. Law enforcement had a duty to protect my rights. This man was aware that I thought the chemicals were causing my health problems. He never hesitated, he applied the chemicals to my property as if it were part of his maintenance routine for his own yard. There is no other case like this in the USA. This is complex and unprecedented. I was blind as a result of the medical treatment the local hospital administered to me in an unsuccessful attempt to offer me some relief for the severe pain I was having from the full body skin eruptions. In the one picture you can see that my legs are burnt. chemical burnt, I am tough country girl but to suffer that long with no assistance from law enforcement to protect my right to private property I believe was worse that a cancer diagnosis, I was never given a timeline before I would loose my life. I only knew I was going to die as a result of the actions of one man who has no regard for the law or life of another human being.sincerely, Melody Boatner there is so much more evidence to prove my case. I simply do not have the skills to put it together in a formal manner. Links containing relevant information that has been suppressed or intentionally overlooked by recently retired Lee County attorney Michael Short and in a civil court in which this neighbor sued me. Witnesses, conspirators, severe skin disorder. The Good Old Boy Network, About Celeste Cirinna, City of Montrose Clerk, No adverse impact and the courts
Anyone who believes they would be able just to let it go a brutal attack with the perpetrator using chemicals unlawfully applied to your property with intent to eliminate you and simply walk away, I can testify that you do not have the mental capacity to walk away from such a brutal attack. I have taken the short end of the stick my entire life. I have been the victim of narcissistic abuse my whole 59 years on this earth. I made a clean break from that situation. I will be damn if a man with such an obvious, severe case of narcissism and psychopathic mental disorder is going to get away with this unscathed. After eliminating the toxic person that I had no choice to be raised with what are the chances a person with as severe or more severe individual would purchase the property adjoining mine.
This case was clearly premeditated. as he had blueprints that the building officials had to have reviewed,I am mad and I want these individuals held accountable. This never leaves my mind not for a second, not that one man is capable of such brutal acts, but that the entire local city and county government knew and allowed this to happen. The conspiracy to cover up these crimes is ongoing as recent as Memorial day. It will continue to be covered up until someone has the courage to put this story out for the general public to read, hear and see the photo evidence proving this happened. Yet I am the one whose character has been defamed by being falsely associate with illegal drug activity, and when asked any questions about this situation, the only response is that she is crazy, Mark Conlee has done nothing wrong. That statement according to two witnesses came from the mouth of the Mayor. The same Mayor who tried to convince me this is a private issue. He offered me a job at the local community hospital in the maintenance dept. He was the head of the department in or about 1995. I declined because I had just purchased this property so I could open my own upholstery business. He has known me personally for longer than he has been the Mayor of this city. I knew him when he was in college. I consider his siblings and mother as my family. I believe outside sources influenced his opinions and decisions. In fact I know that he was told I was crazy, but he should have considered the source, recognized it was hearsay. There is no excuse for an term Mayor to allow and participate in crimes to be committed against me.
TELEPHONE 372-2532 AREA CODE 319 FAX 372-792
September 1, 2005
1013 Concert Street
Keokuk, Iowa 52632
Re: Melody Boatner – Mark and Linda Conlee
Ms. Boatner has had major surface water problems since she bought her home. That’s because her lot is lower than the land around it.¹ That was true before my clients added dirt to level their lot. Before my client’s lot was leveled, it steeped more sharply towards Ms. Boatner’s property and sent more water her way.² Also, my clients built their new home deeper in the lot then the prior owner’s house, which results in roof water draining towards Mr. Boatner’s back year instead of towards her home.³ The old driveway described as a “berm” was man-made and apparently altered the natural flow of surface waters to Ms. Boatner’s benefit. Because it was man-made, my clients had the right to remove it. They have plans to build a raised garden in the same general vicinity as the old driveway, which may similarly benefit Ms. Boatner.
Mark suggested to Ms. Boatner that she lay tile around the perimeter of her house. That would have been a simple,but effective remedy for Ms. Boatner, but she’s not done that. Mark and Linda attended a council meeting and convinced the city to dig a drainage ditch in front of their properties. Ms. Boatner stood to benefit from that proposal, but didn’t bother to attend the council meeting. She later complained that she has to maintain the drainage ditch that was installed as a result of my clients’ efforts.
Mark and Linda are trying to get along with Ms. Boatner. They will not, however, agree to a drainage ditch on their land. In addition to being unsightly, a ditch would be a maintenance problem and a liability concern. Ms. Boatner is, of course, free to do what she wants on her own land.
I think we can resolve this dispute if we all meet at the properties and discuss the options.
Very truly yours,
Gregory A J
GAJ/tas Cc: client
1 Completely false statement. A Review the transcripts and an email to Boatner from Steve Swan ESQ will show Conlee’s only witness testified Boatners property never received stormwater runoff from Conlee property. Water damage was caused by stormwater running from the city street which Boatner remedied before she repaired the water damage to her home when she purchased it in 1995.. Witnesses Randy Kirchner and Stuart Westermeyer were prepared to testify to this. Boatner’s attorney Steven Swan ESQ intentionally suppressed their testimony and affidavits from the court. Swam conspired to violate Boatners State and Federal right to enjoy her own property.
