The fact that FBI Agent Reinwart, refused to review my evidence that supports without a doubt my allegations leaves his decision irrelevant. It does not take a graduate of the academy to know that an investigation requires reviewing evidence from both sides of a case. In an email he sent me he admits that he made his decision based on what I verbally told him and what the County Sheriff told a third party. I even submitted evidence that the Sheriff had a conflict of interest with the opposing party. He made his decision based on false statements given by the sheriff. I asked Reinwart to share with me the information the Sheriff had made in his statements. Reinwart refused. Reinwart was supposed to be investigation this case on my behalf. He could not share the false information given by the Sheriff because I have hard copy evidence that would prove the Sheriff was lying. The sheriff knows no facts about this case. Any information he has is based on lies made by the Conlee’s. I can prove multiple counts of perjury made by Conlee in the civil case. AUSA Kevin VanderSchel was lying when he advised me that he had the authority to violate a civil court order. When we have Federal authorities who have no regard to the oath they took to uphold the Constitution its time for the citizens to unite and remove them from their positions. Dirty Rotten Bastards. I have a purpose to speak to the Inspector General. To expose one corrupt government official is small potatoes. I have an entire group of self serving government impostors that need removed from their positions. Hearsay is not evidence. Dirty Rotten Bastards. Private property is never to be taken without just compensation. Reinwart did not possess the knowledge of any Federal law, who is responsible for putting this incompetent individual in his position? He has shown me that he is not qualified to investigate any case regarding Federal law!
18 U.S. Code § 229.Prohibited activities
(a)Unlawful Conduct.—Except as provided in subsection (b), it shall be unlawful for any person knowingly—
(1)to develop, produce, otherwise acquire, transfer directly or indirectly, receive, stockpile, retain, own, possess, or use, or threaten to use, any chemical weapon; or
(2)to assist or induce, in any way, any person to violate paragraph (1), or to attempt or conspire to violate paragraph (1).
(b)Exempted Agencies and .—
Subsection (a) does not apply to the retention, ownership, possession, transfer, or receipt of a chemical weapon by a department, agency, or other entity of the United States, or by a person described in paragraph (2), pending destruction of the weapon.
(2)Exempted persons.—A person referred to in paragraph (1) is—
(A)any person, including a member of the Armed Forces of the United States, who is authorized by law or by an appropriate officer of the United States to retain, own, possess, transfer, or receive the chemical weapon; or
(1)takes place in the United States;
(4)is committed against any property that is owned, leased, or used by the United States or by any department or agency of the United States, whether the property is within or outside the United States.
18 U.S. Code § 229A. Penalties
The Attorney General may bring a civil action in the appropriate United States district court against any person who violates section 229 of this title and, upon proof of such violation by a preponderance of the evidence, such person shall be subject to pay a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed $100,000 for each such violation.
(2)Relation to other proceedings.—
The imposition of a civil penalty under this subsection does not preclude any other criminal or civil statutory, common law, or administrative remedy, which is available by law to the United States or any other person.
(c)Reimbursement of Costs.—
The court shall order any person convicted of an offense under subsection (a) to reimburse the United States for any expenses incurred by the United States incident to the seizure, storage, handling, transportation, and destruction or other disposition of any property that was seized in connection with an investigation of the commission of the offense by that person. A person ordered to reimburse the United States for expenses under this subsection shall be jointly and severally liable for such expenses with each other person, if any, who is ordered under this subsection to reimburse the United States for the same expenses.
18 U.S. Code § 229B. Criminal forfeitures; destruction of weapons
(3)any of the property used in any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission of, such violation.
The court, in imposing sentence on such person, shall order, in addition to any other sentence imposed pursuant to section 229A (a), that the person forfeit to the United States all property described in this subsection. In lieu of a fine otherwise authorized by section 229A (a), a defendant who derived profits or other proceeds from an offense may be fined not more than twice the gross profits or other proceeds.
(1)General.—Property subject to forfeiture under this section, any seizure and disposition thereof, and any administrative or judicial proceeding in relation thereto, shall be governed by subsections (b) through (p) of section 413 of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 853), except that any reference under those subsections to—
(A)“this subchapter or subchapter II” shall be deemed to be a reference to section 229A (a); and
(2)Temporary restraining orders.—
For the purposes of forfeiture proceedings under this section, a temporary restraining order may be entered upon application of the United States without notice or opportunity for a hearing when an information or indictment has not yet been filed with respect to the property, if, in addition to the circumstances described in section 413(e)(2) of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 853(e)(2)), the United States demonstrates that there is probable cause to believe that the property with respect to which the order is sought would, in the event of conviction, be subject to forfeiture under this section and exigent circumstances exist that place the life or health of any person in danger.
(B)Warrant of seizure.—
If the court enters a temporary restraining order under this paragraph, it shall also issue a warrant authorizing the seizure of such property.
