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.

In Regards to Congressional inquiries into my case by Senator Charles Grassley

Date: 5/17/17 2:49 PM (GMT-06:00)

To: “Reinwart, Thomas J. (OM) (FBI)” <Thomas.Reinwart@ic.fbi.gov>, “Kaufmann, John (Grassley)” <John_Kaufmann@grassley.senate.gov>, National Crime Victim Law Institute <NCVLI@lclark.edu>, founders@equaljusticeunderlaw.org, investigative reporters and editors <mhorvit@ire.org>,and a few more.
Subject: In regards to two Congressional inquiries by Senator Grassley

I have repeatedly attempted to get an agent to physically review the evidence I have gathered during and extended period of time in which my civil rights were violated by my local government officials. To date no agent has reached out to me in an attempt to review my evidence. 

My contact with a Federal agent was on behalf of phone calls I made to my local division. One other agent who was not over the division covering my area did speak with me. This agent was referred to me by a local official who clearly has a conflict of interest with those who violated my civil rights. I am sure that his intent was to divert any serious investigation. I received two letters from Assistant Deputy Director J. C. Hacker stating the the Cedar Rapids, Iowa division found no violation of Federal law. I would like the opportunity to speak with Agent Hacker to inform him that there has never been a review of my evidence and would like an explanation as to how a decision could be made with no review of my evidence. My evidence is undeniable that Federal law has been violated. I have requested Agent Reinwart forward my emails to J. C. Hacker, however he does not seem interested in doing so. I am again requesting this email to be forwarded to Agent J.C. Hacker, recognizing the possibility that my allegation are correct and a conflict of interest caused the evidence initially given to the Agent from the Quad Cities to be tainted should be taken into consideration. I again want to stress this case is unprecedented and seemingly unbelievable, a review of the evidence will prove my allegation are justified.

I am writing this letter on behalf of the following excerpt from a FBI review which was presented to Senator Grassley.

Recognizing the FBI works closely with the local authorities with no review of my evidence justice cannot be served, the crimes committed against me were perpetrated by my local government officials. The FBI clearly has only heard one side of this case, apparently falsified, I have no clue what the agent from the Quad Cities was told. I do know what the evidence I have proves without a doubt.

sincerely,

Melody Boatner  

Author’s note: I have repeatedly been advised by Grassley staff to be patient, the FBI would contact me. That never happened. Negligence on the part of the FBI is unacceptable. Ten years I was patient. Ten years is an unreasonable amount of time to be patient when a citizen has been assaulted with chemicals and forced from their private property by local government officials. 

Eventually I did contact SA Thomas Reinwart. Not impressed with his enthusiasm. Not impressed with his investigative skills. Hearsay is what he used as evidence. He advised me that he came to my home for the purpose of reviewing the hard copy indisputable evidence. He never interviewed any of my witnesses, he never looked into financial records for bribes, he never interviewed my Drs. His opinion was based on what I verbally told him and what Sheriff Weber verbally told a third party. Had he reviewed the evidence he would have discovered whatever the Sheriff stated was false. How many cops tell the truth, 0. They are trained to lie. This sheriff was trained by a mentor that has repeatedly made false statements about me. I have requested evidence to support what he has said, but there is none.

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

I really have to repost this letter, how many criminals admit to intentionally causing someone harm.

Really you people who have not read this letter I received from the AUSA read it. The prosecutor’s job is to take the hard copy evidence (not hearsay) and use it to convict the criminals. Using hearsay is not evidence!!! There has never been an authority that has taken the time to review my evidence. He may be assuming my evidence is assumptive, because the SA refused to review my hard copy evidence. This guy needs to resign if he does not know that private property rights are Federally protected. Here are the Federal crimes that my evidence supports beyond a reasonable doubt. These Federal imposters are protecting some of the most hardened organization of crime I have heard of. They nearly killed me. This guy really thinks I should have evidence posted that will implicate the highest ranking law enforcement of the county. Yeah that would be real smart on my part.

10-3-2018 Kevin VanderSchel pg 2

This is a guy who has the duty to prosecute public corruption, he shows himself to be a participant. Regardless of any issues he intends to participate in the violation of my rights.