2 Expert witness on Boatners behalf Robert Dodds was prepared to testify that a berm and swale that has been in place for 10 years is considered existing and cannot be removed, Boatner’s attorney suppressed Dodds testimony
3 There is no reason Boatner should have to make any alterations to her property do to a neighbor’s illegal property redevelopment. That is not typical or acceptable by any reasonable standard. It would have been reasonable for the building official to do his duty and oversee compliance to State building laws. This redevelopment was not to code by review of blueprints.
4 There is no reason Boatner should have to make any alterations to her property do to a neighbor’s illegal property redevelopment. That is not typical or acceptable by any reasonable standard. It would have been reasonable for the building official to do his duty and oversee compliance to State building laws. This redevelopment was not to code by review of blueprints.
5 This is so outrageous and false it is unbelievable. Any reasonable person can visually see the increased stormwater to Boatners property is a direct result of Conlee’s illegal property redevelopment. The Conlees never had a ditch install
To whom it may concern, 9-5-2017
I have a case of conspiracy deprivation of rights under color of law, terrorist’s acts with intent to cause me serious injury or death. Contrary to the advice of a local FBI agent that my case is civil. All actions against me are criminal not civil. I believe bribes have been taken by several of the local government officials involved in this conspiracy to acquire my real property. I have no authority to access financial records. The FBI does. In my opinion the main attacker has a severe case of narcissistic/psychopathic personality disorder. I have no authority to require those involved to take a polygraph. The FBI does. I am requesting some legitimate answers to questions I have been asking for several years and have received no response.
What exactly determines whether a case of conspiracy against right and deprivation of rights under color of law is civil or criminal. I have researched similar cases. I can find no other case in which the evidence supports one neighbor using chemicals to poison a neighbor. I have found cases where a neighbor has poisoned the neighbors pets. Those case are tried as criminal cases by a prosecuting attorney.
I finally convinced a local agent to come to my home and review my evidence. I forewarned him that a review of the evidence takes an estimated 12 hours. He advised me that he has no intention of reviewing 12 hours of evidence. This agent stayed for 2 ½ hours. He only took notes from the information I was verbally giving him. He never reviewed the evidence stating that he had seen enough evidence. Never have my witnesses been interviewed.
The county attorney advised me that he would need an independent investigation. What does that mean? I told him that I wanted an investigation. He never responded. I suppose his recent retirement suggests that he never intended an investigation be done. They have no defense. My evidence is undeniable.
According to the official website the FBI investigates cases alleging,
Fabricating evidence against or falsely arresting an individual also violates the color of law statute, taking away the person’s rights of due process and unreasonable seizure. In the case of deprivation of property, the color of law statute would be violated by unlawfully obtaining or maintaining a person’s property, which oversteps or misapplies the official’s authority.
- False arrest and fabrication of evidence: The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right against unreasonable searches or seizures. A law enforcement official using authority provided under the color of law is allowed to stop individuals and, under certain circumstances, to search them and retain their property. It is in the abuse of that discretionary power—such as an unlawful detention or illegal confiscation of property—that a violation of a person’s civil rights may occur.
- The Fourteenth Amendment secures the right to due process; the Eighth Amendment prohibits the use of cruel and unusual punishment. During an arrest or detention, these rights can be violated by the use of force amounting to punishment (summary judgment). The person accused of a crime must be allowed the opportunity to have a trial and should not be subjected to punishment without having been afforded the opportunity of the legal process.
- Failure to keep from harm: The public counts on its law enforcement officials to protect local communities. If it has shown that an official willfully failed to keep an individual from harm, that official could be in violation of the color of law statute.
Significant Racketeering Activity
The FBI defines significant racketeering activities as those predicate criminal acts that are chargeable under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations statute. These are found in Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 1961 (1) and include the following federal crimes:
- Mail Fraud
- Obstruction of Justice
“Domestic terrorism” means activities with the following three characteristics:
- Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
- Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
- Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.
18 U.S.C. § 2332b defines the term “federal crime of terrorism” as an offense that:
- Is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; and
- Is a violation of one of several listed statutes, including § 930© (relating to killing or attempted killing during an attack on a federal facility with a dangerous weapon); and § 1114 (relating to killing or attempted killing of officers and employees of the U.S.).
This began when my neighbor purchased that lot adjoining mine from the Mayor of my town. I purchased mine in 1995, completely renovated, and upgraded all structures. I had a comfortable home, a garage, and workshop which I operated a successful upholstery service. I had satisfied the loan within 5 years.
