Video

Local zoning requirements

So why is it that nobody else has EVER had to take up arms against a neighbor trespassing?

You know full well that there are laws that protect citizens from aggressive neighbors. There is no record of a citizen having to shoot a neighbor in the knee caps to keep him from applying chemicals to their property. I would think if all you had to do was apply chemicals to a neighboring property until they have no option of excaping the chemcials except by fleeing, it would be happening everyday. It is not happening everyday, it does not happen everyday and the reason is because it is against the State and Federal law to do anything to the property of another person. They cannot do it and if they do they are subject to arrest by law enforcement. They do not get to continue the terrorist crimes against humanity until the people who are being poisoned flee. It does not happen and It is not going to happen to me. So whoever had the duty to file a trespassing complaint against this neighbor, I want to know right now. Is it the City police chief? Is it the County Attorney? Because I am going to challenge them to a fist fight. How dare they treat me as an undeserving citizen. How dare they use attorney discrection when the acts agaisnt me were life threatening. Kevin Vanderschel I am coming to town and I am going to request that you review the factual evidence, not the hearsay that you have gotten from third parites. If you collude with these local imposters I am going to swing on you. You do not have the right to violate my rights and you do not have the right to allow anyone to get away with intentionally causing me physical harm. I do not care if you can show me where it is written that you do, I am telling you you can find someone else to violated because I am not going to allow you or anyone else to do it to me . You oath or you office, which is it going to me, I am pissed off. I spent the last two years with an FBI agent who is either ignorant to the natural rights given to the people or he simply is protecting those people who gave him false information and he used it as facts. He has lied to you, I can prove it and you are going to give me the opportunity to prove not one of these locals are credible. I think I could take you in a fist fight, I don’t care how big you are. I am bigger because I have not violated anyone, I have not lied to anyone and most of all I have not critially harmed anyone. Be expecting me as I intend to come to your city on business, perhaps we could have lunch, my treat. Have your evidence prepared because I have mine all ready to battle it out, I do not want you on my case. You are not committed enough to your job to represent my case. You have already as much as told me you are going to allow my property to be taken by force and leave me with only the calassed hands from building my home, business and happiness. You should be ashamed to call your self a public servant just as the rest of them are. Collusion comes to mind.

State vs. Boatner


This is the second of the exact same criminal complaint Lee County Attorney Mike Short filed against me on Mark Conlee’s behalf. The first one Conlee had not included the last sentence. With this sentence the charges became harassment. What a joke, City Deputy Karl Judd and County Deputy Dave Hunold were literally laughing about this when I saw them both chatting at Casey’s. Until they asked me about what happened in the case I didn’t even realize there were two of these same complaints being charged against me. Had they not brought it to my attention I would have not shown and been held in contempt. Conlee did not show but he was on vacation in Florida, Judd knew that before the court date but did not tell me till after it was over. I never even got to see the judge either time. Conlee is a pathological liar, his textbook traits allow for him to be able to convince anyone of anything. Such as just his word is good enough evidence to compel criminal charges against me. Photo evidence and an EPA report are not compelling enough evidence to get a trespassing complaint filed against him on my behalf. Bullshit, how much did he pay these guys to insult their intelligence to this level?  Did these people really commit criminal offenses on Conlee’s behalf for no financial reward? We know for a fact that Mayor Dinwiddie did receive a financial reward for selling the otherwise worthless legally nonconforming lot to Mark Conlee. Dinwiddie knew the lot could not be redeveloped with any structures larger than the existing structures. Dinwiddie implicated himself on public record of his knowledge. But why was Mark Conlee exempt from complying with any written law in every illegal action he committed? The building administrator Mark Holland, has no history of not following standard procedure. Only in the illegal redevelopment of Mark Conlee’s lot did he act as a conspirator to violate the law and most importantly Boatner’s Federal private property rights. Mark Conlee was not just a little out of compliance to State building and drainage laws, he was so far out that he could not get the redevelopment recorded on the county plat map. Conlee has to little land and to oversized structures. 

Early writing with supporting evidence of ongoing conspiracy when I did still have possession of my home, business and pursuit of happiness. The chemical were seriously affecting me at this time however. Who does this to another human being?

2002

March 2002, Mark Conlee purchased the property adjoining mine from then Mayor Ron Dinwiddie. Creating a conflict of interest Boatners property is numbered 1-6 in the photo, Conlee property in not numbered. Both properties are equal in size however they are non typical in layout. These are the only 2 lots in Montrose that are legally described as being 6 half lots. running from street to street. Typical lots run from street to alley. Double frontage properties and reverse frontage lots shall be avoided, except where their use will produce definite advantages in meeting special situations in relation to topography, sound site planning, and proper land use. Being long and narrow lots restricted new redevelopment structures.


2003

March 2003 Mark Conlee trucked in tons of fill dirt on lots 1 & 2 of his property (4Th St). He constructed a non-conforming, over sized, 2 story garage. The fact that this building was positioned 90 degreesfrom what would be considered normal and there was no drain tile installed caused me great concern. It was foreseeable that roof surface of this massive structure being directed to my property was going to cause adverse effects by flooding. I assumed he would install guttering and downspouts to divert storm water to the cities open drainage ditch as required by law. Mark Conlee intentionally diverted storm water to my property. He installed a culvert and new driveway which requires a special permit, as do all driveways. I suspect no standard procedure for acquiring the proper permits were followed. Prior to the redevelopment of Mark Conlee’s lots 1 & 2 there were no structures and the grade ran down to the city ditch. Iowa drainage laws state “new construction and property redevelopment stormwater run off to a neighbors land “can not be more than before development”. The amount of runoff onto my property was significant and caused my property to lose value as evident in the County property assessment records.

I spoke to Montrose Chief of Police John Farmer, at that time, about my concerns. According to Officer Farmer, the reason Mark Conlee built the over sized 2 story garage with the intention of making the second story his living quarters. Mark Conlee had recently divorced.

2004

Soon after Mark Conlee finished building his garage he remarried. This was quite surprising since most of the neighbor and I were unaware that Mark had a girlfriend. He never introduced me to his wife when there was an plenty of opportunity. Marks new wife, Linda is co-worker of Mark Conlee. The factory they work at is considered high paying wage. Mark Conlees finances doubled with this marriage. Soon after he married the existing double-wide mobile home burnt in a suspicious nature. The double-wide home and the berm were put in place in 1972. I am certain the cause was arson because Mark Conlee told me and another witness that he “wished the trailer would burn”. Two weeks later his wish comes true.

The fact that the only 4 firefighters were on the scene were Mark Conlee, Mayor Ron Dinwiddie, Fire Chief/ Council member/Appointed building administrator Mark Holland, and Jake Holland(Mark Hollands son) and not at their regular job in neighboring towns that morning.

Mark Conlee went to work as usual that day. He returned home soon after he got to his job at a factory 3 miles from Montrose.

I called Iowa arson hotline, of course, my tip to the hot line was never investigated.

Montrose Chief of Police John Farmer stated he felt the fire was suspicious and warranted further investigation however he was told not worry about it they had it “taken care of”.

Every neighbor with the exception of one approached me stating they thought it was arson. I did not ask for details as to their reason for there suspicion.

One neighbor was curious where Mark Conlee was getting all his money from.

According to a witness several weeks prior to the Conlee fire there was a case of mobile home fire the cause of both fires being the same.

The cause was in a nature that a reasonable trained firefighter as Mark Conlee would not be so reckless.

The morning of the fire I was not awakened by the fire station siren as always, I woke from the noise of Jake Holland hooking up the hose to the hydrant on my corner.

Conlee, Dinwiddie and Mark Holland were doing nothing more than standing on the sidewalk talking. When Jake did get the hose hooked up to the hydrant, one of them told him to put the hose down.

After several hours of waiting on the sidewalk in front of the residence Mark Conlee dressed in the full body firefighters suit and went inside the home. Several minutes later he returned outside. I noticed he was empty handed. It seems unreasonable that someone’s house unexpectedly burns and they are the firefighter that enters. They would try and save a treasured memento or at least one item from inside the home.

The timeliness of this fire is suspicious in itself.

Though none of this information was disclosed to me. After the fire Mark Conlee opted not to build his living quarters upstairs in the non-conforming garage. With his newly acquired financial gains from his marriage and insurance claim from the fire Mark Conlee decided to build a new home. He wanted a large very nice home. The one thing he was unable to make larger was the size of his property lot that he bought from Mayor Ron Dinwiddie. His lot was always going to be 70 X 300′.

Mark Conlee’s grandiose behavior toward me was undeniable. The last time Mark Conlee spoke to me in a neighborly fashion, he stated to me that he wanted to top my trees so he could build his house without the limbs from my trees obstructing his space where he would need to work on the roof of his new home. I replied “I do not have a problem with that.” I wrongly assumed he would clean up the waste in the yard from the limbs and such. It was an elm tree and they do have a lot of small growth that comes with topping them, more than most other types of trees for sure. He hired a group Amish workers to top the tree and clean up the scrap material strewn about in his yard. I assumed the ran out of daylight the first day. The second day my yard was a mess. I could not get to the clothes line without clearing a path. Which I did. The third day I dropped what I was scheduled to do in my business and cleaned up the mess in my yard into 3 large piles of waste. Mark Conlee never offered to assist with any of the mess he made in my yard. I was very offended that I was kind enough to let him top my trees for his benefit and in return I was left with a major cleanup in my yard with no regard or concern that I had a business to run and I certainly did not have cleaning up the massive amount of yard waste in my scheduled customer deadline. Reflecting back, knowing narcissist I understand that when he stated “He wanted to top my trees”, he was not asking permission as a reasonable person would. He was stating that he was going to top my trees. Mark Conlee never spoke a kind neighborly word to me from that point on. He did talk to me. He did communicate with me. At one point he hollered across the yard at me informing me that “his house is over the setbacks required by State Law”. I look at him but had no verbal response.

Mark Conlee had blueprints for his new home in at this time. Standard procedure requires site layout and drainage are determined before anything else in property redevelopment. There is no previous record of complaints that suggest Building Administrator Mark Hollands acted with intentional disregard to perform his appointed duty as building administrator by following standard procedures required by Law. Witnesses were and are available to testify that Mr. Holland studied their blueprints and questioned the layout of building on their plans. Holland’s intentional negligence leaves the City of Montrose liable for Boatners damages.

Legal theories of Liability a manual provided by the State Association for Floodplain Management explains the grounds in detail. Lee County Federal Emergency Floodplain Management officer is Steve Cirinna, Husband of City of Montrose Clerk, Celeste Cirinna.

Mark Conlee’s property redevelopment simply would not fit on the narrow half lots and be in compliance with Uniform Building Laws. He illegally changed the frontage of his property so that now the massive roof surfaces directed storm water directly onto my property. This is a legally non conforming property. Not developable in anyway making the footprint of any new structures larger than the existing structures. Standard procedures require stormwater drainage be directed into the city drainage ditches. The law states that a redevelopment cannot divert more stormwater runoff onto a neighboring property than before the redevelopment. The existing structures the roof surface ran parallel with the property. Boatner received no run off from the existing structures. The adverse effects to her property were foreseeable and intentional. Mark Conlee had fill dirt trucked in and regraded his property so that all storm water was diverted onto my property. He raised the alley as it were his private driveway. General procedure is that alleys are lower than the homeowners property to receive storm water on Boatners behalf. According to Mr. Dodds a developer can not take it upon himself to remove any berm or swale that is protecting neighboring property from flooding and has existed for 10 or more years.

On 7-4-2004 Mark Conlee was putting the finishing touch on his dirt work. His work with the rented uni-loader was meticulously smooth in both the grade and level. On what looked to me to be his last pass I hollered to get his attention over the noise of the uni-loader. I stated to him that we needed a ditch dug on the common boundary because it was foreseeable that my property going to be flooded as a result of his redevelopment. He heard me but never acknowledged me, he just drove on past me without a word. I was devastated. Mark Conlee had not installed drain tile, he had unlawfully remove the berm that protected my home and property from flooding, and he had changed the frontage of his new home and garage to face the alley as his front yard and the rear of his property now was my property to serve the purpose of his alley in regards to stormwater.


2005

My repeated requests for the proper City authority went unaddressed. The drainage issue continued. At this time also Conlee began using what is defined as terrorist acts using toxic chemicals as the weapon unlawfully applied to my property, not his as the photo evidence shows. His intent was to cause me bodily harm or death. The motive for him to eliminate me was because he discovered that he could not get the illegal redevelopment recorded on the county plat map. He simply did not have enough land to set the oversized structures on legally. This is documented in Poisoned by My Neighbor From Hell, Good Old Boy Network From Hell, My Neighbor Poisoned Me.

Feb. 3, 2005 Bob Conlee was promoted to Detective for Lee County Sheriff’s Office. Bob Conlee is Mark Conlee’s brother. He has been employed with the sheriff’s dept for most of his adult life. They actually removed the 6’ height requirement in order to hire him when he got his job as a deputy.


3-22-2005 Lee County Detective Bob Conlee was present at Mark Conlee’s property presenting himself to be the authority of the building administrator on behalf of the City. Lee County Sheriff’s Dept. Detective Bob Conlee being the brother of Mark Conlee acted in violation of a conflict of interest rule. Detective Bob Conlee having no jurisdiction in the City of Montrose acted with Mark Conlee, Mayor Ron Dinwiddie and Building Admin/Council Member/Fire Chief actions support CONSPIRACY DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW.

SA Thomas Reinwart disputed the allegation that I made saying that Bob Conlee was acting as a city building authority. Reinwart suggested that he was merely giving his brother advice. But we know that building official Mark Holland refused to come to the location, so yes Bob Conlee was misrepresenting his authority as a city building official.

Det. Conlee began knowingly making false statements, defaming my character to the general public. On one occasion Montrose Deputy, Mike Smith and I witnessed Det. Conlee say over the police radio in response to a report about my brother “are you sure it is not Melody driving Reggie’s truck? “I (Bob Conlee) know she used to drive Reggie’s truck”. Detective Conlee knowingly made a false statement. There is no evidence that I have ever driven my brothers truck, because I never have. Officer Conlees motive was to associate me with illegal drug activity. Based of the content of that statement it is reasonable to believe that what he is referring to is an incident in 1997 when I was mistaken for my brothers girlfriend at the time due to the fact that my brother and I have the same color truck. He owns a Chevy S10 and I own a Ford Ranger. The task force had my brothers house under surveillance waiting for his girlfriend to pull up. My brother was incarcerated at the time. He and I had not associated since an earlier disagreement in 1995. I arrived on behalf of a phone call from my Aunt, Connie Reuther. She was concerned about some movement at Reggie’s and called me asking if I would come and check on his place. Had Reggie not been incarcerated I would not have been there. Aunt Connie watched out for Reggie’s place knowing it was vacant and she lived next door to his property. When I pulled in the task force surrounded me before I had time to get out of my truck. Senior Officer Tom Crew requested identification, searched my vehicle and cleared me from any wrong doing immediately, Senior Officer Buck Jones was also on the scene and apologized for any inconvenience they had caused me. Lee County Deputy Bob Conlee could identify me on sight and knew I was not the individual who the warrant was issued for. I did not know who the warrant was issued for until a later time. That is what Detective Conlee was referring when he falsely stated he knew I used to drive Reggie’s truck. I have had no other interaction with the drug task force, ever.

