Did you know that the origin of 1080 poison traces all the way back to Monsanto? The corporation also linked to Agent Orange — Rangitikei Environmental Health Watch

Yes commonly referred to as the most evil corporation on the planet, recently morphed (not gone really) into Bayer & currently facing law suits about cancer-causing glyphosate found in Roundup. Then into the mix we have the Tull company that bought the patent for 1080 which is known for selling its product to NZ that […]

via Did you know that the origin of 1080 poison traces all the way back to Monsanto? The corporation also linked to Agent Orange — Rangitikei Environmental Health Watch

Glyphosate Shown to Disrupt Microbiome — low carb for life

According to an article in The Guardian UK online, levels of Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide found in the human bloodstream have spiked by more than a 1,000% in the last two decades. It goes on to say that the substance was recently re-licensed for a “shortened five-year lease by the EU” despite scientists saying that it poses “a […]

via Glyphosate Shown to Disrupt Microbiome — low carb for life

Stories of Injustice — Jurists 4 Justice; a key to civil society

This link is where you can post your story of any injustice(s) you believe have been done to you or others. Try to be as concise and brief as possible with facts, not opinions, just as an Attorney must provide in a court of law. People and Judges want to hear only those facts which […]

via Stories of Injustice — Jurists 4 Justice; a key to civil society

@azure168

 

FRAUD! NOT LAW!!! – RULES – PROCEDURES – MISREPRESENTED AS LAW EQUALS FRAUD!

Hard to keep local government officials within the guidelines of Federal law?

I was recently advised of this by an attorney, in fact over these past few years several attorney’s have had similar advice for me.

I have gone to extreme lengths to get the proper authority to review the evidence in my case and to proceed to have justice served.

My case is non typical of any other case in this Nation. The criminal acts committed against me have been intentional. They have been as brutal as a civilian in this Country have ever experienced. The pain and suffering continues to exist from the time my eyes open till the time they go to sleep.

The fact that no Federal authority chooses to prosecute my attackers should not have ever been considered in this case. There are Federal laws on the books that are in place to protect citizens from exactly what has happened to me. These laws are not optional for prosecution. Those who have the duty to investigate and prosecute and have not preformed their duties and just as guilty as the ones who physically attacked my person and property, in my opinion they are more liable. They have provided me with no means of having justice be served. The violations of my State and Federal Rights are not to be violated anymore than those who have attacked me. For any person to be held above the law in serious criminal offenses against another citizen is difficult to understand. I know this neighbor is suffering from psychopathic personality disorder. I know that the other officials were in it for personal financial gain. I know the facts because I was a witness, and I have the documentation supporting my allegations.

To the extent in which I have been violated lets get right to the bare bones. Corrupt local government is a common reality in the entire USA. Generally it does not take the form of intentionally causing physical harm and suffering to an innocent civilian. When Senator Chuck Grassley advised me that he requested an inquiry into my allegations I felt a sense of relief. The Senator has great influence over the Federal Government. He advised me that the FBI would be contacting me. I waited for five years and nobody from the FBI contacted me. I contacted the Senator again, he advised me that he would request a second inquiry on my behalf. He advised me to be patient, it takes time. Another five years pass and nobody from the FBI contacted me.

Have you ever tried to contact the FBI, well don’t waste your time because you are only going to be disrespected and hung up on. You can never get the name of the person you are speaking with and quite frankly the statistics show that they as a whole are incompetent. In my case the same is true. I reached out to an agent through the County Sheriff, I knew he had a conflict of interest, that’s how desperate I was.

During these ten years of waiting for a response from the Senator’s inquiry I continued more advanced degree of suffering. My entire body was reacting to the chemical exposure. I had no choice but to stay at my private property with would have resulted in my death I am sure, or flee to escape the chemicals. I chose the latter believing that at some time I would be compensated for the damages I suffered from the intentional actions of my corrupt local government officials. They terrorized me, I was afraid to go to sleep at night because I knew they were not beyond setting my house on fire with me in it. I know that for a fact. You don’t know that because you have never had the opportunity to read my story.

The Senator still has an obligation to assure my evidence has been properly reviewed, however he has now suggested he can do nothing on my behalf. So to sum up what he did, he requested two inquiries on my behalf. He apparently was never given a follow up report from the FBI disclosing what they discovered in my case. I can tell you what they discovered. They discovered nothing, they have never reviewed the evidence. The agent who I finally got connected with came to my home for the purpose of reviewing my evidence. He arrive announcing that he had no intention of reviewing anything. He later disclosed to me that the County Sheriff had given information (hearsay) to a third party and that is how he determined no Federal law has been violated. I can tell you and most of you know that when it come to telling the truth about any subject a law enforcement officer is the last source you can trust to be honest. I was not privy to the information given to this agent, for the purpose I am sure that I would not have the opportunity to present evidence that he was making false statements. This agent was supposed to be investigating on my behalf. He instead cover up the violations of Federal law committed by corrupt local officials.

Now what options do I have to seek justice in a case that destroyed my life? You know and I know the only resolution I have available for justice to be served. The media has much responsibility for the mass shootings we hear of in today’s world. I can testify that these random shooters are not mentally ill. They have been violated to the degree that they will not allow to be disrespected for one more minute. That is what the media should be reporting before it comes to this extreme.

I have pleaded with the media to publish my story. The local editor has been sent the evidence as it took place by me. He stated that my case looks cut and dry. He is right there is no reasonable justification for the criminal offenses that have been committed against me. But he will not publish my story because he has a good relationship with the County Sheriff and does not want to put that in jeopardy. Should I happen to decide I will not go one more minute being disregarded and disrespected to be a human being I am certain that this local editor will withhold the evidence that has been submitted to him by me.

Protecting corrupt government officials is not in the best interest of them. It takes a tragedy and still they are protected from being exposed as the animals they have become.

The buck stops here. https://poisonedbymyneighborfromhell.com terrorist governments using chemical weapons against civilians happening in the USA today. But don’t tell the general public. Let them put themselves in a life threatening situation, that is in the best interest of all involved, right?