Both the neighbors and my property are legally nonconforming lots 70’w X 300’l. The frontage of both properties was 5th St. When he first constructed the illegal nonconforming garage I was concerned. The fact that not only had he regraded the fill dirt he trucked in to direct storm water onto my property, he also changed the direction of the over sized roof surface 90° from the existing garage diverting all storm water onto my property. His garage was illegal to begin with in regards to redeveloping legally nonconforming property. A building permit should have never been issued for this structure. The building official refused to address my concerns. I was advised he intended to build living quarters on the second story; The County reassessed the value of my property at a loss of $10,000 for my three undeveloped “half” lots.
The following year a suspicious fire destroyed the existing home. The neighbor apparently changed his mind about building a living quarters in the upper level of the nonconforming garage. He constructed a new over sized home; again, to large to comply with current building codes, he altered the frontage of his home, now the frontage of the home is the city alley. The building permit for this structure was signed and approved by the city building official. This permit lacked a fee amount charged and the signature of the builder.
The existing conflict of interest between those involved made it impossible for me to get any protection of my rights from law enforcement. Multiple times I attempted to contact the city building official as standard procedure provides citizens to remedy of such situations. The building officials never responded. I did catch him outside his home planting garden and showed him the aerial photo, advised him that the illegal removal of the berm was the cause of my foundation washing out. He stated that he had forgotten about that berm. I assumed he would take action as his duty describes and remedy the situation. He did not, when asked by a witness on my behalf and fellow council member if he was going to address my concerns he stated that he was not. The mayor did come by and tell me “he cannot do that but it was a private issue”. Apparently, the mayor had not reviewed the permits prior to voicing his opinion, According to the city ordinances he has no authority to act as City building official. I went to the next council meeting with the building permits in hand and before I could ask my question the Mayor volunteered his knowledge that the builder’s signature alleviates all liability of the city. At that time I submitted the building permit issued and approved by the building administrator but not signed by the builder, there were no comments made by the mayor or any other person attending the meeting. You could have heard a pin drop. My questions have yet to be answered. Public record shows the mayor implicating himself in several similar situations.
Lee County detective Bob Conlee did misrepresent his authority by acting as a building authority for the City, advising his brother, “the neighbor” that he was not responsible for my damages. The County detective had no jurisdiction or authority to act as a city official and violation of a conflict of interest being he is the brother of this neighbor.
At this point the neighbor, Mayor, building official, and Lee county detective intentionally conspired to deprive me of equal protection of the law.
I developed what I referred to as a “rash” on my shins. This was not a normal itch as from a bug bite or poison ivy, although I have never had poison ivy. This was an intense itch, according to the dermatologist it was caused by something I had never been exposed to. Only after the grass turned green in the spring did I discover the neighbor had applied toxic chemicals to my property. I verbally told him upon discovery not to apply anything to my property, not to come onto my property and followed up requesting an incident report from the Chief of Police. The neighbor continued to apply the chemical to my property routinely for the next 5 years. I did receive an incident report from the Police Chief 16 months after I requested it.
Within 9 months of first discovering the chemicals I was unable to function, I could not bear to wear clothes. My rash had developed into a full body severe skin condition; the neighbor was elected to City council after the first year of intentionally exposing me to toxic chemicals. His intent was clearly to cause me financial harm by using his position to harass me.
I was constantly being issue citations from the City, every time the charges were dismissed. The city clerk on the neighbors behalf fabricated ordinances, altered the original building permit for the new home to conflict with what my expert witness had observed when he came to the location and wrote a letter pertaining to the building permit issue to the mayor and myself, including the State drainage laws. All the summons against me for criminal acts issued by the county attorney were based on fabricated laws. Every dismissal only increased the aggression of the neighbor.
He began applying the chemicals to the city’s easement on my property. The chemicals washed across the property of two downstream neighbors, killing all living things. The neighbor called the EPA. A field investigator came to the location and took written statements from the two neighbors, and myself. I advised him that I just wanted to know what the chemical was so my dermatologist could provide treatment for a specific chemical. The field investigator advised me that I should go to the council meeting and ask them because it would be 9 months before the lab results would be completed. I went to the council meeting. The neighbor remained seated in his position as if there was no conflict of interest. Standard procedure would require him to leave the room because my complaint was against him. I told them that I needed to know what the chemical was that was applied to my property strictly for medical purposes. Not one person said a word. Not one person suggested they would find out what the chemical was. It was obvious by visually looking at my arms that my health had rapidly deteriorated. To me that was the most brutal of all the attacks on my person. The following day I stopped the Director of the street dept. and told him what had happened at the meeting. He advised me they could not tell me because they did not know any chemicals were being applied to the City easement. The EPA sent the city a warning letter stating all the laws they had violated in applying the chemicals. The reason the EPA got involved was the fact that the easement of my property was the point source of the headwater of a creek that feeds directly into the Mississippi River. The chemical was determined to be glyphosate, there is no specific test or treatment for exposure to glyphosate because it is against the law to trespass on the property of another. To apply chemicals to another person’s property, knowing it was believed to be causing health problems to the owner is criminal. The field investigator advised me that my situation is “unheard” of. The city was issued a warning letter stating all the laws that were violated in applying the chemicals. There have never been chemicals applied by the City in this area before or anywhere else in town that I am aware of.