Lee County Detective Bob Conlee in his delusional state of mind began defaming my character, claiming I was going to get busted for drugs. He had me under constant surveillance. When Bob Conlee was on duty he never let me out of his sight. I was well aware of his presence. I was unconcerned because I knew I was innocent of any wrongdoing. I was a homebody, I enjoyed staying home and keeping busy in my upholstery shop, yard or the house. When Detective Conlee began psychopathic stalking me I was concerned for my own safety. On two occasions he followed me from my house to my destination point. I was at a service business just out of town using the owners chop saw for a chair frame fabrication I needed. Bob came tearing in the door like a mad man. He came to the back of the building where I was operating the saw. He observed what I was doing and just turned around and left. He didn’t say a word to me or the owner of the business. When he got back in his unmarked car he defamed my character again making false statements on the police radio. He stated that I had hidden my truck at the destination point. That is a complete fabrication.

Before long the entire community knew that I was a drug dealer and my arrest was imminent. Officer Brent Shipman defamed my character by repeating this false information to the general public. Mark Conlee defamed my character at a city council meeting suggesting that I am a drug dealer. After the meeting an witness approached me stating that in her opinion Conlee’s statement was a reaching an all time low view of his character.

My initial complaint in reference to the drainage issue in March 2005. I contacted Mark Conlee, Council member/building admin. Mark Holland and Mayor Ron Dinwiddie via written notes taped to their front doors and leaving messages on their answering machines when my calls were not answered. Having not responded in May, I took the aerial photo with me to Mark Holland’s home. Mark Holland was planting his garden. I showed him the photo and pointed out the berm that Mark Conlee had removed and was causing adverse effects to my home structure. Mark Holland stated “I forgot about that” (the berm). With that I assumed as any reasonable person would, that Mark Holland would follow up or at the least re-access the redevelopment that he had issued the building permits for. He took no action to resolve the problems. He at no time represented my interests as required by the City Authority. He did continue to serve Mark Conlee’s every request with no discretion, Holland issued two more permits to Mark Conlee each for an outdoor structure.

I began having severe panic attacks, the mental anguish of watching my property being taken from any of my control was unbearable.

I knew Conlee committed arson of the existing home on his property

I was terrified that he would burn my house down with me in it.

I believe he to be a psychopath

He has absolutely no conscience.

He is a habitual liar

I knew he had no fear of being held accountable by the law for any criminal act against me.

I contacted every council member and requested they come and look at the situation. Cathy Roberts Farnsworth was the only council member having the professional courtesy to respond to my request. Cathy witnessed my property flooded as a direct result of Mark Conlee’s property redevelopment. She also told me that she asked Mark Holland if he was going to address my concerns, Mark Holland stated to her that he was not. I called Mayor Dinwiddie several times, one of which he did come to my property. I expected Mayor Dinwiddie to follow some type of standard procedure and together would walk the property line visually and discuss the drainage issues that were so prominent. He got out of his vehicle and stood near the sidewalk long enough to tell to me “he (Conlee) can’t do that (divert storm water onto my property), but its a private issue”. He returned directly to his truck and left with no intent of being open to my opinion or further discussion. Certainly not the character I know Ron Dinwiddie to be.

I have known Ron Dinwiddie personally since I was a teenager. He and his family have been like my second family since I was young. His sister and I have been best friends throughout our youth. His mother made it a point to tell me she loved me when she became ill prior to her death. I can visualize Dinwiddie’s mannerisms as he would and should have stated at the City Council meeting advising them and Holland that “he can’t do that”. Ron Dinwiddie knew he was telling me a lie when he made that statement to me.

According to City of Montrose Code of Ordinances (Code of Iowa, Sec. 380.5 & 380.6[2])

6. Negotiations. Represent the City in all negotiations properly entered into in accordance with law or ordinance. The Mayor shall not represent the City where this duty is specifically delegated to another officer by law, ordinance, or Council direction.

Dinwiddie had no authority to act as building administrator, Dinwiddie had the duty as Mayor to manage the City officials and had the duty to direct my issue to the proper authority, Mark Holland.The following day I went to City Hall and got copies of the building permits issued to Mark Conlee by appointed building administrator Mark Holland for Mark Conlee’s garage and new home. By this time Holland had issued 2 more permits to Mark Conlee for out buildings. Dinwiddie and Holland were both co-conspirators with an existing conflict of interest on Mark Conlees behalf.

I was denied equal protection of the law.

My attention was focused on the permit issued for the new house. Conlee’s entire property redevelopment increased stormwater run off on to my property. But it was Conlees new home that was causing adverse effects to structure of my home. The permit is not completed according to general procedure. The permit was signed by building administrator Mark Holland, but not signed by the builder Mark Conlee. The authority is Mark Holland. His intentional negligence to disregard his duty to address my concerns on behalf of his special relationship with buddy there leaves no oversite or accountability, this is unacceptable. Hence, the purpose of uniform building codes and the issuance of building permits as noted on public record by Mayor Dinwiddie

I contacted State Rep. Phil Wise requesting some assistance, he called City Hall and requested I be added to the agenda so I could direct my questions to building admin Mark Holland. With in minutes of Mr. Wises phone call to City Hall, Lee County Detective Bob Conlee arrived at his brother Mark Conlee’s home. Mark Holland did not respond. It was no surprise that at the City Council meeting in which Mr. Wise requested I be added to the agenda Holland was absent, a rare occasion according to his history. I did address the council and public record shows Mayor Dinwiddie implicated the City of Montrose as being liable by interrupting me when I following procedure had the floor to speak to Council. When Mayor Dinwiddie finished what he interrupted me to say I submitted the building permit in question showing that Mark Holland representing the City has signed it but Mark Conlee the builder had not. There was no discussion as to Mayor Dinwiddie’s acknowledgement of liability was obviously on the City after I submitted the unsigned permit. There was no response from Mayor Dinwiddie to me privately either. I followed up with an email to State Rep. Phil Wise. Mr. Wise did not respond. I am aware that Mr. Wise did not have any real authority to rectify my problem. He was up front with that information, out of professional courtesy he used his political influence to contact City Hall on my behalf. Also this was just prior to Mr. Wise’s retirement I am sure he felt the City would address my concerns when I presented the questionable document. Mayor Dinwiddie’s own statements at that public meeting implicate himself in CONSPIRACY DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW.

July 2, 2005 My skin condition is spreading Mark Conlee continues to unlawfully apply chemicals to my property on a regular basis when he maintains his yard. Officer Shipman still denies my request for an incident report as requested in May.

July 7, 2005 Council minutes state Mark Holland and Jeff Junkins are both are looking for nuisance violations. Both have a special relationships with Mark Conlee, evidence supports an existing conflict of interest. This meeting also includes evidence that the City was uncooperative in submitting documents to the Ombudsman on behalf of my allegations in a complaint I filed with them. It is unreasonable behavior for the City Clerk not to cooperate with the ombudsman’s request. I find it more unreasonable the Ombudsman determine to drop the case based on hearsay from Cirinna and it is beyond suspicious as to why the City would not submit the request for documents, yet the Ombudsman dismissed  my complaint stating they found no wrongdoing, without viewing the questionable documents. I am offended that the ombudsman was negligent in investigating the evidence I had supporting my side of the case. I am offended that this City finds no duty to follow standard procedure on behalf of one individual.

Still searching for a solution to rectify the drainage situation, I joined cyburbia forum on the internet. I was desperate for some assistance as my property was being washed away due to uncontrollable flooding. One individual on the forum was particularly interested in my situation, he advised me to contact Lee County Extension agent, Bob Dodds.  Mr. Dodds had no duty or authority to rectify the situation. Mr. Dodds did come to my property to access the situation. He took photos and wrote a letter to Mayor Dinwiddie on my behalf, including a copy of the State of Iowa Drainage Law Manual. Mr. Dodds happened to live in Montrose. In reviewing the building permit issued by Mark Holland for Mark Conlees new home, Mr. Dodds noted a few discrepancies. One being that Mark Conlee had not been required to paid the fee for the permit. There was no response from Mayor Dinwiddie in reference to the letter written on my behalf by Robert Dodds. Mayor Dinwiddie was intentionally negligent in his duty as Mayor to manage and direct appointed to Mark Holland to perform his duty. I have found no case in which the building administrator was allowed by a Mayor to refused his duty to represent the State building code. This is unreasonable professional behavior by all these officials by any standards.

With all the written laws, rules and regulations in place to protect citizens from being forced to sue City’s and neighbor’s being ignored on behalf of Mark Conlee. The City’s intentional negligence left no other recourse but for me to sue them.

I was looking for an attorney. John Farmer suggested Steve Swan. John briefed Steve Swan as to the case and our initial meeting 6-21-2005. Steve Swan advised that we would sue the City of Montrose and Mark Conlee adding the comment, (that I was already aware of), that the City is where the money is. Mr. Swan was quite taken when I submitted my list of witnesses, he said he felt the list itself was quite compelling, another fact (that I was already aware of). Mr. Swan made a comment that in hindsight I now question in regard to his ethical behavior. He told me that Bob Conlee had already lied to him, stating that his brother Mark had not altered the grade or elevation of the lot located at 105 N 5th St. Swan also said that officer Farmer told him that I did not have money for such an unnecessary expense and agreed that we would barter upholstery service for his representing my case. On the way home I had to pull over because I was literally sobbing, so grateful that Steve Swan was going to submit my evidence to the court. He sent a letter of intent  to Mark Conlee on my behalf that afternoon.

The unexpected attack on my property also caused adverse effects to my business. This was the first time in 15 years in business I had failed to meet a customers requested delivery date. I bought 28 railroad ties and placed them down the non typical 300′ common boundary to divert the storm water from Conlee’s to the City ditch. Typical psychopathic traits began to emerge from Mark Conlee. He was upset that I had diverted the storm water. According to a witness, Mark Conlee contacted Building Admin Mark Holland requesting that Holland find a code or ordinance that would require me to remove the diversion. Mark Holland could not find a loophole to overrule my Federal Right to defend my property. Mark Holland should have followed standard procedures as he had always done in the past and all my damages could have been avoided.

I lost the enjoyment of my property due to the fact that every time I would go out in my yard Mr. Conlee would make his presence known. He would make his presence known, then just glare at me and anyone accompanying me. The day that he hollered across the fence that he was over the setbacks required by state law I decided to install a privacy curtain. Fully within my legal right, allowing for the encroachment, I erected a conduit frame and stretched industrial landscaping fabric down the property line to serve as a privacy curtain. My technique was bare bones conduit and pipe clamps but it served my purpose well. Welcome to the City of Montrose, Iowa . MINUTES10-6-05 evidence supporting Mark Conlee has a vendetta against me. A vendetta that has no end to it until he acquires my property, at any cost. He knew he had to have my property to ever get his illegal redevelopment recorded on the county plat map. Conlee is not completely liable, the City of Montrose allowed and assisted in every criminal act committed against me. There are many court records in which a noncompliant structure is ordered to be removed, there are no other cases in which a person has been allowed to unlawfully apply chemicals to a neighbors property ongoing for 5 years, until the neighbor has only two options to remedy the situation themselves.

The unlawful use of chemicals applied to my property caused severe pain and suffering that rendered me disabled, completely unable to function.

Defamation of my character referred to as “crazy” by Mayor Dinwiddie as told to me by a witness was taken to be a truth by the local community in general. Dinwiddie’s wife Sue Kearns Dinwiddie and a former friend of mine sent me email stating everyone, “thinks your crazy, Mel”. I felt no duty to explain to either of these people my situation. I did want to preserve my friendship with Sue Kearns Dinwiddie. I invited her over to my house to talk. She arrived with her granddaughter, the conversation was minimal. Not directly addressing my mental stability, I assume she was observing the severity of my skin condition. In hindsight, when she was leaving Sue walked around to the side of the house facing Conlees property. She indicated that my sidewalk has sunk. I did not respond at the time. I will now state that my sidewalk sloped away from my house in a manner of directing stormwater to the existing swale, besides the house. Was Sue Kearns Dinwiddie acting on behalf the City of Montrose Building Administrator? She did not announce that she was, but I believe her intent was doing exactly that. She has no authority to do anything on behalf of the City of Montrose. According to what Sue had told me when I rented her garage in 1995 she has used her position as the Mayor’s wife to influence former City employee Police Chief John Farmer. In 1995 one of Sues identical twin boys had been caught by Officer Farmer in a moving violation of some type. She was concerned that the twin would lose his driving privileges. She told me that she was going to contact Officer Farmer, as she didn’t need a problem like that affecting her sons driving privileges. I am sure she did contact Farmer, I do not know if he dismissed the complaint or not. I assume he did if Sue Kerns Dinwiddie directed him to do so as a threat to his employment. Sue Kearns Dinwiddie took her position as the Mayor’s wife to a position of authority when in fact she had absolutely no power of authority. The State Representative following behind Phil Wise has been Jerry Kearns, relative to Sue Kearns Dinwiddie. He has failed to respond to any of my attempts to get answers from him. No response at all. There is an option of recusal for anybody with an existing conflict of interest, not an option for any of these criminal supporters.

2006

Mayor Dinwiddie gave up his seat in the 2006 election after 8 terms, he was busy building himself a beautiful new home on the river. Mark Holland did not get re-elected. Mark Conlee ran and was elected as council member.

REGULAR MEETING

January 5, 2006

Tony Scumbaito running unopposed was elected to Mayor. John Geyer who held his position in the past was elected council member, and appointed building administrator. Chief of Police John Farmer resigned taking a job with the LCSO. The City hired Brent Shipman to be Chief of Police. Brent was not from Montrose, he was 20 years old and he was all ears and mouth in listening to Bob Conlee‘s false allegations about me, repeating the false information publicly.

A witness advised me on a Monday that Mark Conlee had been at City Hall reading the codes and ordinances. I drove past City Hall the rest of the week and, Mark Conlee was at City Hall from 3:30 until 5:00 p.m. every evening. Soon after he and City Clerk studied the City Code he announced he was running for City Council. Witnesses were and are prepared to testify that their family member was aware that his intent was to use his position to “get me back”. His narcissistic personality disorder he could not control  

Mark Conlee was elected to council. His intent was clearly to use his position to act on the vendetta he has against me. Mark Conlee appointed himself to a community development committee that never existed prior to his election. He obviously decided that he would get me back by using nuisance weed ordinance against me. He was, like his brother, literally consumed by making me out to be something I am not. Filing frivolous complaints was a constant vehicle to harassment me. According to my research psychopaths is known to be a genetic disorder.

MONTROSE COUNCIL MEETING

NIMS TRAINING

PUBLIC HEARING

REGULAR MEETING

March 2, 2006

MONTROSE COUNCIL MEETING

SPECIAL MEETING

MARCH 13, 2006

MONTROSE COUNCIL MEETING

REGULAR MEETING

April 6, 2006

About City Clerk Celeste Cirinna conspiracy deprivation of rights under color of law, intent to cause financial harm

At this time Mark Conlee acted as an authority on the City Street Dept. which he had no authority to do. The City insurance does not cover him as an employee. Mark Conlee unlawfully applied toxic chemicals to the City easement on my property along 4th St. A neighbor/witness Sally Fowler Sandquist contacted the Epa, The investigation determined Glyphosate a toxic chemical in Roundup by Monsanto had been unlawfully applied to my property and had washed downstream to the next two property, killing all living plant life.

Compelling list of witnesses  whose testimony was suppressed from the courts and affidavits were not submitted as ethically obligated by Attorney Steve Swan

Evidence relevant to deprivation of rights under color of law

Conspiracy

Suppressed evidence

Evidence supporting severe pain and suffering from exposure to toxic chemicals

This evidence was available but never reviewed by an investigator as it should have been.

Letter number two from the US Attorney for the Southern District of Iowa.

Well this letter said basically the same as the first letter I received from the US Attorney’s office.