Give me my day in court or an AR-15.

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 – Conspiracy Against Rights

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 – Conspiracy Against Rights

This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).

It further makes it unlawful for two or more persons to go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another with the intent to prevent or hinder his/her free exercise or enjoyment of any rights so secured.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to ten years, or both; and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years, or for life, or may be sentenced to death.

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 – Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law

This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.

This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.

Acts under “color of any law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under “color of any law,” the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Is there any question that these laws have been violated through this evidence?

Montrose and Lee County, Iowa unprecedented case of #public corruption, #nepotism and #kleptocracy

Project on Government Oversight

Interesting report on Government corruption.

Project on Government Oversight.

REAL ID: How the government became a home grown terrorism organization

The PPJ Gazette

Don Bowman

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

To all of you who dutifully supplied all that information to the Department of Motor Vehicles so that you might obtain that special gold star on your driver license…. I don’t even know what to say to you. I want to ask you why you did not stand up and refuse this infringement of your right to travel freely, without being tagged and marked in a tracking system meant to be used against you if it should become convenient to do so.

I know….you haven’t done anything wrong and you have nothing to hide so you don’t mind if they spy on you, track you, impede your right to travel freely, and whatever else they can come up with to let you know, YOU ARE THE ENEMY THE GOVERNMENT FEARS MOST.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dear Government: Please let me save you some time and put your paranoid collective minds…

View original post 2,272 more words

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

The fact that FBI Agent Reinwart, refused to review my evidence that supports without a doubt my allegations leaves his decision irrelevant. It does not take a graduate of the academy to know that an investigation requires reviewing evidence from both sides of a case. In an email he sent me he admits that he made his decision based on what I verbally told him and what the County Sheriff told a third party. I even submitted evidence that the Sheriff had a conflict of interest with the opposing party. He made his decision based on false statements given by the sheriff. I asked Reinwart to share with me the information the Sheriff had made in his statements. Reinwart refused. Reinwart was supposed to be investigation this case on my behalf. He could not share the false information given by the Sheriff because I have hard copy evidence that would prove the Sheriff was lying. The sheriff knows no facts about this case. Any information he has is based on lies made by the Conlee’s. I can prove multiple counts of perjury made by Conlee in the civil case. AUSA Kevin VanderSchel was lying when he advised me that he had the authority to violate a civil court order. When we have Federal authorities who have no regard to the oath they took to uphold the Constitution its time for the citizens to unite and remove them from their positions. Dirty Rotten Bastards. I have a purpose to speak to the Inspector General. To expose one corrupt government official is small potatoes. I have an entire group of self serving government impostors that need removed from their positions. Hearsay is not evidence. Dirty Rotten Bastards. Private property is never to be taken without just compensation. Reinwart did not possess the knowledge of  any Federal law, who is responsible for putting this incompetent individual in his position? He has shown me that he is not qualified to investigate any case regarding Federal law!

18 U.S. Code § 229.Prohibited activities

(a)Unlawful Conduct.—Except as provided in subsection (b), it shall be unlawful for any person knowingly—

(1)to develop, produce, otherwise acquire, transfer directly or indirectly, receive, stockpile, retain, own, possess, or use, or threaten to use, any chemical weapon; or

(2)to assist or induce, in any way, any person to violate paragraph (1), or to attempt or conspire to violate paragraph (1).

(b)Exempted Agencies and .—

(1)In general.—

Subsection (a) does not apply to the retention, ownership, possession, transfer, or receipt of a chemical weapon by a department, agency, or other entity of the United States, or by a person described in paragraph (2), pending destruction of the weapon.

(2)Exempted persons.—A person referred to in paragraph (1) is—

(A)any person, including a member of the Armed Forces of the United States, who is authorized by law or by an appropriate officer of the United States to retain, own, possess, transfer, or receive the chemical weapon; or

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

(c)Jurisdiction.—Conduct prohibited by subsection (a) is within the jurisdiction of the United States if the prohibited conduct—

(1)takes place in the United States;

(2)takes place outside of the United States and is committed by a national of the United States;

(3)is committed against a national of the United States while the national is outside the United States; or

(4)is committed against any property that is owned, leased, or used by the United States or by any department or agency of the United States, whether the property is within or outside the United States.

18 U.S. Code § 229A. Penalties

(a)Criminal Penalties.—

(1)In general.—

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

(2)Death penalty.—

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

(b)Civil Penalties.—

(1)In general.—

The Attorney General may bring a civil action in the appropriate United States district court against any person who violates section 229 of this title and, upon proof of such violation by a preponderance of the evidence, such person shall be subject to pay a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed $100,000 for each such violation.

(2)Relation to other proceedings.—

The imposition of a civil penalty under this subsection does not preclude any other criminal or civil statutory, common law, or administrative remedy, which is available by law to the United States or any other person.

(c)Reimbursement of Costs.—

The court shall order any person convicted of an offense under subsection (a) to reimburse the United States for any expenses incurred by the United States incident to the seizure, storage, handling, transportation, and destruction or other disposition of any property that was seized in connection with an investigation of the commission of the offense by that person. A person ordered to reimburse the United States for expenses under this subsection shall be jointly and severally liable for such expenses with each other person, if any, who is ordered under this subsection to reimburse the United States for the same expenses.

18 U.S. Code § 229B. Criminal forfeitures; destruction of weapons

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

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

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

(3)any of the property used in any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission of, such violation.

The court, in imposing sentence on such person, shall order, in addition to any other sentence imposed pursuant to section 229A (a), that the person forfeit to the United States all property described in this subsection. In lieu of a fine otherwise authorized by section 229A (a), a defendant who derived profits or other proceeds from an offense may be fined not more than twice the gross profits or other proceeds.