There is no other case in which one neighbor has been allowed and assisted by law enforcement to expose his neighbor to toxic chemicals with intent to cause serious injury or death. This man was using these chemicals to eliminate me. His illegal property redevelopment was rejected from being recorded on the county plat map. He determined to remedy the situation by eliminating me and acquiring my property. He chose to do this by unlawfully applying toxic chemicals to my property. This man could have never achieved his goal of eliminating me if not for the assistance of his co-conspirators all of whom were city or county government officials. This was premeditated and nearly cost me my life.
I am requesting a full investigation into my allegations and this criminal enterprise be held accountable to the highest degree of the law.
- My right to due process was violated.
- My right to enjoy my property was violated.
- My right to free speech was violated.
- My right to equal protection of the law was violated.
Using chemicals with intent to cause serious injury or death can and should be considered attempted murder in this case. I did not willingly give up my property. A County officer stopped by my house to advised me that this man had no intention to stop using chemicals to eliminate me.
Perjury, knowingly making false police reports, fabricating evidence, fraud, obstruction of justice, conspiracy against rights, deprivation of rights under color of law. All of these allegations are all criminal offenses.
Being advised this is a civil case in my view is nothing short of advising me to take the law into my own hands. I have no authority to prosecute criminal offenses. I have no authority to search for bribes being taken by reviewing the financial records of these individual’s. The Federal authorities are the proper authority to investigate and prosecute the crimes alleged in this document. Advising me that this is a civil case is the same as telling me that for justice to be served I must invoke my rights given by the second amendment.
Is that what I should be forced to do? I need answers to these questions. I am being forced to commit a criminal offense, so justice can be served? Nobody has ever been in this position in the history of the United States. How many civil cases are filed against criminal offenses?
I know the duty of law enforcement is to protect the rights of the people. I know it is not the duty of law enforcement to fabricate evidence, act as a witness for a person who intends to violate a court order. As recent as April 2017 warn a city clerk an investigation is going to happen so she has the opportunity to suppress evidence that was prior to the warning, posted online for the public to read. When I tally it up every crime that has been committed against me in this case it completely describes what is listed on the FBI website as being high priority. An FBI investigation is required to hold government accountable for public corruption. Any information that has been or will be stated by local authorities to a higher authority will be fabricated, I know that for a fact. No person has ever reviewed my evidence. The only two people who know the facts of this story are me and my terrorist attacker, the neighbor. I have been advised this is a civil case. I strongly disagree. I was not allowed to file a trespassing complaint against this man when he was unlawfully applying chemicals to my property. I did in fact hire an attorney to sue the City, he took my money and I suspect he took some money from the neighbor. My attorney claimed he filed the complaint. He did not file a complaint.
The neighbor filed a civil complaint against me for, of all things, loss of enjoyment of his property. I within my legal rights put up a privacy curtain. The attorney that I hired to sue the city countered with a nuisance drainage complaint. He failed to question any of my “compelling” witnesses. The same witnesses he referred to as experts in their own right. He failed to notify me that a decision had been made. When I did find out a decision had been made I called him and he advised me that to file an appeal he would need $4000 and he did not want to do it anyway. He advised me that I only had 7 days left to file an appeal. I did attempt to get the transcripts from the court and spoke with a Jody Green. She advised me that the transcripts would not be available until Feb. and the price would be $27.00 I believe. I have the detail including date and amount written down in my evidence. How ethical is it for an attorney to withhold testimony and written affidavits from the court. How ethical is it for an attorney to acknowledge the judge had errors in his decision based on what the only relevant witness the neighbor had. How ethical is it for an attorney to claim he file a complaint on your behalf against the liable party but did not. The evidence will support my attorney conspired with the neighbor violating my State and Federal Constitutional rights. The court dismissed my counter complaint because the evidence and witness testimony was suppressed. I did not understand why he countered against the neighbor in the first place. I knew what my attorney advised me of the first day we met. The city is the liable party in my case. My attorney advised me that we would sue both parties. I hired him to present my case against the city I had nothing to do with a complaint against my neighbor. The city allowed and assisted the neighbor to violation the state building code and drainage law. The counts of perjury the neighbor and his attorney committed are unbelievable. He could not keep his interrogatories from conflicting with his courtroom testimony. Was the judge involved in this conspiracy? You review that evidence and give my your opinion. The court dismissed his case citing my “right to use my property as I see fit”. I felt a sense of relief. I understood the judge intention was for me to control my property in all matters.