He said he read the 43 page complaint and that my allegations are based on assumptions. I am telling you that I am not ignorant. I would not have anything in my complaint that I did not have evidence to back it up. The fact that nobody has taken the time to review this evidence is contradicting. So I emailed the nearly completed log of events as they occurred. I also ask that he be courteous enough to send me a reply that he did received the 249 page partially completed complaint. It is a long read but it is in a slide show so please give it a review and then tell me that I do not have enough evidence to prove I am a victim of conspiracy against rights and deprivation of rights under color of law. I am not impressed at all as to the way anything is this case has been handled. I advised the local FBI agent to look into the financial record to see if any of these individuals received payment, or took a bribe. He refused. I advised him that many of my witnesses have passed. I told him that two of them have been diagnosed with cancer. Here is the link to my incomplete complaint I sent him recently. I know that a person is in violation of trespassing if they do anything to your property. In this case this neighbor unlawfully applied chemicals for no other reason than to eliminate me.  https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/18mtF3_4WB2u3mEe1OoSb2QpwlgvI25ulAS5BheCPq4Q/edit?usp=sharing  

Harassment with intent to cause financial harm.

 

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

According to. Lee County Deputy David Hunold, who came to her home investigating a second of the same fabricated law complaint against her by Lee County Attorney Mike Short on behalf of  Mark Conlee.

The first complaint stated that Boatner had driven by Conlee’s home and given him the middle finger. According to Officer Hunold the Judge did not specify Mark Conlee was not allowed to continue to apply chemicals to her property. He could continue and he did continue to apply chemicals to her property. She had just been to court over this same allegation that she had given him the finger and it was dismissed. She never even got to see the judge. Mark Conlee in contempt of court did not show up for court.  He was on vacation in Florida. The newest Police Chief Karl Judd advised Boatner that he knew Conlee was on vacation and would be a no show prior to the court date.

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

These frivolous charges were made against Boatner by Lee County attorney Mike Short on Mark Conlee’s behalf,  State of Iowa vs. Boatner, Melody. This 2nd complaint is the exact duplicate of a previous charge but this ticket was altered from the original simply by adding the words “he is tired of this happening all the time” therefore bumping it up to a harassment charge. Someone should have advised the County Attorney that there is no law against giving anyone the finger. In Boatner’s opinion the judge would have commented that Conlee deserved for her to give him the finger. Boatner was still was being denied a trespassing complaint against Conlee even though there is no doubt he has been continuously applying glyphosate to Boatner’s property since 2005 and it has caused Boatner serious health issues. As Officer Hunold was leaving her home she asked him to wait, she advised that she wants to file a complaint for trespassing against Mark Conlee, having just shown him the court order citing her right to use her property as she sees fit. Officer Hunold advised her that he was only there to investigate a complaint from Conlee that she had given him the finger. He advised her that Lee County Attorney Mike Short had sent him in case there was a conflict of interest was questionable. There definitely was a conflict of interest in this case. This case reeks of conflicts of interests. These people are using their relationship as the support for the criminal acts committed against Boatner.  An existing conflict of interest is obvious between all those supporting Mark Conlee’s goal of acquiring Boatner’s property. He is causing her physical harm using the chemicals unlawfully on her property. What is wrong with these people? Who does this? A psychiatric evaluation need to be done on these people. Boatner does not know if psychopathic Mark Conlee had convinced these people of something he has made up or if they are all psychopaths. There is no doubt that the chemicals are harming her and nobody questions any of Conlee’s demands. One thing is for sure as long as Mike Short is Lee County Attorney they do not have to be concerned of ever being held accountable for the conspiracy against Boatner’s rights and the deprivation of Boatner’s rights under color of law.

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

nullnull

 

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

 

Governmental Conspiracies to Violate Civil Rights: A Theory Reconsidered

Source: Governmental Conspiracies to Violate Civil Rights: A Theory Reconsidered

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

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

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

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

If this is not true I would be afraid of defamation charges being brought against me, naw that isn’t going to happen. Lets just ignore this crazy person.

 

My witnesses are dying, my hope is fading, my destiny is being made for me. I have no control of how this story ends. I do know that it will be ending soon.

 

Sheriff Weber recently told me there has been an investigation into my allegations since April. The only thing that I am aware of that has happened is the city clerk still participating the conspiracy to cover up the evidence of the City officials implicating themselves by taking down the City’s webpage that had the min of the meeting since 2005.
This situation is not difficult to understand.
Mark Conlee, brother of a Lee County Detective purchased the legally non conforming property from Mayor Dinwiddie. He began redeveloping the property by tearing down the existing single car garage, trucking in enough fill dirt to elevate the property in some areas 10′ high that before, he constructed a nonconforming 2 story oversized garage. He altered the roof surface from standard procedure by turning it so it diverted storm water runoff directly onto my property, he changed the grade of the fill dirt so all storm water ran onto my property. My property lost value of $10,000 just because the drainage was foreseeable going to cause my property uncontrollable flooding. In questioning this illegal structure I was advised Conlee intended to build a living quarters in the upper level. Standard procedure requires drain tile to be installed around the base of the slab, it was not. Standard procedure requires gutter and downspout to be installed and directed to the city drainage ditch, it was directed directly to divert storm water from the massive roof onto my property.
The following spring there was a suspicious fire that supposedly destroyed the existing trailer. Suspicious because the only firemen on the scene were Mayor Dinwiddie, building official/fire chief Mark Holland, Mark Conlee and the son of Mark Holland. The son Jake was a former resident of the Conlee property, we discussed the fire after the fact. He advised me that only 2 weeks prior there was a trailer fire at a nearby mobile home park that was caused by the same M.O. I understand my testimony is not acceptable but several weeks prior to the fire after his new garage was finished he came over to my yard and gave a friend who was with me a message from his brother in Fla. At that time I asked him, “now that you have that nice new garage what are you going to do with the trailer, he said he wanted it to burn. I was still understanding he was going to build a living quarters in the second level of the garage. The morning of the fire, there was no fire alarm that went off, being 1 block from my house I was woke by the siren. That morning I was awaken by the clanging of the fire hose being connected to the hydrant on my corner of the street. The only fireman who acted in an attempt to extinguish any fire was the son, Jake Holland. The other 3 on the scene did nothing but stand on the sidewalk the entire time and chat. Jake got the hose connected and was motioned to lay it down. There was no action to extinguish any fire. After some amount of time an hour or so Mark Conlee puts on the hazard uniform and enters the home. He exits about 5 minutes later empty-handed and gives the others still on the sidewalk a nod. They continue to stand on the sidewalk for another hour or so. Jake puts the equipment away and they go on about their day. I find it suspicious that Dinwiddie and Holland did not go to their regular job that morning. Conlee went to work and was called home. There was no smoke coming from the building, there was nothing telling that a fire had happen to the building after it was over.
Conlee almost immediately builds a new home. There is no question that the building permit is illegal. He changed the frontage of the home to now be the alley, that is illegal. The roof surface is also altered from standard procedure just as the garage and directed to divert storm water directly onto my property. I advised Conlee that we needed a ditch, reasonably to run directly down the common boundary since he was the one who had the new redevelopment that caused the problems to my property. He was unwilling to have it on his property, the man I was going to barter upholstery for excavating a ditch backed out fearing a liability if he happened to get on Conlee property since there had been no survey, only a verbal agreement on the common boundary.  Conlee illegally removed an existing berm that had been put in place by the original owners of both property for the sole purpose of protecting my home structure from storm water runoff from the Conlee property when the original home burnt prior to 1972 when they brought in the mobile home. Berm and swale were commonly used at that time for this purpose. The berm was on the Conlee side of the common boundary, the swale was on my side of the common boundary. The building officials refused to address my concerns, his duty is to oversee property redevelopment is in compliance with State building and drainage laws. When he refused to come to the location I contacted Lee County Ext, agent Robert Dodds, he did come to the location and took some photos. I had many questions I showed him the building permit which lacked the signature of the builder Mark Conlee but was signed and approved by the building official. Mr. Dodds noticed some other discrepancies on that building permit. He questioned why years before when he built a garage he had to pay a pretty significant amount for the fee charge of his building permit. Mark Conlee had paid no fee according to the permit. He explained that in regards to storm water drainage and property development you are not allowed to divert more storm water to the neighboring property than before the redevelopment. He sent a copy of the letter to Mayor Dinwiddie allow with drainage laws. Dinwiddie had no regard for this expert opinion. When all other times any opinion from Mr. Dodd has held high regard with the city of Montrose.
I hired attorney Steve Swan to sue the city of Montrose, retired Sheriff’s officer John Farmer referred him to me. John worked for the city of Montrose prior to moving up to the sheriff’s dept. He is well aware of the characters who hold positions in Montrose. I met with Swan and he advised me that John Farmer had briefed him on the case, John told him that I did not have many financial resources. I had been self-employed as an upholsterer since I purchased my property in 1995. I was never without work, but I basically charged what I needed to pay my bills, explains why I had a backlog of work for over a year at all times. Swan also advised me that he had spoken to Lee County Detective Bob Conlee, Bob had already lied to him when he told him his brother never trucked in any fill dirt but poured the new slabs just as the property existed. He advised me that my case was a tort case and we would sue both parties, Conlee and the city. He asked if I would be willing to barter upholstering his vehicle for his service. I willingly took him up on that offer, I was so moved by his kindness I had to pull over on the highway because I was crying with gratitude. The following day I received a copy of a letter of intent he sent to Conlee the following  afternoon. The letter demanded Conlee remedy the nuisance drainage problem in 10 day or he would file an injunction against him. Conlee began removing the existing evidence of the berm and its height. He built a little roof over the door on the side of his house as if he had not changed the frontage of his property.
I emailed Swan multiple times on the 10th day telling him to file the injunction. I never heard another word from him and he filed no injunction to stop work as he claimed he  would at our first meeting.
Soon after this a rash developed on my shins, I referred to it as a rash because that was what it appeared to be to me. I thought perhaps an allergic reaction to something. I had never had any problems prior to this with my skin, I had never even have poison ivy. The itch was intense, nothing similar to a bug bite. I had used a push lawnmower since I purchased my place, I did that for cardio, In fact I never wanted a riding lawn mower. The next time I went out to mow I noticed that the neighbor had applied something to my side of the 300’ common boundary. I had never been exposed to what I assumed was weed killer. I had not changed my routine for over ten years. I did some research about medical issues, skin conditions seemed reasonable that whatever this neighbor was applied to my side  of the common boundary to be the most reasonable cause of this suddenly developer skin condition. had now rapidly spread over other parts of my body. I told him and the new police chief the day I discovered it not to apply anything to my property and explained I thought it could be the cause of my skin eruptions. I requested an incident report from the police chief directly after I located Chief Shipman.
By this time my opinion of Mr. Conlee’s character was undesirable. He knew my property was flooding, my foundation had been damaged and he was unwilling to allow me to have a ditch dug down the common boundary. He continued using the chemicals without hesitation as routine yard maintenance. I kept requesting the incident report from Chief Shipman and he kept coming up with excuses as to why he did not have it for me, a witness says he was lying about the reason he did not have it. When I did receive it 16 months later the first on was not satisfactory in detail, I told him no that I wanted one with the details. A week later he gave me a half-hearted report. By this time my rash had become a severe skin condition. My entire body was raw. The pain was excruciating, it was unbearable to wear clothes.
I had requested a trespassing complaint be file on my behalf early on. Every request denied by the City and Lee County Attorney. The chemicals now had become a weapon with intent to cause me serious injury. The fact that I was denied equal protection of the law and access to the courts make this a conspiracy deprivation of rights under color of law.
It became clear to me the reason Conlee would not stop applying chemicals to my property when I realized he was unable to get the illegal redevelopment recorded on the county plat map.
Lee County attorney Mike Short suggested mitigation two years in a row, I was willing, however Mark Conlee was not. He knew his illegal redevelopment would be order to be removed. Taken back to the original state. His excuse the first year was because he had paid an attorney to represent him in a civil case he filed against me. He violated that court order as if it never happened. There is nobody willing to grab this man and put him to the ground like they do on COPS. That is exactly what it would take for him to ever abide by any authority.  In that case the judge dismissed his case citing my right to enjoy my property. I put up a privacy curtain and Mr. Conlee believing my backyard was his backyard because he changed the frontage of his home to face the alley was offended by the curtain. I knew I was well within my rights. I always know the law before I ever act. I felt a sense of relief by the judge’s ruling, my right to enjoy my property in my mind meant no more chemicals on my property either. I was wrong about what the ruling meant to Mark Conlee and Police Chief Brent Shipman, they approached me in my yard one day and Conlee advised me he was going to my the railroad ties I had legally placed down the common boundary to divert the storm water to the city drainage ditch. I advised him if he had a problem with the boundary line he would need to file another civil complaint. I question what Brent Shipman was doing by being with Conlee. He advised me that he was acting as a witness that Conlee was telling me ahead of time that he was going to alter my property. At that point I advised them both that I intended to invoke my second amendment right. I advised Chief Shipman never to knock on my door again. I headed to the house to get my weapon, you never saw two adults run up a hill so fast.
Imagine now, that here I am, my body completely raw, trying to meet deadlines for my upholstery clients and having to defend my property every evening beginning at 3:30 pm  every night.
I retrieved my weapon, a single shot long arm pellet gun and stood guard on my property till way past dark. I had to have some rest, I had other responsibilities so I went in the house and laid down to sleep a bit.  When I woke up the next morning I went out to check the boundary line. Sure enough Conlee had moved the railroad ties I placed to protect my property. I had them held in place with stabs. I had new lawn edging put in place and the railroad ties were pushed every which way. The stab’s were broken off, the edging pull out of the ground and just laying there. My skin condition was full body, I was terrified to go near that boundary in the first place, I have never felt so violated in my life. This was done in contempt of a court order. I called the only authority of the law available Chief Shipman and told him I wanted to file a trespassing complaint against Conlee. He asked me if I saw him do it.  I told him he was the witness that Conlee was going to do it. It was complete violation of my rights. It was a conspiracy.
I again contacted Lee County attorney Mike Short, he advised me that he doesn’t let neighbors file complaints against each other because it never stops. Yet I was charged by the State and City several times on fabricated laws and ordinances, I never even got into the courtroom. Conlee did not even show up, I was told by Montrose Deputy Judd that Conlee was on vacation in Fla. What kind of people are these. What kind of people conspire with intent to cause serious injury to anyone? How is it that I was cited on two different occasions by the State of Iowa for violating fabricated lies. The same excuse was given by the Mayor of Montrose, how is it then that I got cited many times for violating fabricated ordinances and the same issue that was decided by a judge had already been determined in another case.
Well the reality set in after 5 years of being abused by my local government officials, committing criminal acts against me. I had by this time lost me eyesight, unable to read, unable to recognize people, I was terrified. Using chemical weapons with intent to cause serious injury is defined as terrorist acts. These government officials conspired to commit terrorist acts against me.
Mark Conlee had to have my property to ever get his illegal redevelopment recorded on the county plat map and he decided the action to take was to eliminate me. I had two options one was to shoot him dead or flee and seek justice according to the law. I mistakenly chose the latter option.
One other thing I want to mention in regard to Mayor Dinwiddie and his property. Several years ago a woman spoke to the city council about opening a tattoo shop in a building that was available, the council discussed this and they did not think a tattoo shop would represent the city as they wanted it to be represented. It was only a short time later that a different woman spoke to the council about opening a tattoo shop in a building she intended to purchase from Mayor Dinwiddie, the city council was all for this new business in town. What is the difference? Mayor Dinwiddie would receive a personal financial gain just as he did when Conlee purchased the legally nonconforming lot from him.
Attorney Steve Swan conspired with Conlee in violation of his oath to represent his clients best interest
Lee County Attorney Mike Short conspired with Mark Conlee by denying me equal protection of the law, access to the court, and terrorist acts. Conspiracy against rights under color of law.
Lee County Detective conspired with Mark Conlee in misrepresenting his authority to be that of a building official, he was acting without jurisdiction, he defamed my character and knowingly made false statements associating me with illegal drug activity. Conspiracy against rights under color of law.
The most recent act of conspiracy was when  Sheriff Stacy Weber advised the city clerk that there was an investigation that initiated City clerk Celeste Cirinna took down the City of Montrose website that contained the minutes of the council meeting and evidence of these officials implicating themselves to suppress the evidence. I have copies of all the meeting minutes.
City clerk Celeste Cirinna committed multiple counts of fraud, conspiracy against rights.
What is not in violation of Federal law in this case is my question?
Melody Boatner
https://poisonedbymyneighborfromhell.com

