Are private property right Federally protected rights?

I have asked this question before and have gotten few responses. I can only take the silence of opinions as a “yes” private property rights are Federally protected. I have been advised to get a private attorney. I want to ask why would I need a private attorney when a violation of Federal law is to be investigated and prosecuted by the Federal authorities.

One other question I previously asked was, “does an AUSA have the authority to violate a civil court order with no type of court proceeding”? Again I have to assume that the silence of opinions would concur “no”. An AUSA does not have the right to use attorney discretion to violate a civil court order.

So I understand that the Federal authorities have knowingly made false statements to me. An investigation cannot be concluded using hearsay evidence, and private property cannot be taken without just compensation, as that is a violation of Federal law.

SA Calvin Shivers signed the letter stating that a prior investigation had determined no violation of Federal law has occurred, Shivers has not contacted me, he has avoided me. Why wouldn’t a Federal officer want the facts about any case before he would sign a letter based on hearsay. Have some dignity to you position officers. You are employeed to represent the citizens, not the blue wall of silence. Seems like a bunch of cowards if confronted individually. I have some facts that need to be reviewed and until I am confident the facts have been reviewed I will continue to defend my right to be protected from harm. There are many violations of Federal law that have occurred at the hands of my local government officials. The fact that hearsay was taken as evidence and that hearsay was given no less than from a law enforcement imposter is more reason to question the honesty of this law enforcement officer, I have already submitted clear evidence that this cop has a conflict of interest with the party that used chemical weapons to force me from my property.  They have taken everything I owned. My home, business, property and health. They have taken any quality of life I had planned for my golden years. There is no doubt that Federal laws have been violated. I do not expect anyone to offer an opinion as to why the Feds would not be the proper agency to prosecute, ssshhh don’t expose public corruption, it only a pr tactic on their website. This government would not exist and thrive without a supporting group of thieves protecting self serving colleagues. https://poisonedbymyneighborfromhell.com

Ignorance of the Law is no excuse. Intentional serious injury at the hands of my government officials. What is your intent?

Well I can testify that the chronic skin condition resulting from intentional exposure to glyphosate for an extended period of time is once again seriously severe. I have never been prescribed a higher dose of methotrexate and had the condition to become increasingly severe. I am at the point now that it is unbearable to wear shoes. This pain and severe itching is 24/7. To know that an FBI agent claims to have done and investigation and has found no violation of Federal law based of hearsay stated by the County sheriff to a third party is about to piss me off more than I have ever been pissed on. SA Thomas Reinwart has proven to be incompetent and not qualified to investigate my case. He does not have the knowledge that every reasonable American takes for granted. He does not know that private property rights are Federally protected. His ignorance has proven he had no business being involved in my case that encompassed in violations of Federal laws. His ignorance and incompetence is going to have significant effects to the outcome of this case. Who to whom it may concern that has a connection be it by a third party or via any damn way, needs to extend this message to a high authority. FBI Agent Calvin Shivers signed the most recent letter stating that they have determined no violation of Federal law has occurred, he has completely avoided any contact with me. Tell him he is participating in a crime that is causing serious physical injury to an American citizen. He is knowingly refusing to protect me from harm based on fabricated information. He being the most recent signator of a letter that further violates my individual rights. Has made the choice to protect the blue wall of silence. Do not send any law enforcement to my home, inquiring as to whether I have threatened anyone. Send them to those who have repeatedly attempted to murder me using chemical weapons. It’s in everyone’s best interest. Get these maniacs that have proven to be a danger to society off the streets before they do kill an innocent human being!

Dead End

This Agent does not recognize that using chemicals as a weapon unlawfully applied to my property is in violation of my Federally protected private property rights.

From: songboat [mailto:songboat@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2017 1:14 PM
To: Reinwart, Thomas J. (OM) (FBI) <Thomas.Reinwart@ic.fbi.gov>
Subject: Letter from J.C.Hacker

Thomas

I am attaching my most recent correspondence with I had with you. I received the letter from FBI JC Hacker yesterday. I searched for this individual and there is no person named JC Hacker listed as an FBI assistant director or anywhere else for that matter. Please explain, as there seems to be a conflict between the two letters.