After the court ruling the neighbor, accompanied by the police chief, approached me while I was in my yard to informed me that the neighbor was going to move the 48 landscape timbers that I had placed on my side of the common boundary to divert the nuisance stormwater drainage to the city drainage ditch the best I could. I advised the neighbor that if he had a problem with the boundary the proper procedure is to file a civil complaint against me again. I asked the police chief why he was there. He responded that he was acting as a witness that the neighbor told me in advance that he was going to move the landscape timbers on my property. At that time I advised them both that I intended to invoke my second amendment rights. I went directly into my house and returned with a long arm single shot pellet gun. I told the police chief to never knock on my door again. He never knocked on my door again. As a normal human being, I to need to sleep. I was still trying to operate my business. I had not planned on spending this many hours defending my person and property against a neighbor who showed no sense of reason since he began his property redevelopment 2 years earlier. I went out in the yard the next morning and he had moved the protective landscape timbers and pulled up the lawn edging I had just installed as an additional form of protection. The only authority available for me to file a complaint to was the same police chief that had conspired to allow me to be poisoned in the first place. He stated the reason he would not issue the neighbor a citation was because he did not want to make him mad. I completely understand why someone would not want to get on this seemingly psychopaths bad side. I experienced his unconscionable, unreasonable behavior personally.
Within a matter of weeks the police chief was given the opportunity to resign with a positive recommendation to the next police department that hired him or be terminated. He chose to resign. The day after I was forced to defend my property with a weapon against the neighbor and law enforcement, one of the city deputies called me and advised me that the city did have an ordinance prohibiting bb guns. As if an ordinance was going to prevent me from defending my person and property from trespassers.
The next violation committed against me the neighbor reported gun shots fired from my property. A city deputy along with a string of Sheriffs officers swarmed my home. The reason for this was because the neighbor wanted to know if I did have weapons in my possession. They went so far as to call my son at his work and as him if I had weapons. The neighbor knowingly made a false police report. Making false police reports is also listed on the FBI website as a criminal offense. Again a review of my evidence will support all my allegations. No person of authority has ever reviewed my evidence except the county attorney. All evidence as been supported by “the neighbor said”.
This man and the local government officials have shown no regard for my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. The chemicals he was using were literally killing me. Lee County attorney sent a deputy to my home to investigate a second criminal complaint the neighbor had filed against me for “giving him the finger”. I showed the deputy the court order, specifically where the judge is citing of my right to enjoy my own property. I advised the deputy that I wanted to file a trespassing complaint against the neighbor. The neighbor ignored the court order as if he was above the law. The deputy advised me that the court order did not specify chemicals could not be applied to my property adding that he was only at my home to investigate the complaint my neighbor filed against me for giving him the finger. He left and that complaint was dismissed due to lack of evidence. There is no law against giving anyone the finger, this was the second complaint for the same criminal charge the County attorney file on his behalf against me. This one the citation included “he was tired of me doing this all the time. Trumping up the charge to harassment.
I was advised that all criminal complaints must be referred to the county attorney by the Sheriff or other law enforcement authority. Well in this case that is not going to happen because of the conflict of interest existing among my attackers. I do not know if the city and county officials who followed behind this County Attorney, Mayor, building official/council member, and neighbor/council member were involved on the conspiracy against my rights or if they were manipulated into believing all they were told by this neighbor. I do know I have never been given the opportunity to tell the story and present the evidence in its entirety to any authority. about this in a public forum, or in a private meeting. Exposing public corruption in my case has been one of the most difficult tasks I have had to face in my 60 years on this earth. In this land of the free. This was nothing less than a brutal life threatening attack waged against me by my local government officials. It was not the neighbor until after he suspiciously was elected to city council that had the duty to protect my State and Federal rights.
I am mad as hell and I am not going to take it anymore. I will not allow my rights to be violated It is not my duty, nor did I take an oath to uphold the rights given by the Constitution as every person involved or notified about this situation has. I simply will not let it go. This was nothing short of feeling as if I have been gang raped. This is constantly on my mind. It will not go away. It should not go away as this in not what the Nation aspires to do to its citizens.
If I put chemicals on anyone’s property only one time I would be charged with trespassing. This was done to me with no regard to human life for over 5 years. I am angry and time does not ease the pain. I suffer from PTSD as a result of the ongoing attack against me by this enterprise of government officials. To suggest a statute of limitations has expired is an insult to my intelligence. There is no statute of limitation for terrorism. The attack against me was in violation of my State and Federal constitutional rights. The State itself was actively supporting the violation of my rights. The attorney I hired conspired against my rights. You can visit https://poisonedbymyneighborfromhell.com to see some of the hard copy evidence that supports my allegations. This is only the tip of the iceberg of the criminal offenses committed against me to acquire my property. Deprivation of rights under color of law.
I am searching for any civil cases in which the plaintiff has filed a civil complaint alleging trespassing against the private party. I want to see any civil cases in which the plaintiff has filed multiple counts of fraud against another person. I want to see any legal action in which the plaintiff has filed a civil case alleging the defendant has committed a criminal offense. I came across the document above when I believe Lee County Detective Bob Conlee was attempting to set me up for a drug bust. If you would review Lee County Attorney Michael Short . Short advised me that “he” would decide who gets prosecuted in Lee County, Iowa. He wasn’t kidding he was willing and did everything needed to protect Mark Conlee in his unprecedented illegal actions against his neighbor.