H.R.510 – Defense of Property Rights Act 114th Congress (2015-2016)

Is there anyone who would be willing to assist me by advising me as to what forms I need to file a case in Defense of Property Rights Act. I have no idea how to go about any legal matter, I hired an attorney one time and he conspired against me. So I have no trust or financial assets to use to obtain an attorney at this time. I recognize the statue states 6 years, the fact that I was blind until 2012 should be considered in this case. I believe my case is criminal, in violation of Federal law. I know my Constitutional Rights have been violated. I could use some opinions https://poisonedbymyneighborfromhell.com
H. R. 510

To establish a uniform and more efficient Federal process for protecting property owners’ rights guaranteed by the fifth amendment

 


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 22, 2015

Mr. Reed introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


A BILL

To establish a uniform and more efficient Federal process for protecting property owners’ rights guaranteed by the fifth amendment.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “Defense of Property Rights Act”.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds that—

(1) the private ownership of property is essential to a free society and is an integral part of the American tradition of liberty and limited government;

(2) the framers of the United States Constitution, in order to protect private property and liberty, devised a framework of Government designed to diffuse power and limit Government;

(3) to further ensure the protection of private property, the fifth amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified to prevent the taking of private property by the Federal Government, except for public use and with just compensation;

(4) the purpose of the takings clause of the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution, as the Supreme Court stated in Armstrong v. United States, 364 U.S. 40, 49 (1960), is “to bar Government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens, which in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole”;

(5) the agencies, in their efforts to ameliorate public harms and environmental abuse, have singled out property holders to shoulder the cost that should be borne by the public, in violation of the just compensation requirement of the takings clause of the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution;

(6) there is a need to both restrain the agencies in their overzealous regulation of the private sector and to protect private property, which is a fundamental right of the American people;

(7) the incremental, fact-specific approach that courts now are required to employ in the absence of adequate statutory language to vindicate property rights under the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution has been ineffective and costly and there is a need for Congress to clarify the law and provide an effective remedy;

(8) certain provisions of sections 1346 and 1402 and chapter 91 of title 28, United States Code (commonly known as the Tucker Act), that delineates the jurisdiction of courts hearing property rights claims, complicates the ability of a property owner to vindicate a property owner’s right to just compensation for a governmental action that has caused a physical or regulatory taking;

(9) current law—

(A) forces a property owner to elect between equitable relief in the district court and monetary relief (the value of the property taken) in the United States Court of Federal Claims;

(B) is used to urge dismissal in the district court on the ground that the plaintiff should seek just compensation in the Court of Federal Claims; and

(C) is used to urge dismissal in the Court of Federal Claims on the ground that the plaintiff should seek equitable relief in district court;

(10) property owners cannot fully vindicate property rights in one court;

(11) property owners should be able to fully recover for a taking of their private property in one court;

(12) certain provisions of sections 1346 and 1402 and chapter 91 of title 28, United States Code (commonly known as the Tucker Act) should be amended, giving both the district courts of the United States and the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction to hear all claims relating to property rights; and

(13) section 1500 of title 28, United States Code, which denies the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction to entertain a suit which is pending in another court and made by the same plaintiff, should be repealed.

SEC. 3. PURPOSE.

The purpose of this Act is to

(1) encourage, support, and promote the private ownership of property by ensuring the constitutional and legal protection of private property by the United States Government;

(2) establish a clear, uniform, and efficient judicial process whereby aggrieved property owners can obtain vindication of property rights guaranteed by the fifth amendment to the United States Constitution and this Act;

(3) amend certain provisions of the Tucker Act, including the repeal of section 1500 of title 28, United States Code;

(4) rectify the constitutional imbalance between the Federal Government and the States; and

(5) require the Federal Government and States to compensate compensation to property owners for the deprivation of property rights.

SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

For purposes of this Act the term—

(1) “agency” means a department, agency, independent agency, or instrumentality of the United States or an individual State, including any military department, Government corporation, Government-controlled corporation, or other establishment in the executive branch of the United States Government or an individual State;

(2) “agency action” means any action or decision taken, permanently or temporarily, by an agency that—

(A) takes a property right; or

(B) unreasonably impedes the use of property or the exercise of property interests or significantly interferes with investment-backed expectations;

(3) “just compensation”—

(A) means compensation equal to the full extent of a property owner’s loss, including the fair market value of the private property taken and business losses arising from a taking, whether the taking is by physical occupation or through regulation, exaction, or other means; and

(B) shall include compounded interest calculated from the date of the taking until the date the agency tenders payment;

(4) “owner” means the owner or possessor of property or rights in property at the time the taking occurs, including when—

(A) the statute, regulation, rule, order, guideline, policy, or action is passed or promulgated; or

(B) the permit, license, authorization, or governmental permission is denied or suspended;

(5) “private property” or “property” means all property protected under the fifth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, any applicable Federal or State law, or this Act, and includes—

(A) real property, whether vested or unvested, including—

(i) estates in fee, life estates, estates for years, or otherwise;

(ii) inchoate interests in real property such as remainders and future interests;

(iii) personally that is affixed to or appurtenant to real property;

(iv) easements;

(v) leaseholds;

(vi) recorded liens; and

(vii) contracts or other security interests in, or related to, real property;

(B) the right to use water or the right to receive water, including any recorded lines on such water right;

(C) rents, issues, and profits of land, including minerals, timber, fodder, crops, oil and gas, coal, or geothermal energy;

(D) property rights provided by, or memorialized in, a contract, except that such rights shall not be construed under this title to prevent the United States from prohibiting the formation of contracts deemed to harm the public welfare or to prevent the execution of contracts for

(i) national security reasons; or

(ii) exigencies that present immediate or reasonably foreseeable threats or injuries to life or property;

(E) any interest defined as property under State law; or

(F) any interest understood to be property based on custom, usage, common law, or mutually reinforcing understandings sufficiently well-grounded in law to back a claim of interest; and

(6) “taking of private property”

(A) means any action whereby private property is directly taken in part or in whole as to require compensation under the fifth amendment to the United States Constitution or under this Act, including by physical invasion, regulation, exaction, condition, or other means; and

(B) shall not include—

(i) a condemnation action filed by the United States in an applicable court; or

(ii) an action filed by the United States relating to criminal forfeiture.

SEC. 5. COMPENSATION FOR TAKEN PROPERTY.

(a) In General.—No agency, shall take private property in part or in whole except for public purpose and with just compensation to the property owner. A property owner shall receive just compensation if—

(1) as a consequence of a decision of any agency private property (in part or in whole) has been physically invaded or taken without the consent of the owner; and

(2) (A) such action does not substantially advance the stated governmental interest to be achieved by the legislation or regulation on which the action is based;

(B) such action exacts the owner’s constitutional or otherwise lawful right to use the property or a portion of such property as a condition for the granting of a permit, license, variance, or any other agency action without a rough proportionality between the stated need for the required dedication and the impact of the proposed use of the property;

(C) such action results in the property owner being deprived, either temporarily or permanently, of all or substantially all economically beneficial or productive use of the property or that part of the property affected by the action without a showing that such deprivation inheres in the title itself;

(D) such action diminishes the fair market value of the property which is the subject of the action by the lesser of—

(i) 20 percent or more with respect to the value immediately prior to the governmental action; or

(ii) $20,000, or more with respect to the value immediately prior to the governmental action; or

(E) under any other circumstance where a taking has occurred within the meaning of the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution.

(b) Burden Of Proof.— (1) The agency shall bear the burden of proof in any action described under—

(A) subsection (a)(2)(A), with regard to showing the nexus between the stated governmental purpose of the governmental interest and the impact on the proposed use of private property;

(B) subsection (a)(2)(B), with regard to showing the proportionality between the exaction and the impact of the proposed use of the property; and

(C) subsection (a)(2)(C), with regard to showing that such deprivation of value inheres in the title to the property.

(2) The property owner shall have the burden of proof in any action described under subsection (a)(2)(D), with regard to establishing the diminution of value of property.

SEC. 6. JURISDICTION AND JUDICIAL REVIEW.

(a) In General.—A property owner may file a civil action under this Act to challenge the validity of any agency action that adversely affects the owner’s interest in private property in either the United States District Court or the United States Court of Federal Claims. This section constitutes express waiver of the sovereign immunity of the United States. Notwithstanding any other provision of law and notwithstanding the issues involved, the relief sought, or the amount in controversy, each court shall have concurrent jurisdiction over both claims for monetary relief and claims seeking invalidation of any Act of Congress or any agency action defined under this Act affecting private property rights. The plaintiff shall have the election of the court in which to file a claim for relief.

(b) Standing.—Persons adversely affected by an agency action taken under this Act shall have standing to challenge and seek judicial review of that action.

(c) Amendments To Title 28, United States Code.— (1) Section 1491(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amended—

(A) in paragraph (1) by amending the first sentence to read as follows: “The United States Court of Federal Claims shall have jurisdiction to render judgment upon any claim against an agency for monetary relief founded either upon the Constitution or any Act of Congress or any regulation of an executive department, or upon any express or implied contract with an agency, in cases not sounding in tort, or for invalidation of any Act of Congress or any regulation of an executive department that adversely affects private property rights in violation of the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution”;

(B) in paragraph (2) by inserting before the first sentence the following: “In any case within its jurisdiction, the Court of Federal Claims shall have the power to grant injunctive and declaratory relief when appropriate.”; and

(C) by adding at the end thereof the following new paragraphs:

“(4) In cases otherwise within its jurisdiction, the Court of Federal Claims shall also have ancillary jurisdiction, concurrent with the courts designated in section 1346(b) of this title, to render judgment upon any related tort claim authorized under section 2674 of this title.

“(5) In proceedings within the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims which constitute judicial review of agency action (rather than de novo proceedings), the provisions of section 706 of title 5 shall apply.”.

(2) (A) Section 1500 of title 28, United States Code, is repealed.

(B) The table of sections for chapter 91 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking out the item relating to section 1500.

SEC. 7. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.

The statute of limitations for actions brought under this title shall be 6 years from the date of the taking of property.

 

SEC. 8. ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS.

The court, in issuing any final order in any action brought under this Act, shall award costs of litigation (including reasonable attorney and expert witness fees) to any prevailing plaintiff.

SEC. 9. ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION.

(a) In General.—Either party to a dispute over a taking of property as defined under this Act or litigation commenced under this Act may elect to resolve the dispute through settlement or arbitration. In the administration of this section—

(1) such alternative dispute resolution may only be effectuated by the consent of all parties;

(2) arbitration procedures shall be in accordance with the alternative dispute resolution procedures established by the American Arbitration Association; and

(3) in no event shall arbitration be a condition precedent or an administrative procedure to be exhausted before the filing of a civil action under this Act.

(b) Review Of Arbitration.—Appeal from arbitration decisions shall be to the United States District Court or the United States Court of Federal Claims in the manner prescribed by law for the claim under this Act.

SEC. 10. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to interfere with the authority of any State to create additional property rights.

SEC. 11. SEVERABILITY.

If any provision of this Act, an amendment made by this Act, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and the application of the provisions of such to any person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.

SEC. 12. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The provisions of this Act shall apply to actions commenced on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Cato Handbook of Policy Makers

I can tell you one thing this handbook is useless unless these policies are guaranteed to be enforced. Where is a Cato representative to represent what they declare they represent?

Cato handbook of policymakers

Link

In this case the County Attorney could not be more involved with enabling violations of these codes. He recently retired. I pray that the new County Attorney stands beh

Iowa Code

703.4 Responsibility of employers. An employer or an employer’s agent, officer, director, or employee who supervises or directs the work of other employees, is guilty of the same public offense committed by an employee acting under the employer’s control, supervision, or direction in any of the following cases:1.  The person has directed the employee to commit a public offense.2.  The person knowingly permits an employee to commit a public offense, under circumstances in which the employer expects to benefit from the illegal activity of the employee.3.  The person assigns the employee some duty or duties which the person knows cannot be accomplished, or are not likely to be accomplished, unless the employee commits a public offense, provided that the offense committed by the employee is one which the employer can reasonably anticipate will follow from this assignment.[C79, 81, §703.4]

703.1 Aiding and abetting. All persons concerned in the commission of a public offense, whether they directly commit the act constituting the offense or aid and abet its commission, shall be charged, tried and punished as principals. The guilt of a person who aids and abets the commission of a crime must be determined upon the facts which show the part the person had in it, and does not depend upon the degree of another person’s guilt.[C51, §2928; R60, §4668; C73, §4314; C97, §5299; C24, 27, 31, 35, 39, §12895; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75, 77, §688.1; C79, 81, §703.1]

703.2 Joint criminal conduct. When two or more persons, acting in concert, knowingly participate in a public offense, each is responsible for the acts of the other done in furtherance of the commission of the offense or escape there from, and each person’s guilt will be the same as that of the person so acting, unless the act was one which the person could not reasonably expect to be done in the furtherance of the commission of the offense.[C79, 81, §703.2]Referred to in 717A.3A

703.3 Accessory after the fact. Any person having knowledge that a public offense has been committed and that a certain person committed it, and who does not stand in the relation of husband or wife to the person who committed the offense, who harbors, aids or conceals the person who committed the offense, with the intent to prevent the apprehension of the person who committed the offense, commits an aggravated misdemeanor if the public offense committed was a felony, or commits a simple misdemeanor if the public offense was a misdemeanor.[C51, §2929; R60, §4669; C73, §4315; C97, §5300; C24, 27, 31, 35, 39, §12896; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75, 77, §688.2; C79, 81, §703.3; 1981 Acts, ch 204, §1]Referred to in 717A.3A

703.4 Responsibility of employers. An employer or an employer’s agent, officer, director, or employee who supervises or directs the work of other employees, is guilty of the same public offense committed by an employee acting under the employer’s control, supervision, or direction in any of the following cases:1.  The person has directed the employee to commit a public offense.2.  The person knowingly permits an employee to commit a public offense, under circumstances in which the employer expects to benefit from the illegal activity of the employee.3.  The person assigns the employee some duty or duties which the person knows cannot 703.5Liability of corporations, partnerships and voluntary associations.1.  A public or private corporation, partnership, or other voluntary association shall have the same level of culpability as an individual committing the crime when any of the following is true:a.  The conduct constituting the offense consists of an omission to discharge a specific duty or an affirmative performance imposed on the accused by law.b.  The conduct or act constituting the offense is committed by an agent, officer, director, or employee of the accused while acting within the scope of the authority of the agent, officer, director or employee and in behalf of the accused and when said act or conduct is authorized, requested, or tolerated by the board of directors or by a high managerial agent.2.  “High managerial agent” means an officer of the corporation, partner, or other agent in a position of comparable authority with respect to the formulation of policy or the supervision in a managerial capacity of subordinate employees.[C79, 81, §703.5]2013 Acts, ch 30, §261be accomplished, or are not likely to be accomplished, unless the employee commits a public offense, provided that the offense committed by the employee is one which the employer can reasonably anticipate will follow from this assignment.[C79, 81, §703.4]