Proof that this violation of Federal law cannot be disputed, the evidence proves this did happen. There is no assumption of any kind. The neighbor admitted to it in a civil court trial. I asked this AUSA if he had the authority to violate a civil court order, he said he did. I do not believe that for a minute. If that were the case why would people bother with having a civil court trial? Liars and thieves are the only thing I recognize from these government officials. I want to see hard copy evidence that he has the right to violate a civil court order. I will not take hearsay to be a fact. I am not suppose to contact his office anymore, He can kiss my butt. He works for me and he will pay the price for lying and conspiring to violate my Federal rights. He won’t take me up on my challenge to fist fight. He must be a puss.

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 nonculpable 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.

The Power of a Federal Prosecutor

Looking for expert answers to this question. If a State district judge makes a ruling in a civil case. Does a Federal Attorney have the right to violate or ignore that district courts ruling without having to appeal or have some type of court hearing to overturn the previous ruling of the District court?

It does not seem reasonable to me that if a District court order has no relevance from the day the case is decided, what is the purpose of even have a District court trial? Just for the attorneys to make money? I am not buying that. I know the attorneys are there to make money but I do believe that a court order is intended to be complied to until an different determines it is not. I do not believe that AUSA Kevin VanderSchel in his position as Assistant Prosecuting Attorney for the Southern District of Iowa has any power to simply ignore a court order as he advised me he did. I think he is knowingly making false statements. Someone show me a document that gives that power to an attorney. I do not have any reason to believe one word that comes from the mouth of any government official. Hearsay is not evidence, even the common citizen knows that.

About AUSA Kevin VanderSchel First Assistant Attorney for the Southern District of Iowa.

This guy takes the cake. Like if its not on this website it there must not be evidence, pretty assumptive of the AUSA for the Southern District of Iowa. Chemical warfare has nearly cost me my life and he thinks its a good idea to put all my evidence out here for the public to view, even the deranged people who used chemical warfare to eliminate me from my property. What is it that he is calling assumptive? All the evidence I have posted is hard copy original documents. If he cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that chemical weapons were used to eliminate me from my private property when even a civil court order or no law enforcement would stop him from applying chemicals to MY property, he should really find a new job. This case is cut and dry. Any reasonable person who would read the evidence I have posted has no doubt this was an intentional act. This evidence is based on facts, SA Reinwart wanted to used hearsay evidence, when the hard copy evidence is right in front of him. He wasted tax payer money to travel clear to the tip of Iowa to refuse to review hard copy evidence and ask for hearsay. When a person knows he is causing another person physical harm and doesn’t stop what he is doing to cause it, its pretty obvious why he is doing it. There is nothing that I have posted that does not have hard copy evidence to support. Reinwart did not follow procedure for investigation and you have not followed procedure for prosecuting criminals. VanderSchel you are assuming that reasonable people do not know it is illegal to do anything to another person property, not to mention unheard of act of chemical warfare as stated by the EPA field investigator. That is a F(&99+ fact. And I have to mention that you advised me that you would not be the person prosecuting this case anyway so why do you think you have any input about this case at all? You are assuming you have some kind of authority over a case that you are not the prosecutor of. That show a defect in your personality any reasonable person can determine that to be a fact also. An attorney of minimum experience could win this case. The evidence is solid as a rock. Not the hearsay, the hard copy evidence. Hearsay does not stand up in court, don’t you know that?

10-3-2018 pg 2 Kevin VanderSchel

10-3-2018 pg 2 Kevin VanderSchel

Exposing public corrupt personnel at all levels.

Well this may be against my best interest but at this point what do I have to lose. I am publishing the email of the FBI SA who refused to review my hard copy evidence. Did not look into the financial record of the accused to see if perhaps a bribe has been paid. He accepted hearsay to be evidence. My case did not even get issued a case number. He did not recognize that private property rights are Federally protected rights. He continued to claim that no Federal law has been broken when anyone who has taken the time to review the evidence agrees with me that Federal laws have been violated on more than one occasion. tjreinwart@fbi.gov. He goes by the first name of Thomas.