Most of you have the common knowledge of the laws and rules a Sheriff has the duty to provide to the citizens in their County described below. I am still waiting for the results of an investigation into my allegations as stated by then County Attorney Mike Short and current Lee County Sheriff Stacy Weber. Weber has a conflict of interest that is next to none according to the record. He certainly learned from the best of the best as former County Detective Bob Conlee is described as his mentor. His reason for getting into law enforcement as a career choice.
Working with Federal and State Legislatures to create laws providing safer communities
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
Mr. Short failed the citizens of Lee County to a serious degree beginning in filing two criminal complaints against me on behalf of his number one colleague Detective Bob Conlee and his brother, Mark Conlee. The complaints were clearly frivolous and fabricated. There is no existing law against giving the middle finger to another person.
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.
Sheriff Weber recently told me there has been an investigation into my allegations since May 1st. The only thing that I am aware of that has happened is the city clerk still participating the the conspiracy to cover up the evidence of the City officials implicating themselves by taking down the City’s webpage that had the min of the meeting since 2005.
This situation is not difficult to understand.
Mark Conlee, brother of Lee County Detective Bob Conlee purchased the legally non conforming property from Mayor Dinwiddie. He began redeveloping the property by tearing down the existing single car garage, trucking in enough fill dirt to elevate the property in some areas 10′ higher than before, he constructed a nonconforming 2 story oversized garage. He altered the roof surface from standard procedure by turning it so it diverted storm water runoff directly onto my property, he changed the grade of the fill dirt so all storm water ran onto my property. My property lost value of $10,000 just because the drainage was forseeable going to cause my property uncontrollable flooding. In questioning this illegal structure I was advised Conlee intended to build a living quarters in the upper level. Standard procedure requires drain tile to be installed around the base of the slab, it was not. Standard procedure requires gutter and downspout to be installed and directed to the city drainage ditch, it was directed directly to divert storm water from the massive roof onto my property.
The following spring there was a suspicious fire that supposedly destroyed the existing trailer. Suspicious to me because the only firemen on the scene that morning were Mayor Dinwiddie, building official/fire chief Mark Holland, Mark Conlee and the son of Mark Holland. The son, Jake was a former resident of the Conlee property, we discussed the fire after the fact. I discovered that only 2 weeks prior there was a trailer fire at a nearby mobile home park that was caused by the same M.O. I understand my testimony is not acceptable but several weeks prior to the fire after his new garage was finished he came over to my yard and gave a friend who was with me a message from his brother in Fla. At that time I asked him, “now that you have that nice new garage what are you going to do with the trailer, he said he wanted it to burn. I was still understanding he was going to build a living quarters in the second level of the garage. The morning of the fire, there was no fire alarm that went off, being 1 block from my house I was always awakened by the siren. That morning I was awakened by the clanging of the fire hose being connected to the hydrant on my corner of the street. The only fireman who acted in an attempt to extinguish any fire was the son, Jake Holland. The other 3 on the scene did nothing but stand on the sidewalk the entire time and chat. Jake got the hose connected and was motioned to lay it down. There was no action physical action made to extinguish any fire. After some amount of time an hour or so Mark Conlee puts on the hazard uniform and enters the home. He exits about 5 minutes later empty-handed and gives the others still on the sidewalk a nod. They continue to stand on the sidewalk for another hour or so. Jake puts the equipment away and they go on about their day. I find it suspicious that Dinwiddie and Holland did not go to their regular job that morning. Conlee went to work and was called home. There was no smoke coming from the building, there was nothing telling that a fire had happen to the building after it was over.
Conlee almost immediately builds a new home. There is no question that the building permit is illegal. He changed the frontage of the home to now be the alley, that is illegal. The roof surface is also altered from standard procedure just as the garage and directed to divert storm water directly onto my property. I advised Conlee that we needed a ditch, reasonably to run directly down the common boundary since he was the one who had the new redevelopment that caused the problems to my property. He was unwilling to have it on his property, the man I was going to barter upholstery for excavating a ditch backed out fearing a liability if he happened to get on Conlee property since there had been no survey, only a verbal agreement on the common boundary. Conlee illegally removed an existing berm that had been put in place by the original owners of both property for the sole purpose of protecting my home structure from storm water runoff from the Conlee property when the original home burnt prior to 1972 when they brought in the mobile home. Berm and swale were commonly used at that time for this purpose. The berm was on the Conlee side of the common boundary, the swale was on my side of the common boundary. The building officials refused to address my concerns, his duty is to oversee property redevelopment is in compliance with State building and drainage laws. When he refused to come to the location I contacted Lee County Ext, agent Robert Dodds, he did come to the location and took some photos. I had many questions I showed him the building permit which lacked the signature of the builder Mark Conlee but was signed and approved by the building official. Mr. Dodds noticed some other discrepancies on that building permit. He questioned why years before when he built a garage he had to pay a pretty significant amount for the fee charge of his building permit. Mark Conlee had paid no fee according to the permit. He explained that in regards to storm water drainage and property development you are not allowed to divert more storm water to the neighboring property than before the redevelopment. He sent a copy of the letter to Mayor Dinwiddie allow with drainage laws. Dinwiddie had no regard for this expert opinion. When all other times any opinion from Mr. Dodd has held high regard with the city of Montrose.