Regarding the evidence I have sent you clearly shows that the continuing unlawful application of toxic chemicals to my property violates my Federal right to enjoy my property. The fact that the unlawful application of toxic chemicals to my property constitutes a criminal offense of trespassing. Denying my right to file a criminal complaint against this trespasser by the City of Montrose police dept, and the Lee County Attorney clearly violates my Federal right to equal protection of the law. The evidence I have sent you supports two or more people working together to violate my Federal rights to privacy and equal protection supports a conspiracy.

My request for a behavioral analysis is reasonable, who in sound mind continues a criminal act (trespassing in this case) knowing the person that owns the property the chemicals are being applied to believes the chemicals are causing severe health problems? Whose duty is it to protect those rights? Local law enforcement has the duty to protect the rights of the citizens from criminal acts perpetrated against them. In this case intentional acts perpetrated against me.

Who has the duty to assure compliance to State of Iowa building and drainage code? The appointed building administrator. In this case multiple counts of fraud have been committed not only the fraudulent building permits but also the document fraud and fabricated city ordinance perpetrated by the city clerk. Fraud also falling into the criminal offense category. The FBI holds public corruption as of highest priority, including conflict of interest. In this case a conflict of interest is relevant between every actor participating in the personal attack against me and my property.

Apparently you do not agree with my allegations, please explain what it is that I am not understanding as a violation of Federal law.

Regards,

Melody Boatner

 

Reply to me

Reinwart, Thomas J. (OM) (FBI) Thomas.Reinwart@ic.fbi.gov

There is not a conflict.  Thus far, there does not appear to be any Federal criminal law violations which have occurred.  Although there may be some local or state criminal and or civil law(s) which may have violated, we do not investigate those activities.  As previously stated in my email with you,

“You have previously written on numerous occasions explaining you have an abundance of evidence to support your claims of the criminal violations you have researched.  Please bring that information to explain and substantiate your allegations.”

Again, we will not provide any type of profiler or behavioral analysis for you.  This is not going to continue to be debated via email.  I am giving you the opportunity to provide any material you feel has not been provided/explained by you to us in the past to substantiate your allegations.

An example of criminal acts investigated by the FBI. There has been no investigation into my allegations. They can’t because my evidence is indisputable.

This is not the case in Montrose, Lee County, Iowa when the corruption is committed against a single middle-aged female.

Does Iowa Attorney General have a Public Integrity Unit. No authority will respond to any of my questions.

Any officials who turns a blind eye is guilty of committing the crime themselves.

“Public safety officials who accept bribes and ignore their duties undermine safety for everyone,” said Schuette.  “Detroit needs more safety, not less, and that starts with public officials doing their job instead of lining their pockets.”

The case originated from an investigation by the FBI-Led Detroit Area Public Corruption Task Force in collaboration with the Michigan Attorney General’s Public Integrity Unit.

“When public officials abuse their positions of trust for personal gain, they will be held accountable for their criminal acts,” said Paul M. Abbate, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI Detroit Field Office. “The FBI and its law enforcement partners on the Detroit Area Public Corruption Task Force are fully committed to ensuring our citizens are served by the honest government they deserve.”

“Public corruption at any level will not be tolerated.  Public employees who are in charge of the community’s welfare must be held to a higher standard and when those employees jeopardize the safety of Detroiters for their own personal gain then they must suffer the consequences.  The bribery convictions of the city of Detroit Inspectors should be an example that crime in the city of Detroit does not pay,” said James E. Craig, Detroit Chief of Police.

Criminal cases remain pending against five current and former Detroit Building Safety Engineering and Environmental Department inspectors Schuette charged in August 2013 for allegedly accepting bribes in exchange for ignoring their duty to enforce city building, zoning, electrical, and plumbing codes. Schuette filed felony bribery charges against current and former inspectors Eric Miller, 50, of Detroit, John Jones, 54, of Detroit, Bob Watson, 52, of Dearborn, and Kenneth Russ, 53, of Detroit, and Moreno Taylor, 53, of Livonia.