704.4 Defense of property. A person is justified in the use of reasonable force to prevent or terminate criminal interference with the person’s possession or other right in property. Nothing in this section authorizes the use of any spring gun or trap which is left unattended and unsupervised and which is placed for the purpose of preventing or terminating criminal interference with the possession of or other right in property.[C51, §2774; R60, §4443; C73, §4113; C97, §5103; C24, 27, 31, 35, 39, §12922; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75, 77, §691.2(2); C79, 81, §704.4]

706.1 Conspiracy.1.  A person commits conspiracy with another if, with the intent to promote or facilitate the commission of a crime which is an aggravated misdemeanor or felony, the person does either of the following: a.  Agrees with another that they or one or more of them will engage in conduct constituting the crime or an attempt or solicitation to commit the crime’s.  Agrees to aid another in the planning or commission of the crime or of an attempt or solicitation to commit the crime.2.  It is not necessary for the conspirator to know the identity of each and every conspirator.3.  A person shall not be convicted of conspiracy unless it is alleged and proven that at least one conspirator committed an overt act evidencing a design to accomplish the purpose of the conspiracy by criminal means.4.  A person shall not be convicted of conspiracy if the only other person or persons involved in the conspiracy were acting at the behest of or as agents of a law enforcement agency in an investigation of the criminal activity alleged at the time of the formation of the conspiracy.[C51, §2758, 2996; R60, §4408, 4790; C73, §4087, 4425; C97, §5059, 5490; C24, 27, 31, 35, 39, §13162, 13902; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75, 77, §719.1, 782.6; C79, 81, §706.1]1987 Acts, ch 129, §1

706.2 Locus of conspiracy. A person commits a conspiracy in any county where the person is physically present when the person makes such agreement or combination, and in any county where the person with whom the person makes such agreement or combination is physically present at such time, whether or not any of the other conspirators are also present in that county or in this state, and in any county in which any criminal act is done by any person pursuant to the conspiracy, whether or not the person is or has ever been present in such county; provided, that a person may not be prosecuted more than once for a conspiracy based on the same agreement or combination.[C79, 81, §706.2]

706A.2 Violations.1.Specified unlawful activity influenced enterprises. a.  It is unlawful for any person who has knowingly received any proceeds of specified unlawful activity to use or invest, directly or indirectly, any part of such proceeds in the acquisition of any interest in any enterprise or any real property, or in the establishment or operation of any enterprise .b.  It is unlawful for any person to knowingly acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise or real property through specified unlawful activity .c.  It is unlawful for any person to knowingly conduct the affairs of any enterprise through specified unlawful activity or to knowingly participate, directly or indirectly, in any enterprise that the person knows is being conducted through specified unlawful activity .d.  It is unlawful for any person to conspire or attempt to violate or to solicit or facilitate the violations of the provisions of paragraph “a”, “b”, or “c”.2.Facilitation of a criminal network. It is unlawful for a person acting with knowledge of the financial goals and criminal objectives of a criminal network to knowingly facilitate criminal objectives of the network by doing any of the following: a.  Engaging in violence or intimidation or inciting or inducing another to engage in violence or intimidation .b.  Inducing or attempting to induce a person believed to have been called or who may be called as a witness to unlawfully withhold any testimony, testify falsely, or absent themselves from any official proceeding to which the potential witness has been legally summoned. c.  Attempting by means of bribery, misrepresentation, intimidation, or force to obstruct, delay, or prevent the communication of information or testimony relating to a violation of any criminal statute to a peace officer, magistrate, prosecutor, grand jury, or petit jury. d.  Injuring or damaging another person’s body or property because that person or any other person gave information or testimony to a peace officer, magistrate, prosecutor, or grand jury. e.  Attempting to suppress by an act of concealment, alteration, or destruction any physical evidence that might aid in the discovery, apprehension, prosecution, or conviction of any person. f.  Making any property available to a member of the criminal network. g.  Making any service other than legal services available to a member of the criminal network. h.  Inducing or committing any act or omission by a public servant in violation of the public servant’s official duty. i.  Obtaining any benefit for a member of a criminal network by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representation, promises, or material omissions. j.  Making a false sworn statement regarding a material issue, believing it to be false, or making any statement, believing it to be false, regarding a material issue to a public servant in connection with an application for any benefit, privilege, or license, or in connection with any official investigation or proceeding.

706A.2 Violations.1.Specified unlawful activity influenced enterprises. a.  It is unlawful for any person who has knowingly received any proceeds of specified unlawful activity to use or invest, directly or indirectly, any part of such proceeds in the acquisition of any interest in any enterprise or any real property, or in the establishment or operation of any enterprise. b.  It is unlawful for any person to knowingly acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise or real property through specified unlawful activity. c.  It is unlawful for any person to knowingly conduct the affairs of any enterprise through specified unlawful activity or to knowingly participate, directly or indirectly, in any enterprise that the person knows is being conducted through specified unlawful activity. d.  It is unlawful for any person to conspire or attempt to violate or to solicit or facilitate the violations of the provisions of paragraph “a”, “b”, or “c”.2.Facilitation of a criminal network. It is unlawful for a person acting with knowledge of the financial goals and criminal objectives of a criminal network to knowingly facilitate criminal objectives of the network by doing any of the following: a.  Engaging in violence or intimidation or inciting or inducing another to engage in violence or intimidation. b.  Inducing or attempting to induce a person believed to have been called or who may be called as a witness to unlawfully withhold any testimony, testify falsely, or absent themselves from any official proceeding to which the potential witness has been legally summoned. c.  Attempting by means of bribery, misrepresentation, intimidation, or force to obstruct, delay, or prevent the communication of information or testimony relating to a violation of any criminal statute to a peace officer, magistrate, prosecutor, grand jury, or petit jury. d.  Injuring or damaging another person’s body or property because that person or any other person gave information or testimony to a peace officer, magistrate, prosecutor, or grand jury. e.  Attempting to suppress by an act of concealment, alteration, or destruction any physical evidence that might aid in the discovery, apprehension, prosecution, or conviction of any person. f.  Making any property available to a member of the criminal network. g.  Making any service other than legal services available to a member of the criminal network. h.  Inducing or committing any act or omission by a public servant in violation of the public servant’s official duty. i.  Obtaining any benefit for a member of a criminal network by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representation, promises, or material omissions. j.  Making a false sworn statement regarding a material issue, believing it to be false, or making any statement, believing it to be false, regarding a material issue to a public servant in connection with an application for any benefit, privilege, or license, or in connection with any official investigation or proceeding.3.Money laundering. It is unlawful for a person to commit money laundering in violation of chapter 706B.4.Acts of specified unlawful activity. It is unlawful for a person to commit specified unlawful activity as defined in section 706A.1.5.Negligent empowerment of specified unlawful activity. a.  It is unlawful for a person to negligently allow property owned or controlled by the person or services provided by the person, other than legal services, to be used to facilitate specified unlawful activity, whether by entrustment, loan, rent, lease, bailment, or otherwise. b.  Damages for negligent empowerment of specified unlawful activity shall include all reasonably foreseeable damages proximately caused by the specified unlawful activity, including, in a case brought or intervened in by the state, the costs of investigation and criminal and civil litigation of the specified unlawful activity incurred by the government for the prosecution and defense of any person involved in the specified unlawful activity, and the imprisonment, probation, parole, or other expense reasonably necessary to detain, punish, and rehabilitate any person found guilty of the specified unlawful activity, except for the following: (1)  If the person empowering the specified unlawful activity acted only negligently and was without knowledge of the nature of the activity and could not reasonably have known of the unlawful nature of the activity or that it was likely to occur, damages shall be limited to the greater of the following: (a)  The cost of the investigation and litigation of the person’s own conduct plus the value of the property or service involved as of the time of its use to facilitate the specified unlawful activity. (b)  All reasonably foreseeable damages to any person, except any person responsible for the specified unlawful activity, and to the general economy and welfare of the state proximately caused by the person’s own conduct. (2)  If the property facilitating the specified unlawful activity was taken from the possession or control of the person without that person’s knowledge and against that person’s will in violation of the criminal law, damages shall be limited to reasonably foreseeable damages to any person, except persons responsible for the taking or the specified unlawful activity, and to the general economy and welfare of the state proximately caused by the person’s negligence, if any, in failing to prevent its taking. (3)  If the person was aware of the possibility that the property or service would be used to facilitate some form of specified unlawful activity and acted to prevent the unlawful use, damages shall be limited to reasonably foreseeable damages to any person, except any person responsible for the specified unlawful activity, and to the general economy and welfare of the state proximately caused by the person’s failure, if any, to act reasonably to prevent the unlawful use. (4)  The plaintiff shall carry the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the specified unlawful activity occurred and was facilitated by the property or services. The defendant shall have the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence as to circumstances constituting lack of negligence and on the limitations on damages in this subsection.1996 Acts, ch 1133, §27; 1998 Acts, ch 1074, §33Referred to in 706A.3, 706A.4

708.4 Willful injury. Any person who does an act which is not justified and which is intended to cause serious injury to another commits willful injury, which is punishable as follows:1.  A class “C” felony, if the person causes serious injury to another.2.  A class “D” felony, if the person causes bodily injury to another.[C51, §2577, 2594; R60, §4200, 4217; C73, §3857, 3875; C97, §4752, 4771, 4797; S13, §4771; C24, 27, 31, 35, 39, §12928, 12934, 12962; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75, 77, §693.1, 694.6, 697.2; C79, 81, §708.4]99 Acts, ch 65, §5, 2013 Acts, ch 90, §184 Referred to in 80A.4, 702.11

The Law of Nonconforming Uses

via The Law of Nonconforming Uses

 

 

in the circled area Value is handwritten $40,880 Fee $ is blank. The issue date at the top is 7-12-2004. Complainant had only noticed that this permit was invalid due to no Builders signature. Clearly Building Administrator Holland was intentionally negligent at least for his lack of oversight and pre-approval of issuance of this permit

0005Celeste Cirinna, City of Montrose Exec Manager.pptx

Original building permit altered to conflict with the information contained in the letter written by Lee County Extension Agent Bob Dodds.

Please Explain what about this is not a violation of my Federally protected private property rights?

What about this situation am I not understanding? I get no response from those who are supposedly experts in this field. This is one example of many that I understand clearly to be a violation of Federal Law.

 In my mind is a not questionable. Why am I mistaken in my conclusion?  Include references please as the local law enforcement have been far less that honest in anyway in their involvement.
So my neighbor was putting chemicals on my property for an extended period of time, right?
That act is described as trespassing, right?
I requested an incident report stating that I had verbally told the neighbor to cease and desist the the day I noticed the chemicals from the Police chief, right?
The police chief did not act in a timely manner, 16 months is not acceptable by any reasonable person to receive a request for a document, right?
The neighbor in the mean time sued me because I installed a privacy curtain, claiming loss of enjoyment of his property, right?
The civil court dismissed his case citing my right to enjoy my property, right?
The neighbor violated that court order without missing a beat, right?
I notified in person the county attorney that I wanted to file a complaint against this neighbor/council member and the city clerk bringing with me the evidence that proves my allegations, right?
I was denied filing a complaint against this neighbor by the police chief and the county attorney, right?
The right to enjoy property is a Federal law, right?
​    ​       A criminal conspiracy exists when two or more people
agree to commit almost any unlawful act then take some action toward its completion. The action taken need not itself be a crime, but it must indicate that those  involved in the conspiracy knew of the plan and intended to break the law. One person may be charged with and convicted of both conspiracy and the underlying crime based on the same circumstances.–
 For example, Andy, Dan, and Alice plan a bank robbery. They 1) visit the bank first to assess security, 2) pool their money and buy a gun together, and 3) write a demand letter.  All three can be charged with conspiracy to commit robbery, regardless of whether the robbery itself is actually attempted or completed.
The “Agreement” Requirement

You might be wondering how exactly the agreement between two co-conspirators actually takes place. First, the agreement does not need to be expressly conveyed. For instance, in the above example,Andy isn’t required to tell Dan and Alice in unequivocal terms,”I agree to commit a conspiracy with you,” (although, that statement would surely be a prosecutor’s dream and strong evidence​ of a criminal conspiracy). Instead, the agreement may be implicit or shown by the action of “two or more guilty minds,” as required  under common law. Examples of evidence of an implicit agreement can include the appearance of the co- defendants at transactions and negotiations in furtherance of the conspiracy such as a planning meeting It is important to note that courts have found that mere presence or association with those committing a crime doesn’t, by itself, make someone a co-conspirator unless there are other factors that collectively point to an implicit agreement.

The Element of “Intent”
As with other specific intent crimes, your intention means everything. But that’s not the only intent the court will care about. Not only does one other individual in the conspiracy need to intend to agree, all parties​ mus​t ​intend to achieve the outcome. Simply put, knowledge of a crime isn’t enough to get you thrown behind bars. For instance, just because your friend tells you he is going to burglarize a house, doesn’t mean you are part of the conspiracy to burglarize it. Not unless you also agree to help by acting as a getaway car or helping him scope out the property ahead of time.

Penalties

A conspiracy conviction can yield some pretty tough penalties depending on the underlying crime. You can be punished for both the conspiracy and the actual crime itself if, it were completed. For example, if you are charged and convicted of conspiracy to commit robbery and the actual crime of robbery, you may have to suffer the consequences of both. Additionally, in some cases if you are convicted of a conspiracy to commit a felony, you may have to serve a mandatory minimum sentence.

​So what is different about my evidence that is would not be considered a criminal conspiracy between the neighbor and the Police Chief, and the neighbor and the County Attorney? I see just this part of the attack against me as a conspiracy against my rights.

​ ​
And​ since it was committed by officers of the law, why would this not be considered Deprivation of rights under color of law

Thoughts please.​

crime (krim) n. ca.1920. An unethical or immoral act against fellow man.

Reply to Authority who was kind enough to give me his ear, but has no authority to act. Thanks for listening.