(b)Procedures.—

(1)General.—Property subject to forfeiture under this section, any seizure and disposition thereof, and any administrative or judicial proceeding in relation thereto, shall be governed by subsections (b) through (p) of section 413 of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 853), except that any reference under those subsections to—

(A)this subchapter or subchapter II” shall be deemed to be a reference to section 229A (a); and

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

(2)Temporary restraining orders.—

(A)In general.—

For the purposes of forfeiture proceedings under this section, a temporary restraining order may be entered upon application of the United States without notice or opportunity for a hearing when an information or indictment has not yet been filed with respect to the property, if, in addition to the circumstances described in section 413(e)(2) of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 853(e)(2)), the United States demonstrates that there is probable cause to believe that the property with respect to which the order is sought would, in the event of conviction, be subject to forfeiture under this section and exigent circumstances exist that place the life or health of any person in danger.

(B)Warrant of seizure.—

If the court enters a temporary restraining order under this paragraph, it shall also issue a warrant authorizing the seizure of such property.

(C)Applicable procedures.—

The procedures and time limits applicable to temporary restraining orders under section 413(e)(2) and (3) of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 853(e)(2) and (3)) shall apply to temporary restraining orders under this paragraph.

(c)Affirmative Defense.—It is an affirmative defense against a forfeiture under subsection (b) that the property—

(1)is for a purpose not prohibited under the Chemical Weapons Convention; and

(2)is of a type and quantity that under the circumstances is consistent with that purpose.

(d)Destruction or Other Disposition.—

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

(e)Assistance.—

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

(f)Owner Liability.—

The owner or possessor of any property seized under this section shall be liable to the United States for any expenses incurred incident to the seizure, including any expenses relating to the handling, storage, transportation, and destruction or other disposition of the seized property.

18 U.S. Code § 229C. Individual self-defense devices

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prohibit any individual self-defense device, including those using a pepper spray or chemical mace.

18 U.S. Code § 229D. Injunctions

The United States may obtain in a civil action an injunction against—

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

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

18 U.S. Code § 229E. Requests for military assistance to enforce prohibition in certain emergencies

The Attorney General may request the Secretary of Defense to provide assistance under section 382 of title 10[1]in support of Department of Justice activities relating to the enforcement of section 229 of this title in an emergency situation involving a chemical weapon. The authority to make such a request may be exercised by another official of the Department of Justice in accordance with section 382(f)(2) of title 10.[1] 

18 U.S. Code § 229F. Definitions

In this chapter:

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

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

(B)A munition or device, specifically designed to cause death or other harm through toxic properties of those toxic chemicals specified in subparagraph (A), which would be released as a result of the employment of such munition or device.

(C)Any equipment specifically designed for use directly in connection with the employment of munitions or devices specified in subparagraph (B).

(2)Chemical weapons ; convention.—

The terms “Chemical Weapons Convention” and “Convention” mean the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction, opened for signature on January 13, 1993.

(3)Key component of a binary or multicomponent chemical system.—

The term “key component of a binary or multicomponent chemical system” means the precursor which plays the most important role in determining the toxic properties of the final product and reacts rapidly with other chemicals in the binary or multicomponent system.

(4)National of the united states.—

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

(5)Person.—

The term “person”, except as otherwise provided, means any individual, corporation, partnership, firm, association, trust, estate, public or private institution, any State or any political subdivision thereof, or any political entity within a State, any foreign government or nation or any agency, instrumentality or political subdivision of any such government or nation, or other entity located in the United States.

(6)Precursor.—

(A)In general.—

The term “precursor” means any chemical reactant which takes part at any stage in the production by whatever method of a toxic chemical. The term includes any key component of a binary or multicomponent chemical system.

(B)List of precursors.—

Precursors which have been identified for the application of verification measures under Article VI of the Convention are listed in schedules contained in the Annex on Chemicals of the Chemical Weapons Convention.

(7)Purposes not prohibited by this chapter.—The term “purposes not prohibited by this chapter” means the following:

(A)Peaceful purposes.—

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

(B)Protective purposes.—

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

(C)Unrelated military purposes.—

Any military purpose of the United States that is not connected with the use of a chemical weapon or that is not dependent on the use of the toxic or poisonous properties of the chemical weapon to cause death or other harm.

(D)Law enforcement purposes.—

Any law enforcement purpose, including any domestic riot control purpose and including imposition of capital punishment.

(8)Toxic chemical.—

(A)In general.—

The term “toxic chemical” means any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals. The term includes all such chemicals, regardless of their origin or of their method of production, and regardless of whether they are produced in facilities, in munitions or elsewhere.

(B)List of toxic chemicals.—

Toxic chemicals which have been identified for the application of verification measures under Article VI of the Convention are listed in schedules contained in the Annex on Chemicals of the Chemical Weapons Convention.

(9)United states.—The term “United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States and includes all places under the jurisdiction or control of the United States, including—

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

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

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

 

Federal Prosecution of State and Local Corruption: From Sea to Shining Sea

There’s actually a constitutional basis to argue that the federal government should pursue these cases. The Guarantee Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article 4, Section 4, provides that the “United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government.” If “republican form of government” is understood to mean a representative democracy with power derived from the consent of the governed, then federal prosecution of state corruption may fulfill this mandate by removing corrupt state officials who either rose to power illegitimately or are using their powers to the detriment of their citizens. The normal political and legal structures within a state may be fine for handling most crimes, but when it comes to political corruption those structures themselves may be impaired. When that’s the case, there may be a role for the federal government.

When Should the Feds Step In?

One reason federal intervention in a state corruption case might be appropriate and even welcome is the presence of a real or perceived conflict of interest among state officials. If corruption exists at a high level in the state government, those who would be charged with investigating and prosecuting it – the state attorney general, for example – may be political allies and close friends of the potential targets. If a city or state is run by a well-entrenched corrupt political “machine” (I’m lookin’ at you, Chicago) it may be unrealistic to expect the local authorities to tackle the corruption among their friends and colleagues. Indeed, the prosecuting authorities in the state may themselves be involved in the corruption.