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

Author’s note:  There has never been a review of the evidence. Clearly the Mayor had a financial gain, there has never been an investigation into the financial records of the conspirators who clearly violated my Constitutional Rights on this maniac’s behalf. I have hard copy evidence that will prove every perp in this case has no credibility. They have all lied and knowingly made false statements, fraudulent ordinances and fabricated laws to bring frivolous criminal charges against me.  

This is a personal request for Calvin Shivers, FBI Deputy Assistant Director, criminal investigations division

To anyone who has contact or the ability to get FBI Deputy Assistant Director Calvin Shivers a message from me to him.

Officer Calvin Shivers,

I received a letter signed by you yesterday in the mail. It was a response from an inquiry on my behalf from Congressman Dave Loebsack. This content of the letter you sent dated 3-2-2019 is irrelevant. I stressed to the Congressman that I was requesting an independent investigation, or from an unbiased Federal authority. The information you are referring to is based on hearsay evidence. That hearsay evidence was tainted from the facts regarding my complaint by Lee County Sheriff Weber. I have hard copy evidence that supports this is a fact.

Any information given to you has no evidence that supports it to be factual, if it does I have indisputable evidence to prove what you have been given is fabricated.

I have utilized several resources to attempt to reach you. I am confident that at least one of those attempts have been successful in reaching you. I am publically requesting that you contact me personally. The evidence I have supports in the least obvious incompetent investigation into my complaint. Unless hearsay is now an acceptable source of evidence, it is not submissible in a court of law. Every reasonable citizen has that knowledge. The agent investigating my case clearly does not have that knowledge. The agent investigating my case did not have the knowledge that private property rights are Federally protected rights. The agent investigating my case wasted taxpayer money for travel expenses to come to my home specifically to review the hard copy evidence I have in my possession. Upon arrival 14 months after I first contacted him, he advised me that he had no intention of reviewing the hard copy evidence that I had laid out in a manner that it could easily be reviewed. The only logical reason he would refuse to review valid evidence in my opinion is that he knew my evidence supported my allegations. By refusing to review that evidence he could stand proud behind the blue wall of silence and protect those who actions have intentionally caused me serious physical and financial damages. They have committed serious criminal offenses against me. In violation of a civil court order these corrupt officials are not going to resist being held accountable for their crimes. SA Thomas Reinwart had clearly made up his mind to support the corrupt local officials before he ever entered my home.

There is no way that I am going to drop my complaint at least until I know for a fact that a competent investigator has reviewed the hard copy documented evidence that is indisputable. I expect my rights to be recognized as every other citizen takes their rights for granted. I certainly do not expect this degree of local corruption to be hidden and supported by any Federal authority.

The FBI makes it quite difficult for any one on one conversations with a competent official. I have repeatedly tried to file a formal complaint against this particular agent and have yet to discover what the process for filing a complaint is.

Officer Shivers, I am requesting that you telephone me, email me and would prefer a meeting between the two of us. As I tried to explain to the SA this case is to complex to verbally tell the facts to anyone. That’s the option he allowed me to have. He asked that I verbally tell him what Federal violations of the law occurred in a physical attack committed against me for over 5 years. He gave me 2 1/2 hours to tell him a story that took me six years to put in chronological order filling for large 3 ring binders. The entire time I was attempting to explain what had occurred he was steady checking his watch, apparently he was to tight on a time schedule to hear anything I was trying to explain to him. When he left I believe he had three notes written on his notepad.

Now I will travel to your location if need be. I have more information to submit to you however doing so in a public setting could put my life in danger, and I don’t think anyone wants anything bad to happen to me, do you?  I have given you my email and phone number though the linkedin message. I do not care when you contact me, day or night. It takes a special kind of officer to cross the blue line of silence, but somebody with honor and integrity will do it and be honored for upholding his or her oath.

Request to the general public to pass this message on to Deputy Assistant Director Calvin Shivers asking him to contact me asap. URGENT!

In response to AUSA VanderSchel’s opinion that my evidence is assumptive.