The procedures and time limits applicable to temporary restraining orders under section 413(e)(2) and (3) of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 853(e)(2) and (3)) shall apply to temporary restraining orders under this paragraph.
(c)Affirmative Defense.—It is an affirmative defense against a forfeiture under subsection (b) that the property—
(1)is for a purpose not prohibited under the Chemical Weapons Convention; and
(2)is of a type and quantity that under the circumstances is consistent with that purpose.
(d)Destruction or Other Disposition.—
The owner or possessor of any property seized under this section shall be liable to the United States for any expenses incurred incident to the seizure, including any expenses relating to the handling, storage, transportation, and destruction or other disposition of the seized property.
18 U.S. Code § 229C. Individual self-defense devices
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prohibit any individual self-defense device, including those using a pepper spray or chemical mace.
18 U.S. Code § 229D. Injunctions
The United States may obtain in a civil action an injunction against—
18 U.S. Code § 229E. Requests for military assistance to enforce prohibition in certain emergencies
The Attorney General may request the Secretary of Defense to provide assistance under section 382 of title 10 in support of Department of Justice activities relating to the enforcement of section 229 of this title in an emergency situation involving a chemical weapon. The authority to make such a request may be exercised by another official of the Department of Justice in accordance with section 382(f)(2) of title 10.
18 U.S. Code § 229F. Definitions
In this chapter:
(1)Chemical weapon.—The term “chemical weapon” means the following, together or separately:
(B)A munition or device, specifically designed to cause death or other harm through toxic properties of those toxic chemicals specified in subparagraph (A), which would be released as a result of the employment of such munition or device.
(C)Any equipment specifically designed for use directly in connection with the employment of munitions or devices specified in subparagraph (B).
(2)Chemical weapons ; convention.—
The terms “Chemical Weapons Convention” and “Convention” mean the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction, opened for signature on January 13, 1993.
(3)Key component of a binary or multicomponent chemical system.—
The term “key component of a binary or multicomponent chemical system” means the precursor which plays the most important role in determining the toxic properties of the final product and reacts rapidly with other chemicals in the binary or multicomponent system.
(4)National of the united states.—
The term “person”, except as otherwise provided, means any individual, corporation, partnership, firm, association, trust, estate, public or private institution, any State or any political subdivision thereof, or any political entity within a State, any foreign government or nation or any agency, instrumentality or political subdivision of any such government or nation, or other entity located in the United States.
The term “precursor” means any chemical reactant which takes part at any stage in the production by whatever method of a toxic chemical. The term includes any key component of a binary or multicomponent chemical system.
(B)List of precursors.—
Precursors which have been identified for the application of verification measures under Article VI of the Convention are listed in schedules contained in the Annex on Chemicals of the Chemical Weapons Convention.
(7)Purposes not prohibited by this chapter.—The term “purposes not prohibited by this chapter” means the following:
Any peaceful purpose related to an industrial, agricultural, research, medical, or pharmaceutical activity or other activity.
(C)Unrelated military purposes.—
Any military purpose of the United States that is not connected with the use of a chemical weapon or that is not dependent on the use of the toxic or poisonous properties of the chemical weapon to cause death or other harm.
(D)Law enforcement purposes.—
Any law enforcement purpose, including any domestic riot control purpose and including imposition of capital punishment.
The term “toxic chemical” means any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals. The term includes all such chemicals, regardless of their origin or of their method of production, and regardless of whether they are produced in facilities, in munitions or elsewhere.
(B)List of toxic chemicals.—
Toxic chemicals which have been identified for the application of verification measures under Article VI of the Convention are listed in schedules contained in the Annex on Chemicals of the Chemical Weapons Convention.