Another factor in favor of federal prosecution can be the resources available to the federal government. A large-scale public corruption investigation demands a great deal of prosecutorial and investigative time and money. Many state prosecutor’s offices could quickly be overwhelmed by the demands of such a case, particularly considering all of the other state matters they are tasked with handling. Federal prosecutors, with the vast investigative and prosecutorial power of the federal government behind them, are simply better equipped to tackle such a large-scale investigation than their state counterparts.

Prosecutorial resources and expertise are also an issue. Many state and local prosecutors accustomed to dealing with street crimes may have never handled a major public corruption case. Such cases raise complex legal and factual issues concerning things like proof of corrupt intent, not found in more typical state criminal law fare. The U.S. Department of Justice recognized the special nature of political corruption investigations by establishing the Public Integrity Section in 1976, with a staff of attorneys who specialize in such cases and travel the country assisting other federal prosecutors who are handling them. DOJ can bring a degree of prosecutorial firepower and experience to such investigations that is beyond the reach of most states.

The Laws Used to Prosecute State and Local Corruption

Somewhat surprisingly, there are not a lot of federal laws aimed directly at state and local corruption. The principal federal statute covering bribery and gratuities, 18 U.S.C. § 201, applies only to federal public officials. But federal prosecutors have been creative when it comes to putting other federal statutes to work in these cases.

Honest services fraud – perhaps the most popular theory used to prosecute state and local corruption is honest services mail and wire fraud. The mail and wire fraud statutes (18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1343) apply to use of the mail, phone lines, or wireless transmissions in furtherance of any “scheme or artifice to defraud.” The statutes are routinely applied to the more typical schemes to defraud victims of money or property, such as a Ponzi scheme. But prosecutors also use mail and wire fraud to prosecute state and local officials for corruption, on the theory that the corrupt acts defrauded the public of its intangible right to the fair and honest services of their public officials.

Honest services fraud has been used to prosecute many state and local officials over the past few decades. At times it has been applied to schemes that appeared more politically sleazy or unethical than criminally corrupt, which led to controversy about the potential breadth of the theory. But in 2010 in Skilling v. United States the Supreme Court limited the statute, ruling that it only applies to conduct that amounts to bribery or kickbacks. Even with this limitation, though, it remains an important weapon for federal prosecutors attacking state or local corruption. Honest services fraud was one of the primary statutes used in the McDonnell prosecution, as well as in the prosecutions of New York state legislators.

Hobbs Act Extortion – another common theory is extortion under color of official right under the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951. As I have discussed elsewhere, extortion “under color of official right” has been interpreted by the Supreme Court essentially to be the equivalent of bribery. In the absence of a general federal bribery statute that applies to state and local officials, Hobbs Act extortion is a favorite of federal prosecutors looking at state and local corruption. Along with honest services fraud, Hobbs Act extortion formed the core of the indictment against the McDonnell’s in Virginia, and the same two statutes also were used in the recent indictment of former New York state Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver.

Federal Program Bribery – a less commonly used but very powerful law is the federal program bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 666. It prohibits theft or bribery by an agent of any organization or state or local government in connection with programs or agencies receiving federal funds. There are certain (and quite modest) minimum dollar requirements involved, but once those are met this statute is a potent anti-bribery tool that can apply not only to state or local government officials but to private individuals as well.

RICO – the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1964, is a statutory behemoth primarily aimed at organized crime. Given the breadth of the statute, however, it is possible to apply it to entities such as a governor’s office, charging that state officials or others conducted the affairs of that office through a “pattern of racketeering activity.” Racketeering activity is defined to include a number of state law crimes, including bribery and extortion. Accordingly, a state law bribery scheme affecting a state or local government, while not violating the federal bribery statute, may be brought as a federal prosecution through the vehicle of RICO.

Debate over federal prosecution of state and local officials reflects fundamental tensions about the proper balance of state and federal power that have existed since the founding of the nation. There will always be some, such as Governor McDonnell’s defenders in Virginia, who will argue that the federal government should butt out and allow the states to handle their own affairs. But as discussed above, there are many reasons why federal intervention may be necessary and appropriate — and if recent developments are any indication, federal prosecutors are not hesitating to jump in.

Montrose and Lee County, Iowa unprecedented case of #public corruption, #nepotism and #kleptocracy  Using Chemical weapons against civilians for the purpose of eliminating them from their private property.

Montrose and Lee County, Iowa unprecedented case of #public corruption, #nepotism and #kleptocracy

Montrose and Lee County, Ia. unprecedented case of public corruption, nepotism and kleptocracy.

Where is former Lee County, Iowa attorney Mike Short?

Mike Short retired after serving himself and others in his organization of legally armed thieves in 2017. He fled from the area or is in deep hiding, I would assume it would be similar to Saddam Hussein hideout if he were still in the area. But I believe he is living large of the stolen money of Lee County residents somewhere in the Southern States. He was the County Attorney here since I can remember and I am 61 years old. He never had anyone run against him that I can remember. He had all the power to take what a person had worked their ass off for and not even bring a criminal charge against them. Dirty Rotten Bastards.

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

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

 

Committing a crime to get my evidence investigated. Dirty rotten bastards.

Apparently I am going to have to commit a crime against one of those who have abused my legal rights. This is why I did not invoke my 2nd amendment right when I had a good shot at this psychopath. I have tried every avenue that I could possible find. I know what my evidence proves.

The fact that no authority has ever taken the time to review my evidence is the real problem in this case. But they simply are not, not when they have the word of credible law enforcement officers. That is a joke. These are the typical impostors you find with every law enforcement dept. All of them together would not make a pimple on a real man’s ass.

Now what to do that will get me in a position that my case will be heard by a jury of my peers? Any suggestions?  Fuck them assholes. Yes I am angry as I have ever been. I will assault any of them that I see in public without hesitation. Will that get me in a position to lay my case out for all to see?

More bullshit, I just want my evidence reviewed by a competent investigator. Not one who does not know that private property rights are Federally protected and that hearsay is not evidence. dirty rotten bastards.