AUSA VanderSchel,

In regards to you email stating that my evidence is assumptive. What in this linked file do you find assumptive? You must be assuming the information given to you by SA Reinwart is evidence. He refused to review the hard copy evidence, The purpose for him to come to my home on tax payers money was to review the hard copy evidence I have in my posession. There is no other person who has this hard copy evidence.

 When he arrived he advised that he did not intend to review any evidence, he asked that I just tell him the story and he would take notes. After 2 1/2 hours of him, steady checking his watch and me, trying to verbally explain a story that has nothing similar with compliance to any State or Federal laws regarding private property rights. I believe he had a total of three notes written on his notepad.  The point is that you have been given assumptive information in spite of the indisputable evidence I had prepared for SA Reinwart to review. Have you ever prosecuted a case of public corruption?

 I recently read that the FBI places high scoring academy graduates in areas that have the highest rates of crime, the lowest scoring graduates in the lowest crime areas around the Nation. I am curious if that is the process the DOJ uses in placing AUSA’s? Reinwart repeatedly stated that no Federal law has been violated. I advised him that private property rights are Federally protected rights. He had no change of expression. Perhaps he really does not know that private property rights are Federally protected rights. I can tell you that had he have reviewed the evidence, he or you would have determined that the following violations of Federal law have also occurred and hard copy evidence supports these allegations. The citizens know all too well about the blue wall of silence. In this case the perpetrators are not your “run of the mill” self serving government officials. These perps could have cared less whether it would cost me my life to achieved their goal of acquiring my private property. There is a “special kind of corruption” in the character of these government officials.

You stated that you have the authority to violate a civil court order, with no type of process. You need to submit evidence supporting that is a fact to me, I do not believe you are telling the truth. I believe you are abusing your authority with intent to violate my Federally protected civil rights. If you have no documented evidence supporting your statement then I would have to presume you are conspiring with SA Reinwart to deprive me of my Constitutional Rights under color of law. I do not take anyone’s word to be evidence of any fact. Not Reinwarts, not yours and certainly not Sheriff Weber’s. I know for a fact that his hands are dirty in this case. He in fact has received stolen property that belongs to me. I have no way to prove that but I do have correspondence with him in which he does implicate himself in criminal violations of the law. You suggested that since I had no information on my web page from recent dates the statute of limitations has expired. AUSA VanderSchel, I know that this group of government officials has been willing to sacrifice my life for the purpose of Mark Conlee acquiring my property. Do you really think it would be in my best interest to post evidence of the Sheriff violating State and Federal laws in acts committed against me on a public web site?  Would you mind sharing with me what level of your graduating class you rated. It would be my opinion that you would have been one of the lower level graduating students. You are not considering what is in my, a citizens, best interest are you AUSA VanderSchel. I am requesting evidence from you that supports your claim that you have the legal authority to violate a civil court order.  I do not believe you can use attorney discretion to violate an order made by any judge as you assured me you intended to do.

In speaking with Reinwart about public corruption, he advised that a bribe is taken in a case of public corruption. I argue that the law does not specify that has to be a factor. I also question how can Reinwart assume a bribe has not been taken in this case since he has not reviewed any financial records. There most likely has been favors at least given and taken in this case. There is no question that Mayor Dinwiddie did receive a financial gain being the seller of the property to Conlee. So right there is without a doubt a conflict of interest. That is a fact. That fact supports a public corruption complaint.

Reinwart told me three different versions of how he submitted my complaint to you. Three different versions causes me question his credibility. I have advised you that the information he has given you is based on hearsay. You should be questioning his credibility at this point, don’t you think?

Here are more but not limited to violations of Federal law that has been committed by these corrupt public officials.

Public corruption and civil rights

Corruption

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

Civil Rights

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

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

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

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

Exempted agencies and persons. (b) 

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

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

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

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

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

(1) takes place in the United States;

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

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

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

Chemical Weapons

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

A chemical weapon is:

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • The sale, purchase, or renting of a dwelling;
  • the occupation of a dwelling;
  • the financing of a dwelling;

contracting or negotiating for any of the rights enumerated above;

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

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

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

 ARTICLE XIV.