(9)United states.—The term “United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States and includes all places under the jurisdiction or control of the United States, including—
Let me tell you how many. NONE. So this FBI agent refused to review my evidence, never checked financial record to see if a bribe has been paid. I believe an investigation into the financial records would show a bribe being taken in the amount of $4000.00. The Assistant US Attorney advised me that no matter what the evidence proves he will use attorney discretion and not prosecute corrupt local officials who used chemical weapons to eliminate me from my private property. He also advised that unless this trespasser states that he intentionally used chemicals to harm me, he would not prosecute. The evidence shows he admits that he applied chemicals to my property, in violation of a civil court order and the medical records show the chemicals caused me serious injury. Who in the hell do they think they are to have the authority to violate a civil court order. Who the hell do they think they are to violate my Constitutional right to private property. Senator Grassley has been advising me since 2007 to be patient, the FBI would contact me, he said. It takes time. Senator Grassley did this over a period of ten years. Clearly if he would not have assured me that there would be a competent investigation I would have found other sources. Senator Grassley don’t be telling your constituents that you can assist with authorities representing Federal law because in this case you have only clearly misunderstood the significance of this violation of Constitutionally guaranteed right to enjoy private property. Somebody needs to pay attention because if you think that I am willing to take this on the chin you better think again. I don’t calm down with everyday that passes, I get more angry. I am pissed off why would you assume my evidence does not fall within the guidelines for public corruption. John Kaufman continued to advise me that you are not an attorney. Well this is so simple to recognize as being a terrorist act that you do not need to be a damn attorney. What happened to the evidence I sent per your special instructions to Penny. Had you of acted on that at that time I would still have my home, business and property. I have asked John multiple times. He simply says that would be to difficult to access. Well this is my life and I believe my freedoms are equally important as you all do. Do not ignore me Senator Grassley I will am not going anywhere until I am confident that you know the facts of this case. You should just go ahead and contact me now so we can get on with this. If not you will succumb to bad karma spirits. You can’t treat a human being like this government, your government has done to me. It is a violation of international law. It is a crime against humanity. You were on that committee when this began and you don’t know what laws you were representing? The actions against me can be considered nothing less that war crimes. Everyone of you took an oath to uphold the Constitution. Everyone of you recognize that using chemical weapons is a war crime. Everyone of you that turn a blind eye instead of looking into my allegations are guilty of committing war crimes. And you have no compassion for committing these crimes against a fellow American? And the victim is what we are seeing as becoming the typical person attacked being a single middle aged female. You would not commit these acts against a man because a man would defend his property by taking up arms. I would have if you would not have continued to assure me that the FBI would investigate. You find me one other case with these circumstances, a person’s private property is taken control of by a neighbor using chemicals as a weapon with intent to eliminate that person. You find a case and I will go away. You will not find a case with these circumstances because every reasonable person knows it is illegal to trespass on the private property of another. Why was I denied filing a trespassing complaint. I have a list of these charges in this county but I was denied by the city and county attorney. Bullshit. You have to attack a single middle aged woman that has more dignity in her little finger that you have in your entire corrupt bodies. Get freshened up on your hate crimes because I can feel any compassion I have had for fellow man has dissipated. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FkbzNnnPg4
Why does a victim have to be diagnosed with cancer? Why wouldn’t intentional exposure to chemicals unlawfully applied to private property causing personal injury be enough to file a complaint against those who applied the chemicals, not according to label directions?
My local government officials used glyphosate unlawfully applied to my private property ongoing for over 5 years routinely. Their purpose was to eliminate me from my private property so one of their own could acquire my private property. This special protected citizen needed my private property or a court would have ordered him to remove the noncompliant structures from his new illegal property redevelopment. He purchased the non conforming lot from the mayor. The building administer issued fraudulent building permits for the illegal structures. After five years the affects the chemicals had on my skin were chronic severe skin condition. It was unbearable to wear clothes, I was blind and homeless for the following four years. My property was my largest investment as most other citizens. I traveled to Washington DC to change the laws allowing me to get out of poverty to acquire ownership of my property. This property not only contained my home but my business and my pursuit of happiness. I was denied any protection of the law. I made a complaint about the nuisance drainage issue caused by the illegal redevelopment and the building administrator refused his duty to address my concerns, he continued to issue fraudulent permits to this special resident. The structures were the size that would legally fit on an acre of ground. He tried to squeeze them onto a 70′ W X 300’L nonconforming lot. A civil court order citing my right to used my property as I wished I thought would stop the illegal exposure to glyphosate. It did nothing by make this neighbor and the government officials more aggressive in eliminating me from my private property. Senator Grassley requested two inquires into my case. The FBI would contact me he advised. After five years I contacted Grassley again and he put in another request, five more years pass and I am advised by Grassley to be patient. The FBI never contacted me as they are required to do. I reached out after ten years of severe suffering, my life forever changed from my plan for my own destiny, to the local FBI. This agent was so incompetent that it took 14 months for him to come to my now rental home. His purpose was specifically to review the hard copy evidence that proves without a doubt Federal law has been violated. He arrived advising me that he had no intention of reviewing my evidence. I could just tell him the story and he would take notes. He gave me 2 1/2 hours of his time to tell a story that was ongoing for well over ten years in violation of Federal law. He had three notes written on his pad when he left. Two hours after he left my home I receive in the mail a letter from Assistant Deputy Director JC Hacker a letter stating that the agent had determined no violation of Federal law had occurred. It is not possible