Would it be within your power to forward this to Mr. X? Or can you get me the contact information for Mr. X or give him my phone number. With no way for me to contact him it makes it pretty impossible for me to submit and new or old new information. The local agent had no information to give him prior to our meeting. With no evidence supporting any violation of Federal Law I understand why he rendered the decision he made. The local agent had no information about my case when I received the denial from Mr. X. The local agent simply was unconcerned or had been given false information from an agent from a different division. An agent from the Quad Cities is the first one that I spoke with. I was given his contact information from the current sheriff who without a doubt has a conflict of interest. He even mentions it in the news report after he was elected. Until I submitted that article to the local agent, he wasn’t going to see me at all. It is hard to say what the Sheriff told his connection. But I know whatever it was it was false or fabricated. The sheriff has implicated himself in actively covering up the crimes that have been committed against me. I need to speak to someone who has no bias or won’t hesitate to cross the thin blue line. It is a against Federal law to deny equal protection of the law isn’t it? The county attorney denied my equal protection on more than one occasion. The most damaging one was when he refused to file a trespassing complaint against this man. This man is the brother of the county attorney’s number one man, or he was before I believe he was forced to resign, retire at 52 years old. I believe he was forced to retire because of the criminal and unethical act he committed against me. He had no authority to come to town and pretend he had any authority of jurisdiction of building official. He committed multiple violations of the law of behalf of his brother.
It is against Federal law to violate one’s right to enjoy their own property, in spite and in violation of a civil court order citing my right to enjoy my own property.
The FBI has spent more time in X Iowa that any other county in the State I would bet my home, business and property on it. Oh wait my home, business and property have already been taken without just compensation, but it was not under eminent domain. It was taken by force on behalf of the X County detectives brother, not to mention the neighbor bought his lot from the Mayor. So the Mayor had personal financial gain. This is not the only circumstance in which the Mayor used his position for personal financial gain.
There are so many tentacles to my case that the only way to comprehend it is to review the documented evidence I have in my possession. The most recent case that I know of the FBI being in the county is a case against midwest academy. A campus for troubled youth. In that case the sheriff had over 80 call alleging sexual assaults by the staff and not one time did the sheriff respond. I happen to know that one of higher authorities on the sheriff’s dept’s spouse was employed at Midwest academy. Would that be in part why the sheriff make no attempt to investigate the allegations? I do not know, I do know the owner just got sentenced to prison for his crimes. Lee County has a long history of corruption. The FBI investigates and even finds violations but nothing changes the behavior of any of these people.
They stole my property in a most brutal way imaginable. They used chemicals and had I not fled I wouldn’t have lasted on this earth another week. The fact that not one of my witnesses, very credible witnesses have never been interviewed is quite telling that there has never been an investigation into any of my allegations. Two of my most credible as fellow law enforcement officers are now dealing with cancer, one unable to speak but he can write. Why is there no law enforcement at any level willing to question my witnesses? I will come to Washington if needed. I do not know who is the supervisor at the C R division. I would assume it was Mr. X but if he is in Washington DC then there is someone who is giving him false information. I am not the only person who is going to suffer from this degree of public corruption. I am doing the best I know to bring this to the attention of law enforcement. The local agent is not an attorney nor am I but the current county attorney and a person with the Iowa division of criminal investigation both agree and I know one of them is an attorney, that this is a case for the FBI. I should not be having to beg someone to look at the evidence when public corruption is a priority according to the website. I am not aiming this at you, believe me you are nearly the only person with the morals to speak to me about my situation and you should get a promotion for what you have done for me. You in my opinion represent the best of the best. My opinion the ones who stay silent is why there is so much crime today. I am 60 years old now and worked for every penny to buy my property and operate an upholstery business from that location. I have violated no law and have nothing but rage against these individuals. I should be compensated enough that I can at least not have to see these people and relive what they have done to me personally every single day that I am here. I understand there is a reason why individuals go armed with intent to city hall. It is not due to mental illness. It is because their rights have been trample and they have had no protection of the real law, The duty of the law is to protect the rights of the people, nowhere is it written that I am exempt. If the law enforcement officers succumb to their diseases before they are interviewed I am going to be more upset than ever. The fact that two officers that have their ethical values and moral laws in place are not given the opportunity to tell what they have witnessed is a crime in itself there are not many of the good cops left. This could be a RICO case. A person does not have to have a law degree to recognize this is not a civil case as the local agent advised. That’s a fact.
mel

thanks for listening, I understand that I will most likely not hear from you again. Sorry .

A brief summary and a few slideshows to present a fraction of the unjust, unaccountable and illegal offenses committed against me by my local government authorities

Here are a few of the documents that prove Federal law was violated. The most recent date a public official participated in an act of public corruption was April 2017. That person was newly elected Sheriff and City of Montrose clerk, Celeste Cirinna. At that time these two public officials conspired to suppress evidence that was posted on the City of Montrose website.  It really was a brutal attack on my physical and private property. This man is not fit for society, he intended to acquire my property the cost was of no concern to him. I had only two options, stay at my property and die from chemical exposure or flee from my property in an attempt to save my own life.  I felt forced to flee. I had obligations to make good on.  During the five years that the chemicals were unlawfully applied to my property I was unable to function. I had borrowed basic living expenses from friends, well over $10,000 during these five long years of intentional negligence or in my opinion full out conspiracy against my rights and deprivation of rights under color of law committed  by my corrupt city and county officials. I could not just leave this earth owing that much money to friends who really did not have it to loan it the first place. I suffered for 5 years of excruciating pain, believing that at some point someone of authority would feel obligated to step up, uphold the law and issue this man a trespassing complaint. One of my witnesses, a County Deputy stopped by my home in 2010 and advised me that this neighbor/council member had no intention of stopping with the chemicals.

Understand the basics of this case. This neighbor purchased a legally nonconforming property from the Mayor.  He began redeveloping the lot in 2003, beginning with the removal of the existing  two story single car garage shown in the upper center of the heading photo of this post. The State building code requires a standard procedure in issuing building permits. illegal building permits issued by the City building official.  The redevelopment was illegal from day one. The building permits are not completed as required by the State of Iowa. From the words of the Mayor himself at a city council meeting, “you cannot increase the size to be bigger than the existing buildings”. Even though he had a conflict of interest with every local authority and was allowed to commit these illegal acts,  the one thing that caused problems and the most important thing of all was that he could not get the illegal redevelopment recorded on the county plat map. He simply did not have enough square ft. of legally nonconforming property to accommodate the oversized nonconforming structures to comply with State building code or State drainage law. He decided the answer to his problem was to eliminate me. This was an easy task for him have the local authorities for whatever reason do whatever this neighbor requested of them. Had the attorney I hired to file a complaint done what he was hired to do and we had gone to court,  the court would have order removal of the structures and return the lot to existing condition. There was no option in this case.

It is true, a person does know when they are dying. I knew my days were numbered. I was ready to go, I had suffered long enough. To me it was worse than cancer as I had no timeline to estimate how much longer I would have to suffer. Cancer patients generally get told a timeline. I would not be here to tell this story if not for reasons unknown to me, months later I received a call from the University of  Ia hospital. They said they had a member of staff waiting for me in the ER and to get there asap. I did and this Dr. did save my life. To answer your questions, ​​yes I was forced to flee from my property in order to escape the chemicals. The EPA field investigator advised me that he had never heard of a case in which  a neighbor intentionally applied chemicals to his neighbors property. I understand that is because trespassing laws exist. Law enforcement had a duty to protect my rights. This man was aware that I thought the chemicals were causing my health problems. He never hesitated, he applied the chemicals to my property as if it were part of his maintenance routine for his own yard. There is no other case like this in the USA. This is complex and unprecedented. I was blind as a result of the medical treatment the local hospital administered to me in an unsuccessful attempt to offer me some relief for the severe pain I was having from the full body skin eruptions. In the one picture you can see that my legs are burnt. chemical burnt, I am tough country girl but to suffer that long with no assistance from law enforcement to protect my right to private property I believe was worse that a cancer diagnosis, I was never given a timeline before I would loose my life. I only knew I was going to die as a result of the actions of one man who has no regard for the law or life of another human being.sincerely, Melody Boatner there is so much more evidence to prove my case. I simply do not have the skills to put it together in a formal manner.​ Links containing relevant information that has been suppressed or intentionally overlooked by recently retired Lee County attorney Michael Short and in a civil court in which this neighbor sued me. Witnesses, conspirators​​, severe skin disorder.​​ The Good Old Boy Network​​, About Celeste Cirinna, City of Montrose Clerk,​​ No adverse impact and the courts

​ ​Anyone who believes they would be able just to let it go a brutal attack with the perpetrator using chemicals unlawfully applied to your property with intent to eliminate you and simply walk away, I can testify that you do not have the mental capacity to walk away from such a brutal attack. I have taken the short end of the stick my entire life. I have been the victim of narcissistic abuse my whole 59 years on this earth. I made a clean break from that situation.  I will be damn if a man with such an obvious, severe case of narcissism and psychopathic mental disorder is going to get away with this unscathed. After eliminating the toxic person that I had no choice to be raised with what are the chances a person with as severe or more severe individual would purchase the property adjoining mine.

This case was clearly premeditated. as he had blueprints that the building officials had to have reviewed,I am mad and I want these individuals held accountable. This never leaves my mind not for a second, not that one man is capable of such brutal acts, but that the entire local city and county government knew and allowed this to happen. The conspiracy to cover up these crimes is ongoing as recent as Memorial day. It will continue to be covered up until someone has the courage to put this story out for the general public to read, hear and see the photo evidence proving this happened. Yet I am the one whose character has been defamed by being falsely associate with illegal drug activity, and when asked any questions about this situation, the only response is that she is crazy, Mark Conlee has done nothing wrong. That statement according to two witnesses came from the mouth of the Mayor. The same Mayor who tried to convince me this is a private issue.  He offered me a job at the local community hospital in the maintenance dept.  He was the head of the department in or about 1995. I declined because I had just purchased this property so I could open my own upholstery business. He has known me personally for longer than he has been the Mayor of this city. I knew him when he was in college. I consider his siblings and mother as my family. I believe outside sources influenced his opinions and decisions. In fact I know that he was told I was crazy, but he should have considered the source, recognized it was hearsay.  There is no excuse for an term Mayor to allow and participate in crimes to be committed against me.

witnesses, conspirators,

The Good Old Boy Network,

Effects Toxic Chemical had with Direct Contact on my Skin

About Celeste Cirinna, City of Montrose Clerk,

About Lee County Detective Bob Conlee

About Attorney Steven Swan Esq

About Lee County, Ia State Attorney Michael Short

Source: https://poisonedbymyneighborfromhell.com – 

9-1-2005 Johnson to Swan letter, full of false statements

TELEPHONE 372-2532 AREA CODE 319 FAX 372-792

 

E-MAIL Johnson@chmi

September 1, 2005

Steve Swan

1013 Concert Street

Keokuk, Iowa 52632

Re: Melody Boatner – Mark and Linda Conlee

Dear Steve:

Ms. Boatner has had major surface water problems since she bought her home. That’s because her lot is lower than the land around it.¹ That was true before my clients added dirt to level their lot. Before my client’s lot was leveled, it steeped more sharply towards Ms. Boatner’s property and sent more water her way.² Also, my clients built their new home deeper in the lot then the prior owner’s house, which results in roof water draining towards Mr. Boatner’s back year instead of towards her home.³ The old driveway described as a “berm” was man-made and apparently altered the natural flow of surface waters to Ms. Boatner’s benefit. Because it was man-made, my clients had the right to remove it They have plans to build a raised garden in the same general vicinity as the old driveway, which may similarly benefit Ms. Boatner.

Mark suggested to Ms. Boatner that she lay tile around the perimeter of her house. That would have been a simple,but effective remedy for Ms. Boatner, but she’s not done that. Mark and Linda attended a council meeting and convinced the city to dig a drainage ditch in front of their properties. Ms. Boatner stood to benefit from that proposal, but didn’t bother to attend the council meeting. She later complained that she has to maintain the drainage ditch that was installed as a result of my clients’ efforts.

Mark and Linda are trying to get along with Ms. Boatner. They will not, however, agree to a drainage ditch on their land. In addition to being unsightly, a ditch would be a maintenance problem and a liability concern. Ms. Boatner is, of course, free to do what she wants on her own land.

I think we can resolve this dispute if we all meet at the properties and discuss the options.

                                                                                      Very truly yours,

                                                                                                   Gregory A J

                                                                                                    GAJ/tas Cc: client

Completely false statement. A Review the transcripts and an email to Boatner from Steve Swan ESQ will show Conlee’s only witness testified Boatners property never received stormwater runoff from Conlee property. Water damage was caused by stormwater running from the city street which Boatner remedied before she repaired the water damage to her home when she purchased it in 1995.. Witnesses Randy Kirchner and Stuart Westermeyer were prepared to testify to this. Boatner’s attorney Steven Swan ESQ intentionally suppressed their testimony and affidavits from the court. Swam conspired to violate Boatners State and Federal right to enjoy her own property.
Expert witness on Boatners behalf Robert Dodds was prepared to testify that a berm and swale that has been in place for 10 years is considered existing and cannot be removed, Boatner’s attorney suppressed Dodds testimony
There is no reason Boatner should have to make any alterations to her property do to a neighbor’s illegal property redevelopment. That is not typical or acceptable by any reasonable standard. It would have been reasonable for the building official to do his duty and oversee compliance to State building laws. This redevelopment was not to code by review of blueprints.
There is no reason Boatner should have to make any alterations to her property do to a neighbor’s illegal property redevelopment. That is not typical or acceptable by any reasonable standard. It would have been reasonable for the building official to do his duty and oversee compliance to State building laws. This redevelopment was not to code by review of blueprints.
5 This is so outrageous and false it is unbelievable. Any reasonable person can visually see the increased stormwater to Boatners property is a direct result of Conlee’s illegal property redevelopment. The Conlees never had a ditch install

 

9-5-2017 To whom it may concern,

To whom it may concern,                        9-5-2017

I have a case of conspiracy deprivation of rights under color of law, terrorist’s acts with intent to cause me serious injury ​or death. Contrary to the advice of a local FBI agent that my case is civil. All actions against me are criminal not civil. I believe bribes have been taken by several of the local government officials involved in this conspiracy to acquire my real property. I have no authority to access financial records. The FBI does. In my opinion the main attacker has a severe case of narcissistic/psychopathic personality disorder. I have no authority to require those involved to take a polygraph. The FBI does. I am requesting some legitimate answers to questions I have been asking for several years and have received no response.

What exactly determines whether a case of conspiracy against right and deprivation of rights under color of law is civil or criminal. I have researched similar cases. I can find no other case in which the evidence supports one neighbor using chemicals to poison a neighbor. I have found cases where a neighbor has poisoned the neighbors pets. Those case are tried as criminal cases by a prosecuting attorney.

      I finally convinced a local agent to come to my home and review my evidence. I forewarned him that a review of the evidence takes an estimated 12 hours. He advised me that he has no intention of reviewing 12 hours of evidence. This agent stayed for 2 ½ hours. He only took notes from the information I was verbally giving him. He never reviewed the evidence stating that he had seen enough evidence. Never have my witnesses been interviewed.

The county attorney advised me that he would need an independent investigation. What does that mean? I told him that I wanted an investigation. He never responded. I suppose his recent retirement suggests that he never intended an investigation be done. They have no defense. My evidence is undeniable.

According to the official website the FBI investigates cases alleging,

Fabricating evidence against or falsely arresting an individual also violates the color of law statute, taking away the person’s rights of due process and unreasonable seizure. In the case of deprivation of property, the color of law statute would be violated by unlawfully obtaining or maintaining a person’s property, which oversteps or misapplies the official’s authority.

  1. False arrest and fabrication of evidence: The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right against unreasonable searches or seizures. A law enforcement official using authority provided under the color of law is allowed to stop individuals and, under certain circumstances, to search them and retain their property. It is in the abuse of that discretionary power—such as an unlawful detention or illegal confiscation of property—that a violation of a person’s civil rights may occur.
  2. The Fourteenth Amendment secures the right to due process; the Eighth Amendment prohibits the use of cruel and unusual punishment. During an arrest or detention, these rights can be violated by the use of force amounting to punishment (summary judgment). The person accused of a crime must be allowed the opportunity to have a trial and should not be subjected to punishment without having been afforded the opportunity of the legal process.
  3. Failure to keep from harm: The public counts on its law enforcement officials to protect local communities. If it has shown that an official willfully failed to keep an individual from harm, that official could be in violation of the color of law statute.

Significant Racketeering Activity

The FBI defines significant racketeering activities as those predicate criminal acts that are chargeable under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations statute. These are found in Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 1961 (1) and include the following federal crimes:

  • Mail Fraud
  • Obstruction of Justice
  • Arson

 

“Domestic terrorism” means activities with the following three characteristics:

  • Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
  • Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
  • Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.