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

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

respectfully,

Melody Boatner

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B1Pxuwsos4l_U2J6YU1RSDdobVE

18 U.S.C. § 229 – U.S. Code: the violation of Federal law that should ensure justice is finally served

Letter sent to the City of Montrose by the State of Iowa agency in charge of Environmental violations. The City followed no laws that are in place to protect all living things from toxic chemicals. This letter was sent to the Street Dept Director at the time. There had never been any chemicals applied anywhere in town except the cemetery by city employees. These chemicals were applied precisely on the city’s easement on my property. Not an inch past my boundary or an inch short of my boundary.  Only after Mark Conlee was elected to city council were chemicals applied to the easement.

warning to City of Montrose unlawful application of toxic chemicals


warning to City poison

warning to City poison


Conlee had applied chemicals to my side of our 300′ common boundary the year prior to this. He continued to apply chemicals to my side of the boundary this year and for three years after that. Five years straight I was intentionally exposed to chemicals. I complained to the city. I complained to County attorney Mike Short. Short advised me that Mark  Conlee “said”, “he only applied it to the bottom of his side of the fence. Both the city and county attorney had the same reason not to file a criminal complaint against Conlee. They didn’t believe neighbors filing complaints against neighbors was a good thing to do. I was criminally charged by the City and the State on complaints based on “Mark Conlee said” all charges against me were dismissed.  Doesn’t the county attorney know that hearsay is not evidence? Mark Conlee “said” many false statements throughout this attack against my person and my property.

Intentional glyphosate poisoning

chemicals applied to my side of the 300′ common boundary

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

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

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

Exempted agencies and persons. (b) —

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

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

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

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

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

(1) takes place in the United States;

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

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

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

Chemical Weapons

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

A chemical weapon is:

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

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

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

Iowa Code Sec. 237. Section 729.5, Code 2013, is amended to read as follows: 729.5 Violation of individual rights — penalty. 1. A person, who acts alone, or who conspires with another person or persons, to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate or interfere with any citizen in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to that person by the constitution or laws of the state of Iowa or by the constitution or laws of the United States, and assembles with one or more persons for the purpose of teaching or being instructed in any technique or means capable of causing property damage, bodily injury or death when the person or persons intend to employ those Fri Nov 08 16:03:04 2013 59/65 CH. 90 60 techniques or means in furtherance of the conspiracy, is on conviction, guilty of a class “D” felony. 2. A person intimidates or interferes with another person if the act of the person results in any of the following: a. Physical injury to the other person. b. Physical damage to or destruction of the other person’s property. c. Communication in a manner, or action in a manner, intended to result in either of the following: (1) To place the other person in fear of physical contact which will be injurious, insulting, or offensive, coupled with the apparent ability to execute the act. (2) To place the other person in fear of harm to the other person’s property, or harm to the person or property of a third person. 2. 3. This section does not make unlawful the teaching of any technique in self-defense. 3. 4. This section does not make unlawful any activity of any of the following officials or persons: a. Law enforcement officials of this or any other jurisdiction while engaged in the lawful performance of their official duties. b. Federal officials required to carry firearms while engaged in the lawful performance of their official duties. c. Members of the armed forces of the United States or the national guard while engaged in the lawful performance of their official duties. d. Any conservation commission, law enforcement agency, or any agency licensed to provide security services, or any hunting club, gun club, shooting range, or other organization or entity whose primary purpose is to teach the safe handling or use of firearms, archery equipment, or other weapons or techniques employed in connection with lawful sporting or other lawful activity

About Kevin VanderSchel AUSA for the Southern District of Iowa.