for this incompetent agent to accomplish an investigation and have a decision in the mail from Washington DC two hours after he left my home. He never investigated financial records to discover a bribe had been taken. He never interviewed any witnesses on my behalf. He never followed standard procedure to assure my allegations were valid. This in itself is an act to deprive me of my rights under color of law. This is not acceptable by any government standard. My allegations are completely supported by the hard copy evidence. For anyone to claim that the statute of limitations has expired is ludacris. Any negligence has been intentional of the part of government officials who have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution and have the duty to hold corrupt government accountable for their violations of Federal law. I am one mad single middle aged female. Discrimination against housing has been committed by all levels of government and I am demanding that a full independent investigation be done. The evidence used was not based on facts. It was based on hearsay. I want compensated for the damages that have intentionally been done to me. This is not a joke. My father did not spend his military service in the South Pacific on a ship taking on bombs and kamikaze pilots for me or anyone else to be denied their freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. Drain the Swamp. Here are the facts https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/18mtF3_4WB2u3mEe1OoSb2QpwlgvI25ulAS5BheCPq4Q/edit?usp=sharing
My responses claim the statute of limitations has expired. I am requesting you go back through our previous correspondences and review what you have advised me of this entire time. You advised me to be patient that the FBI would contact me. I waited patiently as you advised for 5 years. I contacted you again and you graciously submitted another request for an inquiry, advising me throughout the next 5 years to be patient, you said “it takes time”. The FBI never contacted me now for ten years. The FBI was negligent. The FBI had the responsibility to contact me. When finally I contacted the local FBI myself, he him hawed around taking 14 months to come to my home specifically to review the hard copy evidence. Upon arrival he advised me that he was not going to review any documented evidence. He instead determined no federal law has been violated based on hearsay from the sheriff to a third party. I have evidence to prove the sheriff knowingly made false statements about what took place. I have evidence that proves the sheriff has a conflict of interest with the opposing party. That is why I asked for an independent investigation. I am not responsible for the statute of limitations expiring, in fact the statute has not expired considering the government’s negligence and fraudulent actions against me in the taking of my property without just compensation. I see no where the violation of the Federal bill of rights has an expiration date, in fact the 5th amendment states that private property is never to be taken without just compensation. Senator Grassley needs to demand an investigation into the negligence of the FBI in this case, I have never slacked off what I know to be the Federal government’s duty to prosecute corrupt public officials. Has a bribe been paid, no doubt. SA Thomas Reinwart refused to look into the financial record, interview witnesses or provide any type of competent investigation. Hearsay is not evidence, point blank. They say the lowest scoring agents of a graduating class are place in the areas of the lowest criminal events. I can only speculate that SA Reinwart was of the lowest scoring graduates. He knew when he arrived at my home the decision he was going to make based on hearsay as the sheriff had already given his false information to the third party.
Two hours after SA Reinwart left my home I received a letter in the mail from Wash DC headquarters that Reinwart had determined no violation of Federal law had occurred. It is not possible for him to come to my home, submit a report to Washington and had the determination sent back to my from Washington DC two hours after he left my home. This is a blatant violation of the public’s trust and only encourages local government that they can get away with crimes against humanity or any other violation guarantees of individual rights. It is not acceptable.
Senator Grassley would not approve of this type of behaviour from a Federal agent. My Constitutional Rights are just a relevant as those who violated those rights by the forceful taking of my private property using chemicals as a weapon. Please step up and demand the law to actively competently investigate the evidence and defend my individual rights as if they were your own. This is not an option, Constitutional rights are mandatory to be upheld. The criminal offenses committed against me ar serious. From the issuing of the fraudulent building permits to the use of glyphosate that resulted in life long health effects I will suffer. Senator Grassley and Congressman Dave Loebsack please represent you constituents.
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!
Letter sent to the City of Montrose by the State of Iowa agency in charge of Environmental violations. The City followed no laws that are in place to protect all living things from toxic chemicals. This letter was sent to the Street Dept Director at the time. There had never been any chemicals applied anywhere in town except the cemetery by city employees. These chemicals were applied precisely on the city’s easement on my property. Not an inch past my boundary or an inch short of my boundary. Only after Mark Conlee was elected to city council were chemicals applied to the easement.
Conlee had applied chemicals to my side of our 300′ common boundary the year prior to this. He continued to apply chemicals to my side of the boundary this year and for three years after that. Five years straight I was intentionally exposed to chemicals. I complained to the city. I complained to County attorney Mike Short. Short advised me that Mark Conlee “said”, “he only applied it to the bottom of his side of the fence. Both the city and county attorney had the same reason not to file a criminal complaint against Conlee. They didn’t believe neighbors filing complaints against neighbors was a good thing to do. I was criminally charged by the City and the State on complaints based on “Mark Conlee said” all charges against me were dismissed. Doesn’t the county attorney know that hearsay is not evidence? Mark Conlee “said” many false statements throughout this attack against my person and my property.
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.
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:
- 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,
- a munition or device designed to cause death or harm through toxic chemicals that would be released by the device, or
- equipment designed for use directly in connection with using such a munition or device.
A toxic chemical is a chemical that can cause death, temporary incapacitation, or permanent harm to people or animals.
The law specifies that it does not apply to self-defense devices such as pepper spray or chemical mace. It also does not prevent uses related to (1) industrial, agricultural, research, medical, or pharmaceutical activity; (2) protection against chemical weapons; (3) unrelated military purposes; and (4) law enforcement purposes such as riot control and imposing the death penalty.