 

Virus-free. www.avg.com

On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 2:34 PM OIG <OIG@gao.gov> wrote:

GAO’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) has received your correspondence to our hotline. GAO OIG independently conducts audits and other reviews of GAO’s programs and internal operations. GAO OIG also investigates allegations of potential fraud, waste, mismanagement, and violations of rules and laws related to GAO programs and operations.

GAO OIG has no jurisdiction over the matters that you have raised and regrets that our office cannot be of further assistance to you.

From: songboat [mailto:songboat@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2019 8:39 PM
To: Kaufmann, John (Grassley); Carton, Katie; DOJPlainWriting@usdoj.gov; POGO Report Corruption; Case Intake; cigie.information@cigie.govdhs-oig.officepublicaffairs@oig.dhs.govjwertz@publicintegrity.orgleonardsipes@gmail.com;michael.naig@iowaagriculture.gov; OIG; OIG_Hotline@epa.gov; Tunis, Catherine; USAIAS.CitizenReport@usdoj.gov; National Crime Victim Law Institute; ynot@injusticeline.com
Subject: legal abuse, reasonable person, snap.

Congressman Dave Loebsack this case falls under selected investigations.

The FBI’s activities are closely and regularly scrutinized by a variety of entities. Congress—through several oversight committees in the Senate and House—reviews the FBI’s budget appropriations, programs, and selected investigations. The results of FBI investigations are often reviewed by the judicial system during court proceedings. Within the U.S. Department of Justice, the FBI is responsible to the attorney general, and it reports its findings to U.S. Attorneys across the country. The FBI’s intelligence activities are overseen by the Director of National Intelligence.

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

I have been legally abused by all my government officials. This should have never gotten past one time of having chemicals applied to my property. I should have been allowed to have a criminal trespassing complaint filed against this neighbor when he first did this. I want my day in court and I want the Federal civil rights division to represent me.

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

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

9-18-2006 findings of fact pg 6

9-18-2006 findings of fact pg 6

 

Civil court ordering my right to use my property as I wished. AUSA Kevin VanderSchel recently advised me that he had the authority to disregard this order. I believe he is lying. Show me the evidence that he can violate my rights and a civil court order.

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

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

The mayor implicates himself in conspiracy against my rights

original Building permit on file that Robert Dodds wrote letter to Mayor about.jpg

Above statement did not apply as soon as he got the words out of his mouth I submitted this building permit, “unsigned by the builder”.

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

Chemicals applied to my side of the common boundary. County attorney reviewed this photo and advised me that ” Conlee said he only applied it to the base of his side of the fence” Conlee is obviously a liar. “Hearsay” was used over hard copy evidence in every violation against me in this case. When I have the hard copy evidence to prove my credibility. SA Thomas Reinwart used hearsay in his incompetent investigation. Sheriff Weber recently made false statements to the FBI. Why is that not investigated?

An investigation would discover that Craig Junkins did not apply the chemicals to the city easement on my private property it was applied by neighbor/ council member Conlee. He has no authority to act as a street dept employee.

warning to City of Montrose unlawful application of toxic chemicals

warning to City of Montrose unlawful application of toxic chemicals

warning to City poison

warning to City poison

None of these laws were followed.

8-16-2006-ros

 

EPA field investigation

poisoned-by-my-neighbor-from-hell-8-7

 

“rash on legs” at this point I realized this was not a normal “rash”

image

This was well into the progression of the severe skin disorder. The chemicals applied to my property never stopped.

image

severe skin disorder caused by illegal application of toxic chemicals to my property by Mark Conlee

more photos of my skin. Would you tolerate a trespasser using chemicals on your property. What would you do to resolve the situation?

null

 

These are some but not all of the Federal violations of law that have been committed against me. Public corruption and civil rights

 

Corruption

In general terms, corruption cases arise when a local, state, or federal public official receives things of value in exchange for performing, or failing to perform, official acts contemplated by the authority of their position. The public grants authority to officials and, in return, is entitled to receive honest services from all who serve in the government. The prosecutors and professional staff in PCCRS prosecute officials – such as politicians, law enforcement officers, government executives, and correctional officers — who violate the public trust for the sake of self-enrichment.

Civil Rights

PCCRS also prosecutes individuals, whether they be private citizens or public officials, who criminally violate the constitutional rights of individuals. The use of excessive force by law enforcement under the color of law is an example of how public officials can violate an individual’s civil rights. Private individuals who commit violent crimes motivated by bias – commonly known as hate crimes — also violate federal civil rights laws. Hate crime laws recognize and defend the rights of all individuals, regardless of their race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.

 

ARTICLE XIV.

“Section 1All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The reasonable enjoyment of one’s real estate is certainly a vested right, which cannot be interfered with or limited arbitrarily. The constitutional guaranty of protection for all private property extends equally to the enjoyment and the possession of lands. An arbitrary interference by the government, or by its authority, with the reasonable enjoyment of private lands is a taking of private [728] property without due process of law, which is inhibited by the constitutions. But it is not every use which comes within this constitutional protection. One has a vested right to only a reasonable use of one’s lands. It is not difficult to find the rule which determines the limitations upon the lawful ways or manner of using lands. It is the rule, which furnishes the solution of every problem in the law of police power, and which is comprehended in the legal maxim, sic utere tuo, ut alienum non lædas. One can lawfully make use of his property only in such a manner as that he will not injure another. Any use of one’s lands to the hurt or annoyance of another is a nuisance, and may be prohibited. At common law that is a nuisance, which causes personal discomfort or injury to health to an unusual degree. As it has been expressed in a preceding section,1 the right of personal security against acts, which will cause injury to health or great bodily discomfort, cannot be made absolute in organized society. It must yield to the reasonable demands of trade, commerce and other great interests of society. While the State cannot arbitrarily violate the right of personal security to health by the unlimited authorization of acts which do harm to health, or render one’s residence less comfortable, there is involved in this matter the consideration of what

constitutes a reasonable use of one’s property. At common law this is strictly a judicial question of fact, the answer to which varies according to the circumstances of each case. One is expected to endure a reasonable amount of discomfort and annoyance for the public good, which is furthered by the permission of trades and manufactures, the prosecution of which necessarily involves a certain amount of annoyance or injury to the inhabitants of the neighborhood. In all such cases, it is a question of equity, on whom is it reasonable to impose the burden of the inevitable loss, resulting from this clashing [729] of interests; and independently of statute it is strictly a judicial question, and all the circumstances of the case must be taken into consideration