I hired attorney Steve Swan to sue the city of Montrose. Retired Sheriff’s officer, John Farmer referred Swan to me. John worked for the city of Montrose prior to moving up to the sheriff’s dept. He is well aware of the characters who hold positions in Montrose. I met with Swan and he advised me that John Farmer had briefed him on the case, John told him that I did not have many financial resources. I had been self-employed as an upholsterer since I purchased my property in 1995. I was never without work, but I basically charged what I needed to pay my bills, explains why I had a backlog of work for over a year at all times. Swan also advised me that he had spoken to Lee County Detective Bob Conlee, Bob had already lied to him when he told him his brother never trucked in any fill dirt but poured the new slabs just as the property existed. He advised me that my case was a tort case and we would sue both parties, Conlee and the city. He asked if I would be willing to barter upholstering his vehicle for his service. I willingly took him up on that offer, I was so moved by his kindness I had to pull over on the highway because I was crying with gratitude. The following day I received a copy of a letter of intent he sent to Conlee the previous afternoon. The letter demanded Conlee remedy the nuisance drainage problem in 10 day or he would file an injunction against him. Conlee began removing the existing evidence of the berm and its height, he built a little roof over the door on the side of his house as if he had not changed the frontage of his property.
I emailed Swan multiple times on the 10th day telling him to file the injunction. I never heard another word from him and he filed no injunction to stop work.
Soon after this, a rash developed on my shins, I referred to it as a rash because that was what it appeared to be to me. I thought perhaps an allergic reaction to something. I had never had any problems prior to this with my skin, I had never even have poison ivy.The itch was intense, nothing similar to a bug bite. I had used a push lawnmower since I purchased my place, I did that for cardio, and in fact I never wanted a riding lawn mower. The next time I went out to mow I noticed that the neighbor had applied something to my side of the common boundary. I had never been exposed to what I assumed was weed killer. I had not changed my routine for 10 years. It seemed reasonable that whatever this neighbor was apply to my side only of the common boundary could possibly be the cause of what had now rapidly spread over other parts of my body. I told him and the new police chief that day not to apply anything to my property and explained I thought it could be the cause of my skin eruptions. I requested an incident report from the police chief.
By this time my opinion of Mr. Conlee’s character was less than honorable. He knew my property was flooding, my foundation had been damaged and he was unwilling to allow me to have a ditch dug down the common boundary. He continued using the chemicals without hesitation as routine yard maintenance applying them to my property only. I kept requesting the incident report from Chief Shipman and he kept coming up with excuses as to why he did not have it for me, a witness says he was lying about the reason he did not have it. When I did receive it 16 months later the first on was not satisfactory in detail, I told him no that I wanted one with the details. A week later he gave me a half-hearted report. By this time my rash had become a severe skin condition. My entire body was raw. The pain was excruciating, it was unbearable to wear clothes.
I had requested a trespassing complaint be file on my behalf early on. Every request denied by the City and Lee County Attorney. The chemicals now had become a weapon with intent to cause me serious injury. The fact that I was denied equal protection of the law and access to the courts make this a conspiracy deprivation of rights under color of law.
It became clear to me the reason Conlee would not stop applying chemicals to my property when I realized he was unable to get the illegal redevelopment recorded on the county plat map.
Lee County attorney Mike Short suggested mitigation two years in a row, I was willing. Even sent my report in the mail to the mitigation service. However Mark Conlee was not. He knew his illegal redevelopment would be order to be removed. return the lot back to the original state. His excuse the first year was because he had paid an attorney to represent him in a civil case he filed against me. In that case the judge dismissed his case citing my right to enjoy my property. I put up a privacy curtain and Mr. Conlee believing my backyard was his backyard because he changed the frontage of his home to face the alley was offended by the curtain. I knew I was well within my rights. I always know the law before I ever act. I felt a sense of relief by the judge’s ruling. My right to enjoy my property in my mind meant no more chemicals on my property either. I was wrong about what the ruling meant to Mark Conlee and Chief of Police Brent Shipman. They approached me in my yard one day and Conlee advised me he was going to my the railroad ties I had legally placed down my side of the common boundary to divert the storm water toward the city drainage ditch. I advised him if he had a problem with the boundary line he would need to file another civil complaint. I question Brent Shipman as what was purpose of him being with Conlee. He advised me that he was acting as a witness that Conlee was telling me ahead of time that he was going to alter my property. At that point I advised them both that I intended to invoke my second amendment right. I advised Chief Shipman never to knock on my door again. I headed to the house to get my weapon, you never saw two adults run up a hill so fast.