Iowa Code Sec. 237. Section 729.5, Code 2013, is amended to read as follows: 729.5 Violation of individual rights — penalty. 1. A person, who acts alone, or who conspires with another person or persons, to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate or interfere with any citizen in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to that person by the constitution or laws of the state of Iowa or by the constitution or laws of the United States, and assembles with one or more persons for the purpose of teaching or being instructed in any technique or means capable of causing property damage, bodily injury or death when the person or persons intend to employ those Fri Nov 08 16:03:04 2013 59/65 CH. 90 60 techniques or means in furtherance of the conspiracy, is on conviction, guilty of a class “D” felony. 2. A person intimidates or interferes with another person if the act of the person results in any of the following: a. Physical injury to the other person. b. Physical damage to or destruction of the other person’s property. c. Communication in a manner, or action in a manner, intended to result in either of the following: (1) To place the other person in fear of physical contact which will be injurious, insulting, or offensive, coupled with the apparent ability to execute the act. (2) To place the other person in fear of harm to the other person’s property, or harm to the person or property of a third person. 2. 3. This section does not make unlawful the teaching of any technique in self-defense. 3. 4. This section does not make unlawful any activity of any of the following officials or persons: a. Law enforcement officials of this or any other jurisdiction while engaged in the lawful performance of their official duties. b. Federal officials required to carry firearms while engaged in the lawful performance of their official duties. c. Members of the armed forces of the United States or the national guard while engaged in the lawful performance of their official duties. d. Any conservation commission, law enforcement agency, or any agency licensed to provide security services, or any hunting club, gun club, shooting range, or other organization or entity whose primary purpose is to teach the safe handling or use of firearms, archery equipment, or other weapons or techniques employed in connection with lawful sporting or other lawful activity
The ugly truth that government-approved chemicals applied daily to crop fields cause cancer is finally seeing the light of day, thanks in large part to the release of a trove of never-before-seen documents known collectively as the “Poison Papers.” Released by the Bioscience Resource Project (BRP) in collaboration with the Center for Media and Democracy […]
via Joint criminal enterprise | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII / Legal Information Institute
Joint criminal enterprise
“Joint criminal enterprise” (“JCE”) is a mode of liability created by judges on the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) that allows the tribunal to bring charges against members of a group responsible for [[wex:war crime][war crimes]] or [[wex:crime against humanity][crimes against humanity]] even if there is no evidence that the particular individuals physically participated in the crimes (see ICTY Appeals Chamber, Milutinovic et al., 21 May 2003). JCE is distinct from the doctrine of conspiracy in American criminal law in that actual perpetration of the acts is required, rather than just a meeting of the minds (Id.).
Throughout the violence that has been committed against me I have searched for agencies or resources that assist with cases committed in the United States. My situation is supported by what is described as crimes against humanity, yet all roads lead to other Countries. Public Corruption cases being exposed are easily found outside of the boundaries of the United States. What’s up with all the assistant given by citizens for causes outside of the United States. The corruption within the United States is overflowing and there are no agencies that seem to be concerned with or willing to expose these crimes. Outside of the United States media is sure to report about people being poisoned. Inside the United States this is happening but not being published for the general public to be informed about. Double standards and lack of news coverage about cases in this Country makes it all to easy for our imposter leaders to get away with these crimes as, out of sight out of mind, seems to be the standard procedure in reporting on matters of this nature. https://poisonedbymyneighborfromhell.com
This is if the product were used according to the directions, clearly the intentional exposure that I suffered was not according to directions. EFFECTS OF TOXIC CHEMICALS HAVING DIRECT CONTACT WITH MY SKIN
The year 2015 hasn’t been kind to Monsanto. In March, the World Health Organization declared that the company’s flagship product, its herbicide glyphosate or Roundup, is a probable human carcinogen. Increasingly, national health ministries are taking a hard second look at glyphosate’s health and environmental dangers and efforts are underway to ban the herbicide. To protect its citizens, last year the Netherlands, Bermuda and Sri Lanka have either banned or imposed strict limits on Roundup. Last June, France banned its use in gardens. Brazil, Germany and Argentina are considering legislative bans. And this month, California’s environmental protection agency launched plans to label Roundup as a carcinogen.
Glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide in the world today. Over 130 countries currently permit extensive use of the chemical. The US is the largest consumer, using approximately 20% of the world’s Roundup. The latest reliable figures from the US Geological Survey record 280 million pounds of Roundup were used in 2012, nearly a pound for every American. In 2013, gross profit of $371 million on crop chemicals including Roundup climbed 73% due to a 37% increase in sales. That same year Monsanto’s net income rose 22% to $1.48 billion.