 

18 U.S.C. § 229 – U.S. Code – Unannotated Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 229. Prohibited activities

Unlawful conduct. (a) –-Except as provided in subsection (b), it shall be unlawful for any person knowingly–

(1) to develop, produce, otherwise acquire, transfer directly or indirectly, receive, stockpile, retain, own, possess, or use, or threaten to use, any chemical weapon;  or (2) to assist or induce, in any way, any person to violate paragraph (1), or to attempt or conspire to violate paragraph (1).

Exempted agencies and persons. (b) —

In general. (1) –Subsection (a) does not apply to the retention, ownership, possession, transfer, or receipt of a chemical weapon by a department, agency, or other entity of the United States, or by a person described in paragraph (2), pending destruction of the weapon.

Exempted persons. (2) –A person referred to in paragraph (1) is–

(A) any person, including a member of the Armed Forces of the United States, who is authorized by law or by an appropriate officer of the United States to retain, own, possess, transfer, or receive the chemical weapon;  or

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

Jurisdiction. (c) –Conduct prohibited by subsection (a) is within the jurisdiction of the United States if the prohibited conduct–

(1) takes place in the United States;

(2) takes place outside of the United States and is committed by a national of the United States;

(3) is committed against a national of the United States while the national is outside the United States;  or

(4) is committed against any property that is owned, leased, or used by the United States or by any department or agency of the United States, whether the property is within or outside the United States.

Chemical Weapons

This crime is punishable by any term of years in prison. If the crime results in death, the punishment is death or life imprisonment. Property owned or used by the person is subject to forfeiture. Any property derived from and proceeds obtained from the offense and property used to commit or facilitate the offense is also subject to forfeiture. The statute also imposes an additional fine of up to twice the gross profit or proceeds from the offense (18 U.S.C. 229, et seq.).

A chemical weapon is:

  1. a toxic chemical and its precursors (chemical reactants that take part in producing a toxic chemical) unless intended for a purpose that is not prohibited and the type and quantity is consistent with that purpose,
  2. a munition or device designed to cause death or harm through toxic chemicals that would be released by the device, or
  3. equipment designed for use directly in connection with using such a munition or device.

A toxic chemical is a chemical that can cause death, temporary incapacitation, or permanent harm to people or animals.

The law specifies that it does not apply to self-defense devices such as pepper spray or chemical mace. It also does not prevent uses related to (1) industrial, agricultural, research, medical, or pharmaceutical activity; (2) protection against chemical weapons; (3) unrelated military purposes; and (4) law enforcement purposes such as riot control and imposing the death penalty.

 

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 – Conspiracy Against Rights This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).

It further makes it unlawful for two or more persons to go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another with the intent to prevent or hinder his/her free exercise or enjoyment of any rights so secured.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to ten years, or both; and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years, or for life, or may be sentenced to death.

 

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 – Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law 

This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.

This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.

Acts under “color of any law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under “color of any law,” the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

 

Title 42, U.S.C., Section 3631 – Criminal Interference with Right to Fair Housing

This statute makes it unlawful for any individual(s), by the use of force or threatened use of force, to injure, intimidate, or interfere with (or attempt to injure, intimidate, or interfere with), any person’s housing rights because of that person’s race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin. Among those housing rights enumerated in the statute are:

The sale, purchase, or renting of a dwelling;

the occupation of a dwelling;

the financing of a dwelling;

contracting or negotiating for any of the rights enumerated above;

applying for or participating in any service, organization, or facility relating to the sale or rental of dwellings.

This statute also makes it unlawful by the use of force or threatened use of force, to injure, intimidate, or interfere with any person who is assisting an individual or class of persons in the exercise of their housing rights.

Punishment varies from a fine of up to $1,000 or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results, shall be fined up to $10,000 or imprisoned up to ten years, or both, and if death results, shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life.

Now based on what a reasonable person would do, how long do you think a reasonable person will tolerated being raped of their rights by their government? How long would it take a reasonable person to snap? How patient would a reasonable person tolerate being legally abused? This is total bullshit. I am sick of being the only person involved who has followed the letter of the law. 

My response.

Well then you tell me who can. Because this is terrorism. You tell me who to contact regarding an incompetent investigation by a FBI agent. You tell me who to contact regarding an AUSA who violates a civil court order and lies about his authority.
Tell me what it is that you do investigate. Give me a case in which you have acted on behalf of a citizen. If you can’t then I want to know what it is that we the people pay you to do, specifically. Because according to what I have read you investigate the Federal authorities who have the duty to investigate public corruption.
You tell me who prosecutes violations of the Federal Constitution.
You tell me who has the duty to protect my Federal Constitutional Rights to private property.
You tell me the name and give me a telephone number to the proper authority.
That you can do if you are receiving a pay check from the citizens taxes.
I don’t want to hear anymore about no authority I want a competent investigation into my evidence.
I am not going to be the only victim of this legal abuse.
You have not answered any of my questions. I want answers.
Who has the duty to protect the citizens Constitutional Rights.
Don’t blow smoke up my ass. Give me the answer.
Who is it that wrote this email? I want your name.
I want to know who I am being bullied by.
Did you read my complaint? Have you heard about glyphosate in the news lately.
My complaint was well before any of this new information has surfaced.
We both know that nobody has the right to do anything to another persons property.
We both know that private property rights are Federally protected.
I want to know who it is that protects my rights. I want a name.
Had I have invoked my second amendment right and solved this problem when it started where would I be today?
The Government would have stepped in if that would have happened you know that is a fact.
What is it that you don’t understand about my given rights?
Same old bullshit another day of suffering. I am going to go Rambo. Yeah I am a victim of domestic terrorism!