Here is an example of how well FBI SA and the AUSA reviewed my evidence. In this letter the AUSA claims that most of the activity occurred 2003-2005. It is well documented that 2003-2005 is when the City allowed for the non compliant to State building code structures built on Mark Conlee’s nonconforming lot to be built. If they would have actually reviewed my evidence, instead of asking that I tell them this complex story they would have discovered the chemical warfare started in 2005-2010, during that time I was unable to get any protection of the law, there was a civil trial that the court ruled in my favor, however Conlee would not comply with that court order and the chemical attack continued on a weekly basis. There is nothing in this letter that is based on the facts the evidence supports. VanderSchel has advised that he has reviewed my website. He could not have mistaken the timeline if he actually had reviewed it. VanderSchel the chemical poisoning began in 2005. Are you being intentionally negligent? I also advised you that when I was forced to flee from my property because I could get no law enforcement to stop this man from applying the toxic chemicals to my property, the full body skin condition was so severe it was unbearable to wear clothes, I was blind, and I was homeless for the following 4 years. So that takes us up to 2014 before I was able to make contact with anyone who has the duty to protect my Constitutional Rights. SA Reinwart does not know that private property rights are Federally protected rights. He does not seem to know about any Federal laws except hate crimes. He did not review my evidence, He did not interview any of my witnesses, he did not interview my Drs., he did not interview the perps or he could have easily charged them with lying to the Feds. You tell me Mr. VanderSchel just what did SA Reinwart do to investigate my allegation. You claim that the statute of limitations had expired between 2013 and 2016, am I responsible to make Reinwart investigate in a timely fashion? I couldn’t even get him to review the hard copy evidence which was the purpose for him to come to my home 16 months after I contacted him. I had previously contacted a female agent from the Hiawatha division and was waiting some time for her to respond as she advised she would, finally I telephoned the number I had previously contacted her with, Reinwart answered and advise that she had been transferred. Is it my responsibility to call and check if an agent has been transferred? I have not read that as a standard procedure for complainants. Not to mention my emails to the Omaha division, and telephone calls to the Washington DC headquarters. I have gone above and beyond reasonable efforts to contact an FBI agent. Senator Grassley advised me in 2009 that an agent would be contacting me. I waited 10 years then I got impatient. Its not as if I have physically recovered from the chemicals illegally applied to my property without any protection of the law and my private property rights for those significant 5 long years.

Letter from Kevin VanderSchel claiming statute of limitations has expired.

Attorney General’s guidelines for FBI investigation

Investigations by the FBI are premised upon the fundamental duty of government to protect the public against general crimes, against organized criminal activity, and against those who would threaten the fabric of our society through terrorism or mass destruction. That duty must be performed with care to protect individual rights and to insure that investigations are confined to matters of legitimate law enforcement interest. The purpose of these Guidelines, therefore, is to establish a consistent policy in such matters. The Guidelines will enable Agents of the FBI to perform their duties with greater certainty, confidence and effectiveness, and will provide the American people with a firm assurance that the FBI is acting properly under the law.

What’s the deal here? Are there any areas within the USA that are excluded? Because the SA that investigated my case did not follow anything about these guidelines, nor did he recognize that private property rights were Federally protected. Who doesn’t know that without having been trained to be an FBI agent?

FBI does not know property rights are Federally protected, he never responded.

songboat <songboat@gmail.com>Aug 19, 2018, 12:33 AM
to Thomas

https://www.fbi.gov/chicago/press-releases/2010/cg092310.htm
You have never looked into the financial records of Conlee and the County Attorney or my attorney or any of the rest of this criminal enterprise, have you? I told you that Mark Conlee’s personality disorder would not allow for him not to keep a record of who he payed off. It the linked case is Federal then why would my case be exempt? My case also falls into the guidelines of violation of international human rights crimes I have been told.So I would think there would be many allegations like mine. If there is no Federal law to hold City and Countys accountable for using chemicals to force you from your property and they happen to have a conflict of interest with the local officials, but the local officials instead of recognizing the conflict, they use the situation for personal gain. Hey, I read about conflict of interest on the FBI website. Why is my case not within the guidelines for Federal conspiracy against rights and deprivation of rights under color of law? By rights I mean my rights given by Amendments 4, 7,8, 14
The FBI is the primary federal agencyresponsible for investigating allegations regarding violations of federal civil rights statutes. These laws are designed to protect the civil rights of all persons—citizens and non-citizens alike—within U.S. territory. Using its full suite of investigative and intelligence capabilities, the Bureau today works closely with its partners to prevent and address hate crime, human trafficking, color of law violations, and Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act violations  

Color of Law Violations Preventing abuse of this authority, however, is equally necessary to the health of our nation’s democracy. That’s why it’s a federal crime for anyone acting under “color of law” to willfully deprive or conspire to deprive a person of a right protected by the Constitution or U.S. law. “Color of law” simply means the person is using authority given to him or her by a local, state, or federal government agency.