Over the years a large body of independent research has accumulated and now collectively provides a sound scientific rationale to confirm that glyphosate is far more toxic and poses more serious health risks to animals and humans than Monsanto and the US government admit. Among the many diseases and health conditions non-industry studies identified Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and autism since Roundup has been shown to instigate aluminum accumulation in the brain. The herbicide has been responsible for reproductive problems such as infertility, miscarriages, and neural tube and birth defects. It is a causal agent for a variety of cancers: brain, breast, prostate, lung and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Other disorders include chronic kidney and liver diseases, diabetes, heart disease, hypothyroidism, and leaky gut syndrome. In addition to lung cancer, glyphosate may be responsible for today’s growing epidemics of chronic respiratory illnesses among farm workers and their families. However, these findings derive from outside the Big Agriculture industry. Private industries routinely defend themselves by positing their own research to refute independent reports. Consequently, for several decades it has been a he-said-she-said stalemate. Monsanto is content with this. It can conduct business as usual, Roundup sales increase, and the debates and media wars continue without government interference. Then who is protecting the public?
Government officials and health regulators more often than not simply ignore these studies even if published in peer-reviewed journals. The bulk are independently funded. Most have been performed in foreign nations and therefore American bias dismisses them outright. Furthermore, Monsanto and other large chemical agricultural companies are quick to counter and discredit adverse scientific findings. The company has the financial means to retain large international PR firms, such as Burson-Marsteller and Fleishman Hillard, consultation firms and think tanks, as well as large armies of hired trolls and academic spokepersons to mobilize damage control upon notice and protect the integrity of Monsanto’s products and public image. It funds and orchestrates self-serving research at universities and research laboratories to increase an arsenal of junk science. And of course it has Hillary Clinton and Bill Gates as its celebrity cheerleaders.
The EPA continues to align itself with Monsanto’s safety claims and limits glyphosate’s risks to kidney, reproductive and carcinogenic damage; and the warning only applies for very long-term exposure to high levels of the toxin. Anything under that is considered harmless. The EPA continues to approve small amounts of glyphosate as safe in drinking water to children. Its safety level is 0.7 ug/L. This was determined back in 1994, and after 20 years of further research into glyphosate’s biomolecular activities and health risks, the level has remained the same.[7,8] A review of existing data sponsored by Moms Across America found that out of 21 drinking water samples analyzed, 13 had glyphosate levels between 0.08 and 0.3 ug/L, well below the EPA’s limit, but significantly above the European Union’s limit of 0.1 ug/L.
While the company manages to successfully dodge scientific research outside its purview, the tables would certainly turn if it could be proven in a court of law that Monsanto has known for decades that glyphosate is one of the most toxic substances ever launched on the public, which adversely affects almost every tissue and cell in a mammal’s body.
Imagine for a minute that evidence emerged to implicate Monsanto on a massive cover-up and manipulation of scientific data from hundreds of research trials. If it were Monsanto’s data indicting itself about glyphosate’s toxicity, and if it can be shown the company falsified, masked or fudged its data to win regulatory approval, it may likely be the largest corporate scandal in history. The question could Monsanto be charged with crimes of omission and more deservingly crimes against humanity?
This scenario may not be fantasy or the wishful thinking of GMO’s opponents. The case has a precedent and has been played out in the courts before. In November 1998, the US government won a judgment against the four largest US tobacco companies: Philip Morris, RJ Reynolds, Brown & Williamson, and Lorillard. The case came to trial after a former vice president of research and development at Brown & Williamson, Jeffrey Wigand, turned whistleblower and revealed that his company concealed the tobacco’s health risks and was making concerted efforts to addict people to smoking. High ranking executives were found to have approved the inclusion of known addictive and carcinogenic chemicals, such as coumarin, in its cigarettes to increase smoking, sales and profits.
Before the trial there had never been a lawsuit lost by a tobacco company because no one could prove with absolute medical certainty that smoking had ever caused lung cancer or emphysema. During Congressional hearings, all seven CEOs representing the four tobacco giants lied under oath stating they had no knowledge about an association between nicotine and brain addiction. Their rationale was that they believed their research data and marketing strategies were protected under propriety secrecy claims and therefore they could avoid conviction. Although FDA scientists possessed all the necessary information that could condemn Big Tobacco’s false claims, the industry relied upon proprietary rules in order to hide behind legal protection. The FDA was silenced and powerless to make the industry’s information public. Consequently it is estimated that millions of people died from a risk that could have been prevented or at least reduced substantially. Instead, the FDA honored the tobacco industry above all human life.
The guilty verdict, which resulted in the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement against the tobacco companies, enforced a minimum $206 billion settlement over a 25 year period. While the majority of payments were to settle 46 states’ Medicaid lawsuits to recover smoking related health costs, the settlement unfortunately exempted the industry from private tort claims. Many critics of the Agreement state that the settlement was too merciful. No tobacco executive went to prison and evidence indicates the industry emerged stronger and consolidated the companies into an ever more powerful cartel.