US Assistant Kevin VanderSchel and FBI Agent Thomas Reinwart, incompetent Federal authorities violating Federal law.

Assistant US Attorney Kevin VanderSchel and FBI SA Thomas Reinwart,
The both of you have shown incompetence in you job duties. Kevin VanderSchel had to
resort to my website in order to obtain any evidence about my case. In what he did
comprehend from my website, he had the fact completely ass backwards.
SA Thomas Reinwart had no evidence to submit to VanderSchel because as I have always
stated, Reinwart never reviewed my evidence.
I want to know the names and contact information for your supervisors.
I requested this information from Reinwart previously and got no answers.
Senator Grassley has a duty to oversee that procedures of Federal authorities are met
with high regard. In this case their has been no regard shown to a citizens Federally
protected rights.
I have the evidence to support these allegations. Do you job Senator Grassley.
Private property taken by unlawful use of chemicals against a civilian.
Use of chemicals as a weapon is defined as terrorist acts.
Not on my watch

TOTAL DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS Section II

TOTAL DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS Section II

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NOTICE OF CLAIMANTS INTENT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

warning to City poison

warning to City poison

Montrose and Lee County, Iowa unprecedented case of corrupt local government officials. Taking private property for personal gain.

Property Rights And Trespassing

This law does not apply if you are a female (discrimination) and reside in Montrose, Lee County, Iowa. https://docs.google.com/document/d/17XlmSGV1qezmQLKiSkHFZ8VD01SsYRurQAX_bnQ5lfk/edit?usp=sharing

The Judge's Chamber: Law Blog

486590504

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

What Constitutes a Trespass?

If you physically cross the boundary into someone else’s property, that’s a trespass. Property intrusion will either be on the land itself, above the surface or below the surface as well. So if you dig your way past someone’s property boundary or fly a plan or drone above the ground, you have already trespassed.

Intentional or Unintentional?

Intentional trespassing is when a person willingly crosses the boundary to someone’s property. It doesn’t matter whether the individual didn’t have the intention or clue they are trespassing; such an…

View original post 223 more words

Are Private Property Rights Federally Protected?

      I have continuously asked for confirmation if private property rights are Federally protected Rights. I have gotten no confirmation. I can only assume that they are but nobody wants to admit it.

      My neighbor invaded my private property for over five years by applying chemicals on my side only, of our 300′ common boundary. I verbally advised him not to apply anything to my private property on the day I noticed he had done this. That same day I also advised the Chief of Police that I had given my neighbor a verbal notice not to apply anything to my private property and requested an incident report. 

      The chemicals continued to be applied on my private property by my neighbor without hesitation. I repeatedly requested the incident from the Chief of Police. I received a report 16 months after my first request. That report did not represent what I had advised the neighbor. I refused to take it and advised the Police Chief that it was unsatisfactory. Two weeks later I did receive one that was not as I would have like but it did state some of the facts on it. 

       The neighbor continued his assault against my person and my private property. I requested the Police chief file a trespassing complaint against him on my behalf. I was advised by the Police chief that he would not file a complaint against my neighbor because he did not want to make him mad. 

       I confronted the Mayor about the issue. The Mayor advised me that he did not think neighbors filing complaints against neighbors was in anyone’s best interest and refused to manage the  Police Chief in following procedure to remedy the situation. The Mayor also had an existing conflict of interest as he was the seller of the property to my neighbor only two years prior. Public record shows the Mayor stated that legally nonconforming property can not have larger structures built on the lots than the existing structures. The Mayor states on public record that the signature of the builder on a building permit alleviates the city from liability. The building permit is not signed by the builder. A double standard was used when I was the victim of my neighbor’s assault.

       The building permits issued by the City building administrator are fraudulent. They are not completed as required by the State of Iowa building regulations and the drainage of my neighbors redevelopment of the legally nonconforming lot does not comply with State drainage law. When I requested the city building administrator to address my concerns as standard procedure requires he refused. He did continue to issue fraudulent building permits to this neighbor for his legally nonconforming lot. 

      Conflicting with the reason the Mayor would not have the police chief to follow the law in issuing a trespassing complaint against my neighbor I was criminally charged multiple times by the city for fabricated laws based on fraudulent ordinances.

      A double standard was also supported by the County Attorney when I advised him that my neighbor was applying chemicals to my private property. The County attorney took the same stance as the Mayor. He advised me that he did not allow neighbors to file complaints against neighbors. I was criminally charged by the State for violations of fabricated law. I reported to the County Attorney that the City Clerk had fabricated ordinances anonymously over the telephone. He advised that he had a problem with a clerk that would fabricate ordinances. Only when I arrived at his office, and he realized who the parties were did he no longer have a problem with the city clerk committing fraud. 

      This type of behavior continued with every authority that I contacted. Including an attorney I hired to file a complaint against the city which he never informed me that he neglected to file.  I discovered this when I was served court papers by my neighbor. There was a civil court order citing my right to use my private property as I wished. That civil court order was never complied with by my neighbor or enforced by law enforcement. 

      The chemicals caused me to suffer severe chronic skin condition that I continue to be treated for by the University of Iowa Dermatology clinic..

      For five years I paid the taxes on my private property. The deed was in my name.  I had no control what took place on my private property. I was denied protection from harm by law enforcement. I was force to flee from my private property to escape the chemical poisoning. The chemicals caused me to suffer severe chronic skin condition that I continue to be treated for by the University of Iowa Dermatology clinic.. Those who participated in violating my private property rights include but are not limited to the County Sheriff, FBI agent Thomas Rienwart and AUSA Kevin VanderSchel.

 

     Trespassing is a criminal offense. The crime of trespass is commonly found to be charged against individuals in Lee County, Iowa. I was denied that right to protection.

 

     Fraud is a criminal offense. There are numerous individuals who have been charged with fraud in Lee County, Iowa. I was denied that right to protection.