The FBI is the lead federal agency for investigating color of law violations, which include acts carried out by government officials operating both within and beyond the limits of their lawful authority. Off-duty conduct may be covered if the perpetrator asserted his or her official status in some way. Those violations include the following acts: 

Excessive force: In making arrests, maintaining order, and defending life, law enforcement officers are allowed to use whatever force is “reasonably” necessary. The breadth and scope of the use of force is vast—from just the physical presence of the officer…to the use of deadly force. Violations of federal law occur when it can be shown that the force used was willfully “unreasonable” or “excessive.” chemical weapons would fall under this catagory

 False arrest and fabrication of evidence: The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right against unreasonable searches or seizures. A law enforcement official using authority provided under the color of law is allowed to stop individuals and, under certain circumstances, to search them and retain their property. It is in the abuse of that discretionary power—such as an unlawful detention or illegal confiscation of property—that a violation of a person’s civil rights may occur. Fabricating evidence against or falsely arresting an individual also violates the color of law statute, taking away the person’s rights of due process and unreasonable seizure. In the case of deprivation of property, the color of law statute would be violated by unlawfully obtaining or maintaining a person’s property, which oversteps or misapplies the official’s authority. This happened multiple times in my case, This is the most personally offensive action against me in my opinion.

 Failure to keep from harm: The public counts on its law enforcement officials to protect local communities. If it’s shown that an official willfully failed to keep an individual from harm, that official could be in violation of the color of law statute. This one is a given. Did you look at the affects the chemicals had on my skin? The scars that I will carry with me on my arms the rest of my life. Nobody protected me from harm. You have the evidence that proves this without a doubt. 

Civil Applications  

Title 42, U.S.C., Section 14141 makes it unlawful for state or local law enforcement agencies to allow officers to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives persons of rights protected by the Constitution or U.S. laws. This law, commonly referred to as the Police Misconduct Statute, gives the Department of Justice authority to seek civil remedies in cases where law enforcement agencies have policies or practices that foster a pattern of misconduct by employees. This action is directed against an agency, not against individual officers. The types of issues which may initiate a pattern and practice investigation include:

  • Lack of supervision/monitoring of officers’ actions; City of Montrose and Lee County Ia
  • Lack of justification or reporting by officers on incidents involving the use of force; Lee County Sheriff’s Dept. and City of Montrose Police Dept.
  • Lack of, or improper training of, officers; and Lee County Sheriffs Dept. and City of Montrose Police Dept
  • Citizen complaint processes that treat complainants as adversaries. City of Montrose, Lee County sheriff dept, State of Iowa prosecuting attorney for Lee County

ADDRESSING POLICE MISCONDUCT LAWS ENFORCED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Federal laws that address police misconduct include both criminal and civil statutes. These laws cover the actions of State, county, and local officers, including those who work in prisons and jails. In addition, several laws also apply to Federal law enforcement officers. The laws protect all persons in the United States (citizens and non-citizens).  