The AUSA immediately advised me that he would not prosecute giving me three different reasons at three different times. The first three reasons I submitted evidence that he was incorrect as to what the evidence proved he was basing his decision on. Knowing he has been given false information or information based on hearsay by the above named FBI agent. The most recent decision not to prosecute was because he has the authority. I sent him guidelines suggested by the Attorney General but to no avail. The letter states that I am not supposed to contact this AUSA again. They will not put any more resources into my insignificant case. I explained that a civil court order early on in my favor was violated by the local government officials and he callously does not care. Kevin.VanderSchel@doj.gov. he of course goes by the name of Kevin.

There is no record of any citizen being forced to flee from their private property due to unlawful application of toxic chemicals being applied, ongoing for over 5 years. NONE. It seems to me that anyone who would continue an act that he knows is causing anyone else physical harm has some mental health issues. I know I would not do anything to anyone else’s property because it is illegal and immoral. It seems the Federal authorities feel that they can join in this figurative gang rape. I feel they need to be held accountable as well as the locals. There is nothing I have posted that is based on hearsay or based on fabricated information. There is much evidence that I have not posted. If these individuals are satisfied that they have upheld their duty and the oath they took to uphold the Constitution of the United States then they should be proud of their job performance in my unnumbered case. They never showed any real intent to defend my rights given by Federal law. They should be proud of their actions in this case that has multiple violations of Federal law. Anyone who reads my information and feels my Federally protected rights have been violated I urge you to email these individuals and let them know that private property rights are Federally protected rights and any other opinions you may have that Federal law has in fact been violated. Terrorism is not a violation of Federal law I have been told. Only supporters of terrorism are violating Federal law, so clearly the local officials who would not stop this neighbor from applying the chemicals to my property are supporters of terrorism. Yes herbicides and pesticides are considered chemical weapons. I have done all the research to know that violations of Federal law have occured.

If something happens to me it is well documented as to who may be involved. Just saying. Glyphosate is harmful to human beings when not applied as directed on the label. This is what is wrong with our Government today. Covering up and supporting corruption is not what the FBI has the duty to do. I want to know why I am exempt from the same rights that every other citizen takes for granted, as I did when I fled from my home, business and property. There is no justifiable reason any US citizen should have to suffer what I have suffered.

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”

Video

Local zoning requirements

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

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

Psychopathy check list

Profile of the Sociopath

This website summarizes some of the common features of descriptions of the behavior of sociopaths.

  • Glibness and Superficial Charm 

  • Manipulative and Conning 
    They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims. 

  • Grandiose Sense of Self 
    Feels entitled to certain things as “their right.” 

  • Pathological Lying 
    Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests. 

  • Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt 
    A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way. 

  • Shallow Emotions 
    When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises. 

  • Incapacity for Love 

  • Need for Stimulation 
    Living on the edge. Verbal outbursts and physical punishments are normal. Promiscuity and gambling are common. 

  • Callousness/Lack of Empathy 
    Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others’ feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them. 

  • Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature 
    Rage and abuse, alternating with small expressions of love and approval produce an addictive cycle for abuser and abused, as well as creating hopelessness in the victim. Believe they are all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no sense of personal boundaries, no concern for their impact on others. 

  • Early Behavior Problems/Juvenile Delinquency 
    Usually has a history of behavioral and academic difficulties, yet “gets by” by conning others. Problems in making and keeping friends; aberrant behaviors such as cruelty to people or animals, stealing, etc. 

  • Irresponsibility/Unreliability 
    Not concerned about wrecking others’ lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously committed. 

  • Promiscuous Sexual Behavior/Infidelity 
    Promiscuity, child sexual abuse, rape and sexual acting out of all sorts. 

  • Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle 
    Tends to move around a lot or makes all encompassing promises for the future, poor work ethic but exploits others effectively. 

  • Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility 
    Changes their image as needed to avoid prosecution. Changes life story readily.

Other Related Qualities:

  1. Contemptuous of those who seek to understand them
  2. Does not perceive that anything is wrong with them
  3. Authoritarian
  4. Secretive
  5. Paranoid
  6. Only rarely in difficulty with the law, but seeks out situations where their tyrannical behavior will be tolerated, condoned, or admired
  7. Conventional appearance
  8. Goal of enslavement of their victim(s)
  9. Exercises despotic control over every aspect of the victim’s life
  10. Has an emotional need to justify their crimes and therefore needs their victim’s affirmation (respect, gratitude and love)
  11. Ultimate goal is the creation of a willing victim
  12. Incapable of real human attachment to another
  13. Unable to feel remorse or guilt
  14. Extreme narcissism and grandiose
  15. May state readily that their goal is to rule the world

(The above traits are based on the psychopathy checklists of H. Cleckley and R. Hare.) 