 

18 U.S.C. § 2332b defines the term “federal crime of terrorism” as an offense that:

  • Is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; and
  • Is a violation of one of several listed statutes, including § 930© (relating to killing or attempted killing during an attack on a federal facility with a dangerous weapon); and § 1114 (relating to killing or attempted killing of officers and employees of the U.S.).

This began when my neighbor purchased that lot adjoining mine from the Mayor of my town. I purchased mine in 1995, completely renovated, and upgraded all structures. I had a comfortable home, a garage, and workshop which I operated a successful upholstery service. I had satisfied the loan within 5 years.

      Both the neighbors and my property are legally nonconforming lots 70’w X 300’l. The frontage of both properties was 5th St. When he first constructed the illegal nonconforming garage I was concerned. The fact that not only had he regraded the fill dirt he trucked in to direct storm water onto my property, he also changed the direction of the over sized roof surface 90° from the existing garage diverting all storm water onto my property. His garage was illegal to begin with in regards to redeveloping legally nonconforming property. A building permit should have never been issued for this structure. The building official refused to address my concerns. I was advised he intended to build living quarters on the second story; The County reassessed the value of my property at a loss of $10,000 for my three undeveloped “half” lots.

The following year a suspicious fire destroyed the existing home. The neighbor apparently changed his mind about building a living quarters in the upper level of the nonconforming garage. He constructed a new over sized home; again, to large to comply with current building codes, he altered the  frontage of his home, now the frontage of the home is the city alley. The building permit for this structure was signed and approved by the city building official. This permit lacked a fee amount charged and the signature of the builder.

The existing conflict of interest between those involved made it impossible for me to get any protection of my rights from law enforcement. Multiple times I attempted to contact the city building official as standard procedure provides citizens to remedy of such situations. The building officials never responded. I did catch him outside his home planting garden and showed him the aerial photo, advised him that the illegal removal of the berm was the cause of my foundation washing out. He stated that he had forgotten about that berm. I assumed he would take action as his duty describes and remedy the situation. He did not, when asked by a witness on my behalf and fellow council member if he was going to address my concerns he stated that he was not. The mayor did come by and tell me “he cannot do that but it was a private issue”. Apparently, the mayor had not reviewed the permits prior to voicing his opinion, According to the city ordinances he has no authority to act as City building official. I went to the next council meeting with the building permits in hand and before I could ask my question the Mayor volunteered his knowledge that the builder’s signature alleviates all liability of the city. At that time I submitted the building permit issued and approved by the building administrator but not signed by the builder, there were no comments made by the mayor or any other person attending the meeting. You could have heard a pin drop. My questions have yet to be answered. Public record shows the mayor implicating himself in several similar situations.

Lee County detective Bob Conlee did misrepresent his authority by acting as a building authority for the City, advising his brother, “the neighbor” that he was not responsible for my damages. The County detective had no jurisdiction or authority to act as a city official and violation of a conflict of interest being he is the brother of this neighbor.

At this point the neighbor, Mayor, building official, and Lee county detective intentionally conspired to deprive me of equal protection of the law.

I developed what I referred to as a “rash” on my shins. This was not a normal itch as from a bug bite or poison ivy, although I have never had poison ivy. This was an intense itch, according to the dermatologist it was caused by something I had never been exposed to. Only after the grass turned green in the spring did I discover the neighbor had applied toxic chemicals to my property. I verbally told him upon discovery not to apply anything to my property, not to come onto my property and followed up requesting an incident report from the Chief of Police. The neighbor continued to apply the chemical to my property routinely for the next 5 years. I did receive an incident report from the Police Chief 16 months after I requested it.

Within 9 months of first discovering the chemicals I was unable to function, I could not bear to wear clothes. My rash had developed into a full body severe skin condition; the neighbor was elected to City council after the first year of intentionally exposing me to toxic chemicals. His intent was clearly to cause me financial harm by using his position to harass me.​

      I was constantly being issue citations from the City, every time the charges were dismissed. The city clerk on the neighbors behalf fabricated ordinances, altered the original building permit for the new home to conflict with what my expert witness had observed when he came to the location and wrote a letter pertaining to the building permit issue to the mayor and myself, including the State drainage laws. All the summons against me for criminal acts issued by the county attorney were based on fabricated laws. ​Every dismissal only increased the aggression of the neighbor.

He began applying the chemicals to the city’s easement on my property. The chemicals washed across the property of two downstream neighbors, killing all living things. The neighbor called the EPA.  A field investigator came to the location and took written statements from the two neighbors, and myself. I advised him that I just wanted to know what the chemical was so my dermatologist could provide treatment for a specific chemical. The field investigator advised me that I should go to the council meeting and ask them because it would be 9 months before the lab results would be completed. I went to the council meeting. The neighbor remained seated in his position as if there was no conflict of interest. Standard procedure would require him to leave the room because my complaint was against him. I told them that I needed to know what the chemical was that was applied to my property strictly for medical purposes. Not one person said a word. Not one person suggested they would find out what the chemical was. It was obvious by visually looking at my arms that my health had rapidly deteriorated. To me that was the most brutal of all the attacks on my person. The following day I stopped the Director of the street dept. and told him what had happened at the meeting. He advised me they could not tell me because they did not know any chemicals were being applied to the City easement. The EPA sent the city a warning letter stating all the laws they had violated in applying the chemicals. The reason the EPA got involved was the fact that the easement of my property was the point source of the headwater of a creek that feeds directly into the Mississippi River. The chemical was determined to be glyphosate, there is no specific test or treatment for exposure to glyphosate because it is against the law to trespass on the property of another. To apply chemicals to another person’s property, knowing it was believed to be causing health problems to the owner is criminal. The field investigator advised me that my situation is “unheard” of. The city was issued a warning letter stating all the laws that were violated in applying the chemicals. There have never been chemicals applied by the City in this area before or anywhere else in town that I am aware of.

There is no other case in which one neighbor has been allowed and assisted by law enforcement  to expose his neighbor to toxic chemicals with intent to cause serious injury or death. This man was using these chemicals to eliminate me. His illegal property redevelopment was rejected from being recorded on the county plat map. He determined to remedy the situation by eliminating me and acquiring my property. He chose to do this by unlawfully applying toxic chemicals to my property. This man could have never achieved his goal of eliminating me if not for the assistance of his co-conspirators all of whom were city or county government officials. This was premeditated and nearly cost me my life.

I am requesting a full investigation into my allegations and this criminal enterprise be held accountable to the highest degree of the law.

  • My right to due process was violated.
  • My right to enjoy my property was violated.
  • My right to free speech was violated.
  • My right to equal protection of the law was violated.

Using chemicals with intent to cause serious injury or death can and should be considered attempted murder in this case. I did not willingly give up my property. A County officer stopped by my house to advised me that this man had no intention to stop using chemicals to eliminate me.

Perjury, knowingly making false police reports, fabricating evidence, fraud, obstruction of justice, conspiracy against rights, deprivation of rights under color of law. All of these allegations are all criminal offenses.

Being advised this is a civil case in my view is nothing short of advising me to take the law into my own hands. I have no authority to prosecute criminal offenses. I have no authority to search for bribes being taken by reviewing the financial records of these individual’s. The Federal authorities are the proper authority to investigate and prosecute the crimes alleged in this document. Advising me that this is a civil case is the same as telling me that for justice to be served I must invoke my rights given by the second amendment.

Is that what I should be forced to do? I need answers to these questions. I am being forced to commit a criminal offense, so justice can be served? Nobody has ever been in this position in the history of the United States. How many civil cases are filed against criminal offenses?

I know the duty of law enforcement is to protect the rights of the people. I know it is not the duty of law enforcement to fabricate evidence, act as a witness for a person who intends to violate a court order. As recent as April 2017 warn a city clerk an investigation is going to happen so she has the opportunity to suppress evidence that was prior to the warning, posted online for the public to read. When I tally it up every crime that has been committed against me in this case it completely describes what is  listed on the FBI website as being high priority. An FBI investigation is required to hold government accountable for public corruption. Any information that has been or will be stated by local authorities to a higher authority will be fabricated, I know that for a fact. No person has ever reviewed my evidence. The only two people who know the facts of this story are me and my terrorist attacker, the neighbor.  I have been advised this is a civil case. I strongly disagree.  I was not allowed to file a trespassing complaint against this man when he was unlawfully applying chemicals to my property. I did in fact hire an attorney to sue the City, he took my money and I suspect he took some money from the neighbor. My attorney claimed he filed the complaint. He did not file a complaint.

The neighbor filed a civil complaint against me for, of all things, loss of enjoyment of his property. I within my legal rights put up a privacy curtain. The attorney that I hired to sue the city countered with a nuisance drainage complaint. He failed to question any of my “compelling” witnesses. The same witnesses he referred to as experts in their own right. He failed to notify me that a decision had been made. When I did find out a decision had been made I called him and he advised me that to file an appeal he would need $4000 and he did not want to do it anyway. He advised me that I only had 7 days left to file an appeal. I did attempt to get the transcripts from the court and spoke with a Jody Green. She advised me that the transcripts would not be available until Feb. and the price would be $27.00 I believe. I have the detail including date and amount written down in my evidence. How ethical is it for an attorney to withhold testimony and written affidavits from the court. How ethical is it for an attorney to acknowledge the judge had errors in his decision based on what the only relevant witness the neighbor had. How ethical is it for an attorney to claim he file a complaint on your behalf against the liable party but did not. The evidence will support my attorney conspired with the neighbor violating my State and Federal Constitutional rights. The court dismissed my counter complaint  because the evidence and witness testimony was suppressed. I did not understand why he countered against the neighbor in the first place. I knew what my attorney advised me of the first day we met. The city is the liable party in my case. My attorney advised me that we would sue both parties. I hired him to present my case against the city I had nothing to do with a complaint against my neighbor. The city allowed and assisted the neighbor to violation the state building code and drainage law. The counts of perjury the neighbor and his attorney committed are unbelievable. He could not keep his interrogatories from conflicting with his courtroom testimony. Was the judge involved in this conspiracy? You review that evidence and give my your opinion. The court dismissed his case citing my “right to use my property as I see fit”. I felt a sense of relief. I understood the judge intention was for me to control my property in all matters.

After the court ruling the neighbor, accompanied by the police chief, approached me while I was in my yard to informed me that the neighbor was going to move the 48 landscape timbers that I had placed on my side of the common boundary to divert the nuisance stormwater drainage to the city drainage ditch the best I could. I advised the neighbor that if he had a problem with the boundary the proper procedure is to file a civil complaint against me again. I asked the police chief why he was there. He responded that he was acting as a witness that the neighbor told me in advance that he was going to move the landscape timbers on my property. At that time I advised them both that I intended to invoke my second amendment rights. I went directly into my house and returned with a long arm single shot pellet gun. I told the police chief to never knock on my door again. He never knocked on my door again. As a normal human being, I to need to sleep. I was still trying to operate my business. I had not planned on spending this many hours defending my person and property against a neighbor who showed no sense of reason since he began his property redevelopment 2 years earlier. I went out in the yard the next morning and he had moved the protective landscape timbers and pulled up the lawn edging I had just installed as an additional form of protection. The only authority available for me to file a complaint to was the same police chief that had conspired to allow me to be poisoned in the first place. He stated the reason he would not issue the neighbor a citation was because he did not want to make him mad. I completely understand why someone would not want to get on this seemingly psychopaths bad side. I experienced his unconscionable, unreasonable behavior personally.

Within a matter of weeks the police chief was given the opportunity to resign with a positive recommendation to the next police department that hired him or be terminated. He chose to resign. The day after I was forced to defend my property with a weapon against the neighbor and law enforcement, one of the city deputies called me and advised me that the city did have an ordinance prohibiting bb guns. As if an ordinance was going to prevent me from defending my person and property from trespassers.

The next violation committed against me the neighbor reported gun shots fired from my property. A city deputy along with a string of Sheriffs officers swarmed my home. The reason for this was because the neighbor wanted to know if I did have weapons in my possession. They went so far as to call my son at his work and as him if I had weapons. The neighbor knowingly made a false police report. Making false police reports is also listed on the FBI website as a criminal offense. Again a review of my evidence will support all my allegations. No person of authority has ever reviewed my evidence except the county attorney. All evidence as been supported by “the neighbor said”.

This man and the local government officials have shown no regard for my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.  The chemicals he was using were literally killing me.  Lee County attorney sent a deputy to my home to investigate a second criminal complaint the neighbor had filed against me for “giving him the finger”. I showed the deputy the court order, specifically where the judge is citing of my right to enjoy my own property. I advised the deputy that I wanted to file a trespassing complaint against the neighbor. The neighbor ignored the court order as if he was above the law. The deputy advised me that the court order did not specify chemicals could not be applied to my property adding that he was only at my home to investigate the complaint my neighbor filed against me for giving him the finger. He left and that complaint was dismissed due to lack of evidence. There is no law against giving anyone the finger, this was the second complaint for the same criminal charge the County attorney file on his behalf against me. This one the citation included “he was tired of me doing this all the time. Trumping up the charge to harassment.

I was advised that all criminal complaints must be referred to the county attorney by the Sheriff or other law enforcement authority. Well in this case that is not going to happen because of the conflict of interest existing among my attackers. I do not know if the city and county officials who followed behind this County Attorney, Mayor, building official/council member, and neighbor/council member were involved on the conspiracy against my rights or if they were manipulated into believing all they were told by this neighbor. I do know I have never been given the opportunity to tell the story and present the evidence in its entirety to any authority. about this in a public forum, or in a private meeting. Exposing public corruption in my case has been one of the most difficult tasks I have had to face in my 60 years on this earth. In this land of the free. This was nothing less than a brutal life threatening attack waged against me by my local government officials. It was not the neighbor until after he suspiciously was elected to city council that had the duty to protect my State and Federal rights.

I am mad as hell and I am not going to take it anymore. I will not allow my rights to be violated  It is not my duty, nor did I take an oath to uphold the rights given by the Constitution as every person involved or notified about this situation has. I simply will not let it go. This was nothing short of feeling as if I have been gang raped. This is constantly on my mind. It will not go away. It should not go away as this in not what the Nation aspires to do to its citizens.

If I put chemicals on anyone’s property only one time I would be charged with trespassing. This was done to me with no regard to human life for over 5 years. I am angry and time does not ease the pain. I suffer from PTSD as a result of the ongoing attack against me by this enterprise of government officials. To suggest a statute of limitations has expired is an insult to my intelligence. There is no statute of limitation for terrorism. The attack against me was in violation of my State and Federal constitutional rights. The State itself was actively supporting the violation of my rights. The attorney I hired conspired against my rights. You can visit https://poisonedbymyneighborfromhell.com to see some of the hard copy evidence that supports my allegations. This is only the tip of the iceberg of the criminal offenses committed against me to acquire my property. Deprivation of rights under color of law.

Sincerely,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Former Lee County Attorney Michael Short and Chief of Police Brent Shipman make a well formed militia, no way justice was going to be served.