It is a crime for one or more persons acting under color of law willfully to deprive or conspire to deprive another person of any right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. (18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242). “Color of law” simply means that the person doing the act is using power given to him or her by a governmental agency (local, State, or Federal). A law enforcement officer acts “under color of law” even if he or she is exceeding his or her rightful power. The types of law enforcement misconduct covered by these laws include excessive force, sexual assault, intentional false arrests, or the intentional fabrication of evidence resulting in a loss of liberty to another. Enforcement of these provisions does not require that any racial, religious, or other discriminatory motive existed.  What remedies are available under these laws? Violations of these laws are punishable by fine and/or imprisonment. There is no private right of action under these statutes; in other words, these are not the legal provisions under which you would file a lawsuit on your own

Federal Civil Enforcement

“Police Misconduct Provision”

This law makes it unlawful for State or local law enforcement officers to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives persons of rights protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. (42 U.S.C. § 14141). The types of conduct covered by this law can include, among other things, excessive force, discriminatory harassment, false arrests, coercive sexual conduct, and unlawful stops, searches or arrests. In order to be covered by this law, the misconduct must constitute a “pattern or practice” — it may not simply be an isolated incident. The DOJ must be able to show in court that the agency has an unlawful policy or that the incidents constituted a pattern of unlawful conduct. However, unlike the other civil laws discussed below, DOJ does not have to show that discrimination has occurred in order to prove a pattern or practice of misconduct. What remedies are available under this law? The remedies available under this law do not provide for individual monetary relief for the victims of the misconduct. Rather, they provide for injunctive relief, such as orders to end the misconduct and changes in the agency’s policies and procedures that resulted in or allowed the misconduct. There is no private right of action under this law; only DOJ may file suit for violations of the Police Misconduct Provision. 

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 
and the “OJP Program Statute”

Together, these laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, and religion by State and local law enforcement agencies that receive financial assistance from the Department of Justice. (42 U.S.C. § 2000d, et seq. and 42 U.S.C. § 3789d(c)). Currently, most persons are served by a law enforcement agency that receives DOJ funds. These laws prohibit both individual instances and patterns or practices of discriminatory misconduct, i.e., treating a person differently because of race, color, national origin, sex, or religion. The misconduct covered by Title VI and the OJP (Office of Justice Programs) Program Statute includes, for example, harassment or use of racial slurs, unjustified arrests, discriminatory traffic stops, coercive sexual conduct, retaliation for filing a complaint with DOJ or participating in the investigation, use of excessive force, or refusal by the agency to respond to complaints alleging discriminatory treatment by its officers. What remedies are available under these laws?DOJ may seek changes in the policies and procedures of the agency to remedy violations of these laws and, if appropriate, also seek individual remedial relief for the victim(s). Individuals also have a private right of action under Title VI and under the OJP Program Statute; in other words, you may file a lawsuit yourself under these laws. However, you must first exhaust your administrative remedies by filing a complaint with DOJ if you wish to file in Federal Court under the OJP Program Statute. 

Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 
and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 prohibit discrimination against individuals with disabilities on the basis of disability. (42 U.S.C. § 12131et seq. and 29 U.S.C. § 794). These laws protect all people with disabilities in the United States. An individual is considered to have a “disability” if he or she has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, has a record of such an impairment, or is regarded as having such an impairment. 

The ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in all State and local government programs, services, and activities regardless of whether they receive DOJ financial assistance; it also protects people who are discriminated against because of their association with a person with a disability. Section 504 prohibits discrimination by State and local law enforcement agencies that receive financial assistance from DOJ. Section 504 also prohibits discrimination in programs and activities conducted by Federal agencies, including law enforcement agencies. 

These laws prohibit discriminatory treatment, including misconduct, on the basis of disability in virtually all law enforcement services and activities. These activities include, among others, interrogating witnesses, providing emergency services, enforcing laws, addressing citizen complaints, and arresting, booking, and holding suspects. These laws also prohibit retaliation for filing a complaint with DOJ or participating in the investigation. What remedies are available under these laws? If appropriate, DOJ may seek individual relief for the victim(s), in addition to changes in the policies and procedures of the law enforcement agency. Individuals have a private right of action under both the ADA and Section 504; you may file a private lawsuit for violations of these statutes. There is no requirement that you exhaust your administrative remedies by filing a complaint with DOJ first. It was the misconduct of these officers that causes my disability.

It seems it would be appropriate to bring a complaint in violation of fair housing act, I would need to speak with the US Attorney about this issue;

I have also been advised this case is one of environmental protection violations. This case has some elements of all Federal law violations. If you have read this reply “ok”

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.

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  

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.