NOTE: In the 1830’s this disorder was called “moral insanity.” By 1900 it was changed to “psychopathic personality.” More recently it has been termed “antisocial personality disorder” in the DSM-III and DSM-IV. Some critics have complained that, in the attempt to rely only on ‘objective’ criteria, the DSM has broadened the concept to include too many individuals. The APD category includes people who commit illegal, immoral or self-serving acts for a variety of reasons and are not necessarily psychopaths. 


DSM-IV Definition

Antisocial personality disorder is characterized by a lack of regard for the moral or legal standards in the local culture. There is a marked inability to get along with others or abide by societal rules. Individuals with this disorder are sometimes called psychopaths or sociopaths. 

Diagnostic Criteria (DSM-IV)

1. Since the age of fifteen there has been a disregard for and violation of the right’s of others, those right’s considered normal by the local culture, as indicated by at least three of the following:
    A. Repeated acts that could lead to arrest. 
    B. Conning for pleasure or profit, repeated lying, or the use of aliases. 
    C. Failure to plan ahead or being impulsive. 
    D. Repeated assaults on others. 
    E. Reckless when it comes to their or others safety. 
    F. Poor work behavior or failure to honor financial obligations. 
    G. Rationalizing the pain they inflict on others. 

2. At least eighteen years in age. 

3. Evidence of a Conduct Disorder, with its onset before the age of fifteen. 

4. Symptoms not due to another mental disorder. 


Antisocial Personality Disorder Overview (Written by Derek Wood, RN, BSN, PhD Candidate) 

Antisocial Personality Disorder results in what is commonly known as a Sociopath. The criteria for this disorder require an ongoing disregard for the rights of others, since the age of 15 years. Some examples of this disregard are reckless disregard for the safety of themselves or others, failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors, deceitfulness such as repeated lying or deceit for personal profit or pleasure, and lack of remorse for actions that hurt other people in any way. Additionally, they must have evidenced a Conduct Disorder before the age of 15 years, and must be at least 18 years old to receive this diagnosis. 

People with this disorder appear to be charming at times, and make relationships, but to them, these are relationships in name only. They are ended whenever necessary or when it suits them, and the relationships are without depth or meaning, including marriages. They seem to have an innate ability to find the weakness in people, and are ready to use these weaknesses to their own ends through deceit, manipulation, or intimidation, and gain pleasure from doing so. 

They appear to be incapable of any true emotions, from love to shame to guilt. They are quick to anger, but just as quick to let it go, without holding grudges. No matter what emotion they state they have, it has no bearing on their future actions or attitudes. 

They rarely are able to have jobs that last for any length of time, as they become easily bored, instead needing constant change. They live for the moment, forgetting the past, and not planning the future, not thinking ahead what consequences their actions will have. They want immediate rewards and gratification. There currently is no form of psychotherapy that works with those with antisocial personality disorder, as those with this disorder have no desire to change themselves, which is a prerequisite. No medication is available either. The only treatment is the prevention of the disorder in the early stages, when a child first begins to show the symptoms of conduct disorder. 


Evidence based on hearsay, “Mark Conlee says” False statements made at the city council meetings, in the civil court case under oath, to fellow council members and used by County Attorney Mike Short to bring criminal charges against me. Charges based on fabricated laws. How many psychopaths does it take to force someone from their property using chemicals as a weapon?

Hearsay Evidence based on Mark Conlee said

APRIL 7, 2005,                                                                             PAGE 204  

        MONTROSE COUNCIL MEETING                                               PAGE 2

Drainage ditch. Mark Conlee spoke with Council regarding runoff from his property  into a neighbor’s yard. He says Craig Junkins dug a trench and all is well now.