What busted the tobacco companies was not the scientific evidence piling up outside the industry. Rather it was its crimes of omission about cigarettes’ health risks within the industry. The industry’s own research prosecuted itself. And this is demanded today in order to bring down Monsanto’s chemical regime and to protect populations and children throughout the world.
Perhaps we might want to consider the atmosphere Monsanto faced after it first developed glyphosate in 1973 and prepare for EPA approval for the remainder of the decade.
During the latter half of the 1970s, Monsanto’s leading products were under federal inquiry and public assault regarding safety. Dioxin had been banned. Safety concerns arose over its sweetener saccharin, and cyclamate was removed from the market. The company’s attempts to get it’s new artificial sweetener aspartame confronted obstacles during FDA scientific review. Independent research had shown that aspartame caused brain tumors in mammals. And its best selling herbicide at the time, Lasso, was showing signs of carcinogenicity. Today Lasso is a restricted-use pesticide due to its oncogenicity. With sales falling and future growth under threat, Monsanto faced a desperate need to launch a new and novel flagship product. Monsanto found itself banking its future on its new herbicide glyphosate. As we recently discovered, enormous amounts of research, analysis and hundreds of trials were conducted to learn as much as possible about the compound’s bioactivity in mammals and its potential health risks. All of this research data, studies and reports were subsequently sealed as trade secrets upon submission to the EPA. For over thirty years it has sat in the EPA vaults.
Monsanto has yet to be caught and charged for falsifying scientific data on glyphosate. However on earlier occasions two laboratories Monsanto outsourced research to were caught and indicted. In 1978, the EPA busted Industrial Biotest Laboratories for rigging laboratory results; the company’s executives were found guilty for submitting fabricated data supporting glyphosate positively to the government. In 1991, another firm, Craven Labs, was found guilty on similar charges with 20 felony counts.
To this day, Monsanto continues to assert that Roundup is environmentally friendly. We are told it biodegrades rapidly and therefore poses no long-term risks after repeated usage. We are told that the herbicide is ideal for weed control. Throughout the US, it is liberally sprayed on our public parks, school playgrounds, sporting fields, and throughout our lawns and gardens. We are told it doesn’t bio-accumulate in the body’s cells and tissues and is excreted rapidly. We are also told that glyphosate toxicity is dose specific. Only exceedingly high levels of the pesticide pose any serious health risks.
How factual are these claims or are they mere propaganda to obscure scientific truths far more deceptive and sinister? To answer that we would have to know for certain whether or not Monsanto conducted long-term studies on glyphosate that revealed devastating toxic effects on mammal health. We would need evidence that their own data clearly negates their scientific declarations, and that the company intentionally, and with forethought, either distorted or concealed data from federal regulatory officials and the public.
There is now an enormous cache of evidence on both scientific and legal grounds that Monsanto in fact conducted numerous studies in the 1970s and 1980s on glyphosate’s toxicity and health risks and intentionally sealed this research from independent and public review and scrutiny. As with Big Tobacco’s proprietary claims that prevented the FDA from publicly warning Americans about the dangers of smoking, the EPA has sat on Monsanto’s own deleterious data for decades.
Anthony Samsel is an independent research scientist working internationally in the interest of public health and the environment. He is a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists, and a former scientist and consultant at Arthur D. Little, one of the world’s leading management consulting firms. Now retired, Samsel has devoted much of his independent research on Roundup’s toxicological characteristics and bioactivity. Unable to gain access to research reports and data Monsanto submitted to the EPA through FOIAs, he turned to his senator’s office, who assisted in the procurement of studies and reports he sought. Months later he received a hoard of scientific documents, over 15,000 pages worth, covering Monsanto’s complete glyphosate research.
With his co-investigator Dr. Stephanie Seneff at MIT the two have been reviewing Monsanto’s data. Their conclusion is Monsanto’s claims about glyphosate’s safety are patently false. The company has known for almost four decades that glyphosate is responsible for a large variety of cancers and organ failures. Clearly it was for this reason that Monsanto demanded the data and reports to be sealed and hidden from public scrutiny as proprietary trade secrets.
During an exclusive interview on the Progressive Radio Network on September 4, Samsel stated that Monsanto used an industry trick to dismiss evidence about glyphosate’s risks in its own research. “Monsanto misrepresented the data,” says Samsel, “and deliberately covered up data to bring the product [glyphosate] to market.”
In order to minimize and cancel out its adverse findings, Samsel explained that Monsanto had relied upon earlier historical animal control data, toxicological research with lab animals afflicted with cancer and organ failures, and completely unrelated to glyphosate. In some cases the control animals displayed kidney, liver and pancreatic diseases. Many of Monsanto’s own studies required the inclusion of extraneous studies in order to cancel out damaging results. This is not an uncommon industry habit, particularly in toxicological science. It enables corporations to mask undesirable outcomes and make claims that observable illnesses and disease are spontaneous occurrences without known causal factors. Frequently, Monsanto would have to rely on three external control studies to negate the adverse effects of a single one of its own. Samsel found other incidences in Monsanto’s data where 5, 7 and in one case 11 unrelated studies were necessary to diminish the severity of its own findings. In effect, glyphosate received licensure based upon a platform of junk tobacco science. By ignoring cause and effect relationships behind the onset of multiple cancers and other life-threatening diseases throughout many of its research trials, Monsanto engaged in a radical scientific denialism that has since raked in tens of billions of dollars.