 

 Violations of Federal laws to be prosecuted by the Federal Civil Rights Division

 ARTICLE XIV.

“Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The reasonable enjoyment of one’s real estate is certainly a vested right, which cannot be interfered with or limited arbitrarily. The constitutional guaranty of protection for all private property extends equally to the enjoyment and the possession of lands. An arbitrary interference by the government, or by its authority, with the reasonable enjoyment of private lands is a taking of private [728] property without due process of law, which is inhibited by the constitutions. But it is not every use which comes within this constitutional protection. One has a vested right to only a reasonable use of one’s lands. It is not difficult to find the rule which determines the limitations upon the lawful ways or manner of using lands. It is the rule, which furnishes the solution of every problem in the law of police power, and which is comprehended in the legal maxim, sic utere tuo, ut alienum non lædas. One can lawfully make use of his property only in such a manner as that he will not injure another. Any use of one’s lands to the hurt or annoyance of another is a nuisance, and may be prohibited. At common law that is a nuisance, which causes personal discomfort or injury to health to an unusual degree. As it has been expressed in a preceding section,1 the right of personal security against acts, which will cause injury to health or great bodily discomfort, cannot be made absolute in organized society. It must yield to the reasonable demands of trade, commerce and other great interests of society. While the State cannot arbitrarily violate the right of personal security to health by the unlimited authorization of acts which do harm to health, or render one’s residence less comfortable, there is involved in this matter the consideration of what constitutes a reasonable use of one’s property. At common law this is strictly a judicial question of fact, the answer to which varies according to the circumstances of each case. One is expected to endure a reasonable amount of discomfort and annoyance for the public good, which is furthered by the permission of trades and manufactures, the prosecution of which necessarily involves a certain amount of annoyance or injury to the inhabitants of the neighborhood. In all such cases, it is a question of equity, on whom is it reasonable to impose the burden of the inevitable loss, resulting from this clashing [729] of interests; and independently of statute it is strictly a judicial question, and all the circumstances of the case must be taken into consideration. I was denied that right to protection

 

18 U.S.C. § 229 – U.S. Code – Unannotated Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 229. Prohibited activities

Unlawful conduct. (a) –Except as provided in subsection (b), it shall be unlawful for any person knowingly–

(1) to develop, produce, otherwise acquire, transfer directly or indirectly, receive, stockpile, retain, own, possess, or use, or threaten to use, any chemical weapon;  or (2) to assist or induce, in any way, any person to violate paragraph (1), or to attempt or conspire to violate paragraph (1). 

Exempted agencies and persons. (b) —

In general. (1) –Subsection (a) does not apply to the retention, ownership, possession, transfer, or receipt of a chemical weapon by a department, agency, or other entity of the United States, or by a person described in paragraph (2), pending destruction of the weapon.

Exempted persons. (2) –A person referred to in paragraph (1) is–

(A) any person, including a member of the Armed Forces of the United States, who is authorized by law or by an appropriate officer of the United States to retain, own, possess, transfer, or receive the chemical weapon;  or 

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

Jurisdiction. (c) –Conduct prohibited by subsection (a) is within the jurisdiction of the United States if the prohibited conduct–

(1) takes place in the United States; 

(2) takes place outside of the United States and is committed by a national of the United States; 

(3) is committed against a national of the United States while the national is outside the United States;  or 

(4) is committed against any property that is owned, leased, or used by the United States or by any department or agency of the United States, whether the property is within or outside the United States. 

Chemical Weapons

This crime is punishable by any term of years in prison. If the crime results in death, the punishment is death or life imprisonment. Property owned or used by the person is subject to forfeiture. Any property derived from and proceeds obtained from the offense and property used to commit or facilitate the offense is also subject to forfeiture. The statute also imposes an additional fine of up to twice the gross profit or proceeds from the offense (18 U.S.C. 229, et seq.).

A chemical weapon is:

  1. a toxic chemical and its precursors (chemical reactants that take part in producing a toxic chemical) unless intended for a purpose that is not prohibited and the type and quantity is consistent with that purpose,
  2. a munition or device designed to cause death or harm through toxic chemicals that would be released by the device, or
  3. equipment designed for use directly in connection with using such a munition or device.

A toxic chemical is a chemical that can cause death, temporary incapacitation, or permanent harm to people or animals.

The law specifies that it does not apply to self-defense devices such as pepper spray or chemical mace. It also does not prevent uses related to (1) industrial, agricultural, research, medical, or pharmaceutical activity; (2) protection against chemical weapons; (3) unrelated military purposes; and (4) law enforcement purposes such as riot control and imposing the death penalty. I was denied that right to protection

 

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 – Conspiracy Against Rights This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).

It further makes it unlawful for two or more persons to go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another with the intent to prevent or hinder his/her free exercise or enjoyment of any rights so secured.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to ten years, or both; and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years, or for life, or may be sentenced to death. I was denied that right to protection

 

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 – Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law  

This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.

This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.

Acts under “color of any law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under “color of any law,” the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death. I was denied that right to protection

 

Title 42, U.S.C., Section 3631 – Criminal Interference with Right to Fair Housing 

This statute makes it unlawful for any individual(s), by the use of force or threatened use of force, to injure, intimidate, or interfere with (or attempt to injure, intimidate, or interfere with), any person’s housing rights because of that person’s race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin. Among those housing rights enumerated in the statute are:

The sale, purchase, or renting of a dwelling;

the occupation of a dwelling;

the financing of a dwelling;

contracting or negotiating for any of the rights enumerated above;

applying for or participating in any service, organization, or facility relating to the sale or rental of dwellings.

This statute also makes it unlawful by the use of force or threatened use of force, to injure, intimidate, or interfere with any person who is assisting an individual or class of persons in the exercise of their housing rights.

Punishment varies from a fine of up to $1,000 or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results, shall be fined up to $10,000 or imprisoned up to ten years, or both, and if death results, shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life. I was denied that right to protection.