Imagine now, here I am, my body completely raw, trying to meet deadlines for my upholstery clients and having to defend my property every afternoon from 3:30pm the rest of the night.
I retrieved my weapon, a single shot long arm pellet gun and stood guard on my property till way past dark. I had to have some rest, I had other responsibilities so I went in the house and laid down to sleep a bit. When I woke up the next morning I went out to check the boundary line. Sure enough Conlee had moved the railroad ties I placed to protect my property. I had them held in place with staubs. I had new lawn edging put in place and the railroad ties were pushed every which way. The staubs were broken off, the edging pull out of the ground and just laying there. My skin condition was full body, I was terrified to go near that boundary in the first place, I have never felt so violated in my life. This was done in contempt of a court order. I called the only authority of the law available Chief Shipman and told him I wanted to file a trespassing complaint against Conlee. He asked me if I saw him do it. I told him he was the witness that Conlee was going to do it. It was complete violation of my rights. It was a conspiracy.
I again contacted Lee County attorney Mike Short, he advised me that he doesn’t let neighbors file complaints against each other because it never stops. Yet I was charged by the State and City several times on fabricated laws and ordinances on Conlee’s behalf. I never even got into the courtroom. Conlee did not even show up. I was told by Montrose Deputy Judd that Conlee was on vacation in Fla. What kind of public servants are these people. What kind of people conspire with intent to cause serious injury to anyone? Narcissists are described as these kind of people. It only take one narcissist to manipulate a group of people into believing anything they say. With every complaint that was dismissed against me the more aggressive the City, on Conlee’s behalf, became to find me guilty of a crime. Public record has a discussion about it. The council and Mayor discuss going to speak with the judge. What does that mean? Offer him a bribe? The judge knew the laws. The judge knew what wasn’t against the law. What else would they feel they needed to speak to him about?
Well the reality set in after 5 years of being abused by my local government officials, committing criminal acts against me. I had by this time lost my eyesight, unable to read, unable to recognized people, I was terrified. A neighbor using chemical weapons with intent to cause serious injury is defined as terrorist acts. If he is capable of doing this what would he not do to eliminate me? These government officials conspired to commit terrorist acts against me. Deprived me of my rights under color of law, committed a conspiracy against my rights as well as defamed my character and fabricated ordinances and laws in an attempt to cause me financial harm.
Mark Conlee had to have my property to ever get his illegal redevelopment recorded on the county plat map and he decided the action to take was to eliminate me. I had two options one was to shoot him dead or flee and seek justice according to the law. I mistakenly chose the latter option. To date I have gotten little if any interest in my story. I am sure if the right person gets to read this action will be taken and justice will be served. But how long? The City and Prosecuting attorney had the duty not to let this happen in the first place.
One other thing I want to mention in regard to Mayor Dinwiddie and his property. Several years ago a woman spoke to the city council about opening a tattoo shop in a building that was available, the council discussed this and they did not think a tattoo shop would represent the city as they wanted it to be represented. It was only a short time later that a different woman spoke to the council about opening a tattoo shop in a building she intended to purchase from Mayor Dinwiddie, the city council was all for this new business in town. What is the difference? Mayor Dinwiddie would receive a personal financial gain just as he did when Conlee purchased the legally nonconforming lot from him.
Attorney Steve Swan conspired with Conlee in violation of his oath to represent his clients best interest
Lee County Attorney Mike Short conspired with Mark Conlee by denying me equal protection of the law, access to the court, and terrorist acts. Conspiracy against rights under color of law.
Lee County Detective conspired with Mark Conlee in misrepresenting his authority to be that of a building official, he was acting without jurisdiction, he defamed my character and knowingly made false statements associating me with illegal drug activity. Conspiracy against rights under color of law.
The most recent act of conspiracy was when Sheriff Stacy Weber advised the city clerk that there was an investigation that initiated City clerk Celeste Cirinna took down the City of Montrose website that contained the minutes of the council meeting and evidence of these officials implicating themselves to suppress the evidence. I have copies of all the meeting minutes.
City clerk Celeste Cirinna committed multiple counts of fraud, conspiracy against rights. But Lee County attorney refused to prosecute any of these criminal offenses. They already knew they could do anything and not be held accountable by local law enforcement. The evidence cannot be disputed, they have no defense.
What is not in violation of Federal law in this case is my question?
Statute of Limitations – Tolling The Statute
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.
Oh my this would be similar to the criminal offenses committed by City of Montrose, Ia clerk Celeste Cirinna. City of Montrose. Ia clerk Celeste Cirinna
“When elected officials engage in corruption it erodes public confidence in our democratic system of government,” said Dana J. Boente, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. “Burfoot’s well-publicized criminal exploits have eroded public confidence in how their tax dollars are used and managed, and his selfish actions feed the worst perceptions about public employees, of whom the vast majority perform their duties selflessly and admirably. I want to thank the Assistant United States Attorneys and the FBI for their diligence and dedication in pursuing this important case.”