Authors note. Standard procedure would be that the complainant would confirm whether an issue has been resolved. There was no excavation of a ditch in front of the Conlee property, the drainage problem was caused by the non conforming in size of the new structures and illegal change of the frontage of Conlee’s property    

May-5-2005

MONTROSE COUNCIL MEETING

Councilman Junkins said he talked to Mark Conlee and according to Mr.  Conlee his lawyer told him there wasn’t a problem.

Jeff Junkins has an existing conflict of interest as he is a fellow employee of Mark and Linda Conlee. Junkins made this statement at a public meeting as if it were a fact, possibly giving the general public attending a false opinion of the law. The lawyer Conlee is speaking of is not a lawyer at all, he is misrepresenting his brother who was the Lee County Detective to be a lawyer. Conlee did not seek legal advice until later in the year.

OCTOBER 6, 2005                                                                                                                   

          MONTROSE COUNCIL MEETING                                            

  1. He (Mark Conlee) said her fence blew over during a recent storm.
    1. Mark Conlee is lying about my curtain blowing over, had that of happened he would have had pictures for evidence.
  1. Conlee says there is a lot of traffic there.
    1. Mark Conlee has no view of my driveway from any spot on his property. He fails to mention there is a 4 way stop on my corner. Everyone stops at that corner from any direction, he is defaming my character to be a dope dealer to collude with his brother Lee County Detective’s defaming statements about my character. The fact that I operated a successful upholstery business does bring clients to my home, however it’s not a lot of traffic.
  2. Conlee stated Mark Holland told him he could put a fence on his side of the line he shares with Melody Boatner.
    1. By making this statement Conlee indicates Holland has responded to his complaints about me. In my complaints against Conlee Holland refused his appointed duty.  Holland stated that he had no intention of addressing my concerns about the nuisance drainage caused by the illegal redevelopment.
  3. He says he has put weed killer on his side of the fence.
    1. Photo evidence proves this is a false statement made by Mark Conlee
  4. He states Melody Boatner has put a black curtain on an insecure structure.
    1. I did put a privacy curtain up, however it was not insecure. I was well within my rights to install a privacy curtain. Mr. Conlee made a habit of hollering across the yard at me telling me that he was over the setbacks and such. He would make sure my customers saw him by walking to the center of his yard and giving them a staring look of disapproval. Had Conlee not violated the law and changed the frontage of his property to be the alley he may not have had the impression that my backyard was his backyard. What he seems to believe is his backyard now is actually his side yard. Conlee has no backyard to speak of as his entire property lot is filled with oversized structures that overfill his allotted space.
  5. Conlee says Boatner has broken the law with her wording.
    1. This is another false statement made in a public forum for the purpose of giving the community an unfavorable opinion of my character. I was well within my right to post “Do not spray weed poison on my property. The sign was on my property
  6. Conlee says the black plastic on the lawn is a nuisance.
    1. There is no ordinance stating black plastic is a nuisance, the material was not black plastic it was commercial landscape fabric.
  7. The Conlee’s say they have never had words with her and they have done  nothing wrong.
    1. He has had words with me such as hollering across the yard to inform me that he was over the setbacks. He along with the police chief acting as a witness advised me that he was going to violate the civil court ruling that cited my right to enjoy my property, by physically moving the landscape timbers I had placed on my side of the common boundary to divert the excessive stormwater runoff that he intentionally diverted onto my property. They have violated every law in the book regarding redeveloping a legally non conforming property. However it is the duty of the City of Montrose to oversee that the redevelopment is compliant to State law. The false statements he made to the public defaming my character were enough to give an unfavorable opinion of the general public, I was unable to wear clothes and was unable to function enough to publicly challenge him on his false statements. Not that I have the duty to hold him accountable to the law, that is the duty of law enforcement and the city.
  1. They were attacked with the writing on the curtain and are emotionally upset.

This is not even debatable, I had every right to post “do not spray” and to install a privacy curtain, At the time there was no city fence ordinance. I was physically and emotional destroyed by the intentional terrorist acts committed against me by Mark Conlee and his conspirators of local government authorities. My right to equal protection of the law was violated by the criminal offenses committed by Conlee and the other officials who acted on his behalf. Conspiracy against  rights and Deprivation of rights under color of law. Both of which are violations of Federal law.

Mark Conlee made a false police report stating that he heard gunshots come from my property, this was actually to know if I actually had any guns because that is the day he and Police chief Shipman violated the civil court order and I told him I would invoke my 2nd amendment right.