         I am searching for any civil cases in which the plaintiff has filed a civil complaint alleging trespassing against the private party. I want to see any civil cases in which the plaintiff has filed multiple counts of fraud against another person. I want to see any legal action in which the plaintiff has filed a civil case alleging the defendant has committed a criminal offense. I came across the document above when I believe Lee County Detective Bob Conlee was attempting to set me up for a drug bust. If you would review Lee County Attorney Michael Short . Short  advised me that “he” would decide who gets prosecuted in Lee County, Iowa. He wasn’t kidding he was willing and did everything needed to protect Mark Conlee in his unprecedented illegal actions against his neighbor.
Most of you have the common knowledge of the laws and rules a Sheriff has the duty to provide to the citizens in their County described below. I am still waiting for the results of an investigation into my allegations as stated by then County Attorney Mike Short and current Lee County Sheriff Stacy Weber. Weber has a conflict of interest that is next to none according to the record. He certainly learned from the best of the best as former County Detective Bob Conlee is described as his mentor. His reason for getting into law enforcement as a career choice.
Working with Federal and State Legislatures to create laws providing safer communities

The SHERIFF is the only elected Law Enforcement Officer in the State of Iowa.

THE DUTIES OF SHERIFF INCLUDE:

  • Execution and return of all legal civil papers
  • Enforce the law of the State of Iowa
  • Enforce County Ordinances
  • Conduct criminal investigations
  • Provide Law Enforcement services to the Judicial Court System
  • Supervise all jails and the custody of incarcerated offenders
  • Maintain the Sex Offender Registry
  • Patrol all areas of the county
  • Respond to any and all disasters within the county
  • Assist other Law Enforcement agencies
  • Sustain Iowa VINE for Victims
Mr. Short failed the citizens of Lee County to a serious degree beginning in filing two criminal complaints against me on behalf of his number one colleague Detective Bob Conlee and his brother, Mark Conlee. The complaints were clearly frivolous and fabricated.  There is no existing law against giving the middle finger to another person.

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.                                                                                                                  County Attorney and Chief Shipman are acting as puppets on Mr. Conlee’s behalf. Denies legitimate allegation with hard evidence supporting Conlee was continuously applying chemicals  unlawfully to Boatners property with intent to cause serious harm.

 

 

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

This is an example of the standard procedure followed in any action in this “criminal” case. There was no local government official willing to honor their ethical oath. They were all completely devoted to Mark Conlee’s goal to acquire his goal. It was like they were hypnotized. I know full well that the County attorney should know what is a criminal violation and what is a fabricated law. Chief Shipman scratched out the last sentence as I advised him there was no law preventing a citizen from having two licensed, insured vehicles on their private property. Mark Conlee used his position as council member to push past any recognition of ethical standards. I feel like I have been raped by these public servants. I will never be the person I was prior to the physical assault by this gang.in their quest to acquire my property. No holds barred, they were intent on this goal. I was unable to assert my rights to save my life.

Violation of Federal law. This situation is not difficult to understand.

Sheriff Weber recently told me there has been an investigation into my allegations since May 1st. The only thing that I am aware of that has happened is the city clerk still participating the the conspiracy to cover up the evidence of the City officials implicating themselves by taking down the City’s webpage that had the min of the meeting since 2005.

This situation is not difficult to understand.

Mark Conlee, brother of Lee County Detective Bob Conlee purchased the legally non conforming property from Mayor Dinwiddie. He began redeveloping the property by tearing down the existing single car garage, trucking in enough fill dirt to elevate the property in some areas 10′ higher than before, he constructed a nonconforming 2 story oversized garage. He altered the roof surface from standard procedure by turning it so it diverted storm water runoff directly onto my property, he changed the grade of the fill dirt so all storm water ran onto my property. My property lost value of $10,000 just because the drainage was forseeable going to cause my property uncontrollable flooding. In questioning this illegal structure I was advised Conlee intended to build a living quarters in the upper level. Standard procedure requires drain tile to be installed around the base of the slab, it was not. Standard procedure requires gutter and downspout to be installed and directed to the city drainage ditch, it was directed directly to divert storm water from the massive roof onto my property.

The following spring there was a suspicious fire that supposedly destroyed the existing trailer. Suspicious to me because the only firemen on the scene that morning were Mayor Dinwiddie, building official/fire chief Mark Holland, Mark Conlee and the son of Mark Holland. The son, Jake was a former resident of the Conlee property, we discussed the fire after the fact. I discovered that only 2 weeks prior there was a trailer fire at a nearby mobile home park that was caused by the same M.O. I understand my testimony is not acceptable but several weeks prior to the fire after his new garage was finished he came over to my yard and gave a friend who was with me a message from his brother in Fla. At that time I asked him, “now that you have that nice new garage what are you going to do with the trailer, he said he wanted it to burn. I was still understanding he was going to build a living quarters in the second level of the garage. The morning of the fire, there was no fire alarm that went off, being 1 block from my house I was always awakened by the siren. That morning I was awakened by the clanging of the fire hose being connected to the hydrant on my corner of the street. The only fireman who acted in an attempt to extinguish any fire was the son, Jake Holland. The other 3 on the scene did nothing but stand on the sidewalk the entire time and chat. Jake got the hose connected and was motioned to lay it down. There was no action physical action made to extinguish any fire. After some amount of time an hour or so Mark Conlee puts on the hazard uniform and enters the home. He exits about 5 minutes later empty-handed and gives the others still on the sidewalk a nod. They continue to stand on the sidewalk for another hour or so. Jake puts the equipment away and they go on about their day. I find it suspicious that Dinwiddie and Holland did not go to their regular job that morning. Conlee went to work and was called home. There was no smoke coming from the building, there was nothing telling that a fire had happen to the building after it was over.

Conlee almost immediately builds a new home. There is no question that the building permit is illegal. He changed the frontage of the home to now be the alley, that is illegal. The roof surface is also altered from standard procedure just as the garage and directed to divert storm water directly onto my property. I advised Conlee that we needed a ditch, reasonably to run directly down the common boundary since he was the one who had the new redevelopment that caused the problems to my property. He was unwilling to have it on his property, the man I was going to barter upholstery for excavating a ditch backed out fearing a liability if he happened to get on Conlee property since there had been no survey, only a verbal agreement on the common boundary. Conlee illegally removed an existing berm that had been put in place by the original owners of both property for the sole purpose of protecting my home structure from storm water runoff from the Conlee property when the original home burnt prior to 1972 when they brought in the mobile home. Berm and swale were commonly used at that time for this purpose. The berm was on the Conlee side of the common boundary, the swale was on my side of the common boundary. The building officials refused to address my concerns, his duty is to oversee property redevelopment is in compliance with State building and drainage laws. When he refused to come to the location I contacted Lee County Ext, agent Robert Dodds, he did come to the location and took some photos. I had many questions I showed him the building permit which lacked the signature of the builder Mark Conlee but was signed and approved by the building official. Mr. Dodds noticed some other discrepancies on that building permit. He questioned why years before when he built a garage he had to pay a pretty significant amount for the fee charge of his building permit. Mark Conlee had paid no fee according to the permit. He explained that in regards to storm water drainage and property development you are not allowed to divert more storm water to the neighboring property than before the redevelopment. He sent a copy of the letter to Mayor Dinwiddie allow with drainage laws. Dinwiddie had no regard for this expert opinion. When all other times any opinion from Mr. Dodd has held high regard with the city of Montrose.

I hired attorney Steve Swan to sue the city of Montrose. Retired Sheriff’s officer, John Farmer referred Swan to me. John worked for the city of Montrose prior to moving up to the sheriff’s dept. He is well aware of the characters who hold positions in Montrose. I met with Swan and he advised me that John Farmer had briefed him on the case, John told him that I did not have many financial resources. I had been self-employed as an upholsterer since I purchased my property in 1995. I was never without work, but I basically charged what I needed to pay my bills, explains why I had a backlog of work for over a year at all times. Swan also advised me that he had spoken to Lee County Detective Bob Conlee, Bob had already lied to him when he told him his brother never trucked in any fill dirt but poured the new slabs just as the property existed. He advised me that my case was a tort case and we would sue both parties, Conlee and the city. He asked if I would be willing to barter upholstering his vehicle for his service. I willingly took him up on that offer, I was so moved by his kindness I had to pull over on the highway because I was crying with gratitude. The following day I received a copy of a letter of intent he sent to Conlee the previous afternoon. The letter demanded Conlee remedy the nuisance drainage problem in 10 day or he would file an injunction against him. Conlee began removing the existing evidence of the berm and its height, he built a little roof over the door on the side of his house as if he had not changed the frontage of his property.

I emailed Swan multiple times on the 10th day telling him to file the injunction. I never heard another word from him and he filed no injunction to stop work.

Soon after this, a rash developed on my shins, I referred to it as a rash because that was what it appeared to be to me. I thought perhaps an allergic reaction to something. I had never had any problems prior to this with my skin, I had never even have poison ivy.The itch was intense, nothing similar to a bug bite. I had used a push lawnmower since I purchased my place, I did that for cardio, and in fact I never wanted a riding lawn mower. The next time I went out to mow I noticed that the neighbor had applied something to my side of the common boundary. I had never been exposed to what I assumed was weed killer. I had not changed my routine for 10 years. It seemed reasonable that whatever this neighbor was apply to my side only of the common boundary could possibly be the cause of what had now rapidly spread over other parts of my body. I told him and the new police chief that day not to apply anything to my property and explained I thought it could be the cause of my skin eruptions. I requested an incident report from the police chief.

By this time my opinion of Mr. Conlee’s character was less than honorable. He knew my property was flooding, my foundation had been damaged and he was unwilling to allow me to have a ditch dug down the common boundary. He continued using the chemicals without hesitation as routine yard maintenance applying them to my property only. I kept requesting the incident report from Chief Shipman and he kept coming up with excuses as to why he did not have it for me, a witness says he was lying about the reason he did not have it. When I did receive it 16 months later the first on was not satisfactory in detail, I told him no that I wanted one with the details. A week later he gave me a half-hearted report. By this time my rash had become a severe skin condition. My entire body was raw. The pain was excruciating, it was unbearable to wear clothes.

I had requested a trespassing complaint be file on my behalf early on. Every request denied by the City and Lee County Attorney. The chemicals now had become a weapon with intent to cause me serious injury. The fact that I was denied equal protection of the law and access to the courts make this a conspiracy deprivation of rights under color of law.

It became clear to me the reason Conlee would not stop applying chemicals to my property when I realized he was unable to get the illegal redevelopment recorded on the county plat map.

Lee County attorney Mike Short suggested mitigation two years in a row, I was willing. Even sent my report in the mail to the mitigation service. However Mark Conlee was not. He knew his illegal redevelopment would be order to be removed. return the lot back to the original state. His excuse the first year was because he had paid an attorney to represent him in a civil case he filed against me. In that case the judge dismissed his case citing my right to enjoy my property. I put up a privacy curtain and Mr. Conlee believing my backyard was his backyard because he changed the frontage of his home to face the alley was offended by the curtain. I knew I was well within my rights. I always know the law before I ever act. I felt a sense of relief by the judge’s ruling. My right to enjoy my property in my mind meant no more chemicals on my property either. I was wrong about what the ruling meant to Mark Conlee and Chief of Police Brent Shipman. They approached me in my yard one day and Conlee advised me he was going to my the railroad ties I had legally placed down my side of the common boundary to divert the storm water toward the city drainage ditch. I advised him if he had a problem with the boundary line he would need to file another civil complaint. I question Brent Shipman as what was purpose of him being with Conlee. He advised me that he was acting as a witness that Conlee was telling me ahead of time that he was going to alter my property. At that point I advised them both that I intended to invoke my second amendment right. I advised Chief Shipman never to knock on my door again. I headed to the house to get my weapon, you never saw two adults run up a hill so fast.

Imagine now, here I am, my body completely raw, trying to meet deadlines for my upholstery clients and having to defend my property every afternoon from 3:30pm the rest of the night.

I retrieved my weapon, a single shot long arm pellet gun and stood guard on my property till way past dark. I had to have some rest, I had other responsibilities so I went in the house and laid down to sleep a bit. When I woke up the next morning I went out to check the boundary line. Sure enough Conlee had moved the railroad ties I placed to protect my property. I had them held in place with staubs. I had new lawn edging put in place and the railroad ties were pushed every which way. The staubs were broken off, the edging pull out of the ground and just laying there. My skin condition was full body, I was terrified to go near that boundary in the first place, I have never felt so violated in my life. This was done in contempt of a court order. I called the only authority of the law available Chief Shipman and told him I wanted to file a trespassing complaint against Conlee. He asked me if I saw him do it. I told him he was the witness that Conlee was going to do it. It was complete violation of my rights. It was a conspiracy.

I again contacted Lee County attorney Mike Short, he advised me that he doesn’t let neighbors file complaints against each other because it never stops. Yet I was charged by the State and City several times on fabricated laws and ordinances on Conlee’s behalf. I never even got into the courtroom. Conlee did not even show up. I was told by Montrose Deputy Judd that Conlee was on vacation in Fla. What kind of public servants are these people. What kind of people conspire with intent to cause serious injury to anyone? Narcissists are described as these kind of people. It only take one narcissist to manipulate a group of people into believing anything they say. With every complaint that was dismissed against me the more aggressive the City, on Conlee’s behalf, became to find me guilty of a crime. Public record has a discussion about it. The council and Mayor discuss going to speak with the judge. What does that mean? Offer him a bribe? The judge knew the laws. The judge knew what wasn’t against the law. What else would they feel they needed to speak to him about?

Well the reality set in after 5 years of being abused by my local government officials, committing criminal acts against me. I had by this time lost my eyesight, unable to read, unable to recognized people, I was terrified. A neighbor using chemical weapons with intent to cause serious injury is defined as terrorist acts. If he is capable of doing this what would he not do to eliminate me? These government officials conspired to commit terrorist acts against me. Deprived me of my rights under color of law, committed a conspiracy against my rights as well as defamed my character and fabricated ordinances and laws in an attempt to cause me financial harm.

Mark Conlee had to have my property to ever get his illegal redevelopment recorded on the county plat map and he decided the action to take was to eliminate me. I had two options one was to shoot him dead or flee and seek justice according to the law. I mistakenly chose the latter option. To date I have gotten little if any interest in my story. I am sure if the right person gets to read this action will be taken and justice will be served. But how long? The City and Prosecuting attorney had the duty not to let this happen in the first place.

One other thing I want to mention in regard to Mayor Dinwiddie and his property. Several years ago a woman spoke to the city council about opening a tattoo shop in a building that was available, the council discussed this and they did not think a tattoo shop would represent the city as they wanted it to be represented. It was only a short time later that a different woman spoke to the council about opening a tattoo shop in a building she intended to purchase from Mayor Dinwiddie, the city council was all for this new business in town. What is the difference? Mayor Dinwiddie would receive a personal financial gain just as he did when Conlee purchased the legally nonconforming lot from him.

Attorney Steve Swan conspired with Conlee in violation of his oath to represent his clients best interest

Lee County Attorney Mike Short conspired with Mark Conlee by denying me equal protection of the law, access to the court, and terrorist acts. Conspiracy against rights under color of law.

Lee County Detective conspired with Mark Conlee in misrepresenting his authority to be that of a building official, he was acting without jurisdiction, he defamed my character and knowingly made false statements associating me with illegal drug activity. Conspiracy against rights under color of law.

The most recent act of conspiracy was when Sheriff Stacy Weber advised the city clerk that there was an investigation that initiated City clerk Celeste Cirinna took down the City of Montrose website that contained the minutes of the council meeting and evidence of these officials implicating themselves to suppress the evidence. I have copies of all the meeting minutes.

City clerk Celeste Cirinna committed multiple counts of fraud, conspiracy against rights. But Lee County attorney refused to prosecute any of these criminal offenses. They already knew they could do anything and not be held accountable by local law enforcement. The evidence cannot be disputed, they have no defense.

What is not in violation of Federal law in this case is my question?

Melody Boatner

https://poisonedbymyneighborfromhell.com