There are so many lies that I have documented that Mark Conlee make it is ridiculous that nobody even considers questioning anything he says. I am the credible one here, not one of you can find one false statement I have ever made. Lee County Detective Bob Conlee is a liar, his brother Mark has him beat by a long shot. To think these local officials are so stupid to believe anything he says only insults their own intelligence to be less that a turtle. I know for a fact that Mayor Ron Dinwiddie is not a stupid person, he had personal financial gain to be made when he sold this otherwise worthless lot to Mark Conlee for $27,000. Here is my statement to Mayor Ron Dinwiddie, fuck you RD! 

State vs. Boatner


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

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

2002

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


2003

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

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

2004

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The timeliness of this fire is suspicious in itself.

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

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

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

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

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

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


2005

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I believe he to be a psychopath

He has absolutely no conscience.

He is a habitual liar

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

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

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

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

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

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

I was denied equal protection of the law.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2006

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

REGULAR MEETING

January 5, 2006

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

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

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

MONTROSE COUNCIL MEETING

NIMS TRAINING

PUBLIC HEARING

REGULAR MEETING

March 2, 2006

MONTROSE COUNCIL MEETING

SPECIAL MEETING

MARCH 13, 2006

MONTROSE COUNCIL MEETING

REGULAR MEETING

April 6, 2006

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

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

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

Evidence relevant to deprivation of rights under color of law

Conspiracy

Suppressed evidence

Evidence supporting severe pain and suffering from exposure to toxic chemicals

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

From the Lee County Iowa Sheriff’s web page

The Sheriff is an elected Lee County official serving a four year term.

The Sheriff’s Office is responsible in enforcing state and county laws within the county. Duties of the office include but are not limited to the following:

Reports of, and investigation of, thefts, vandalisms, assaults, illegal drug activity, reported child and/or domestic abuse, accidents and all other criminal allegations. Deputies are also responsible for the enforcement of
traffic laws.

I assume this only applies to the County, even though it says “enforcing State and County Laws”. Cities that do not enforce the County and State laws are not under any authority beside their own, right? I was (criminal) assaulted in the City of Montrose, I reported multiple (criminal) offenses of fraud by a city employee, I reported illegal property redevelopment and noncompliant building permits being issued, I reported (criminal) trespassing occurring on a routine basis in the City of Montrose, I reported violations of State and Federal rights by the City of Montrose and Lee County officials, I reported (criminal) conspiracy against rights and (criminal) deprivation of rights violations being committed by City of Montrose and Lee County, Iowa officials. I reported (criminal) conspiracy to cover up evidence by city and county officials. The evidence I have is solid as a rock. Somebody has some splaining to do because what is stated above and copied from the Sheriff’s website and my experience are very conflicting. Maybe they should edit their website making it clear that everything begins  or doesn’t begin with

  • who the parties are.

Yes that makes much more accurate and honest statement in regard to the Lee County Sheriff’s dept.

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  

I opened the letter from the Dept of Justice

The letter stated that the statute of limitations has expired. WHAT? I contact Senator Grassley in 2007. I have been complaining the last several years that the timeliness is unacceptable. Seems the US Attorney is just recently getting my complaint. I am sorry but I am not responsible for any statute of limitations expiring in this case. Whoever received it from Senator Grassley is responsible for any mishandling of my case. A case that is unprecedented. A case in which the most brutal means of attack were used. Chemical weapons were used with intent to cause serious injury or death. They did cause serious lifelong injury and had I not fled I would be dead. If I would have done this to another human being I would be in prison the rest of my life. How can the statute of limitations be expired if the FBI was investigating this case appropriately? Who is the victim of mishandling of a complaint. I am. So what now. I have followed all the proper procedures, except during the time I was blind and unable to function normally. I could not get my vision restored until 2012. I could not read. This is really a disappointment, I thought my case was being investigated all this time, but it seems the US Attorney is just recently getting my complaint. Come on now, this is unacceptable. Senator Grassley will hopefully deal with incompetence. He supports whistleblowers and exposing corruption. I hope he gets to the root of the problem with my case. The evidence supports all my allegations, the perps implicate themselves on public record. What could go wrong?