But the cache of Monsanto documents, after Samsel’s and Seneff’s review, reveals much more that we should be worried about.
In addition, Monsanto’s studies included doses from low to high range. Samsel observed that low glyphosate doses were equally if not more toxic than higher doses. The company later discontinued low dose trials, relying only on higher levels because it is customarily assumed to have greater toxicological risks. Samsel’s observation has recently been confirmed by a study published in the August issue of the Environmental Health Journal by scientists at Kings College London and the University of Caen in France. The two year study found that glyphosate administered at an ultra low dose of 0.1 ppb (the EU’s safety limit) in drinking water altered over 4000 gene clusters in the livers and kidneys of rats. These alterations, the study reports, “were consistent with fibrosis, necrosis, phospholipidosis, mitochondria membrane dysfunction and ischemia.” Consequently low doses of Roundup are far more toxic than US EPA limits.
During its years investigating glyphosate’s bioactivity, Monsanto conducted hundreds of trials on mice, rats, beagle dogs, rabbits and other life. Among the many cancers and diseases Monsanto’s own research found associated with glyphosate are:
• Adenoma cancer in the pituitary gland
• Glioma tumors in the brain
• Reticular cell sarcomas in the heart
• Malignant tumors in the lungs
• Salivary mandibular reticular cell carcinoma
• Metastatic sarcomas of the lymph gland
• Prostate carcinoma
• Cancer of the bladder
• Thyroid carcinoma
• Adrenal reticulum cell sarcomas
• Cortical adenomas
• Basal cell squamous skin tumors
In female mammals there were cancers of the lung, liver, thymus, stomach, bladder adrenal glands, ovaries, colon, uterus, parathyroid and mammary glands.
Samsel and Seneff also noticed that Monsanto had conducted many long-term studies, as much as two years, on mice and rats. When Gilles-Eric Seralini and his French team reproduced and extended the length of Monsanto’s 3-month GMO maize rat-fed study for the life of the animals, they observed profuse cancer and tumor development started after the 4th month of the study. Monsanto continues to stand by its 3-month study as sufficient proof of GM maize’s safety. Yet the thoroughness and variety of Monsanto’s research operations should give strong reason to suspect that Monsanto has likewise conducted long term studies and knows all too well the deleterious effects of its pesticides, herbicides and genetically modified crops.
One of Monsanto’s claims is that glyphosate doesn’t bio-accumulate in tissues, rapidly bio-degrades and is excreted from the body readily. Contrary to this claim, Monsanto carried out meticulous studies to determine levels of accumulation and the organs, tissues and cells glyphosate reaches. Glyphosate was radio labeled with carbon 14 and given in 10 mg doses to seven groups of animals, male and female. After only 24 hours, the toxic chemical was found in the lungs and all body fluids: lymph, blood, urine and cerebral spinal fluid. Glyphosate also accumulated in the bone by 30 ppm and in the bone marrow by 4 ppm. Monsanto’s studies were comprehensive. It found an accumulation of the chemical in red cells, thyroid, uterus, colon, testes and ovaries, shoulder muscle, nasal mucosa, heart, lung, small intestine, abdominal muscle and the eyes.
Samsel and Seneff noted that the bioaccumuilation in the pancreas was not reported. Why would such meticulous efforts be made to measure radio labeled carbon 14 laced glyphosate levels in all the other organs, tissues and bodily fluids and then ignore the pancreas? The scientists believe this was deliberate.
Samsel notes that glyphosate does a “particular number on the lungs.” According to a 2014 report by the National Cancer Institute, lung cancer rates have been declining. The decline is largely due to the national decrease in smoking. However, other lung cancers such as adenocarcinomas are on the rise. The NCI is unable to account for this anomaly. Yet the Institute is not considering that Americans are increasingly being exposed to glyphosate in their food, water and environment?
During the PRN interview, Dr. Seneff stated that the pancreas may be driving glyphosate to gather in the lungs. The pancreas is responsible for the release of the enzyme trypsin. which in turn infiltrates the lungs. A study published by Brazil’s Universidade Federal de Santa Maria in the medical journal Ciencia Rural measured glyphosate’s reactivity with digestive enzymes including trypsin. Trypsin activity was found to increase in parallel to higher glyphosate concentrations. Seneff suggests that this may be contributing to the increase of glyphosate in the lungs that is contributing to the dramatic rise in COPD and asthma conditions, as well as lung cancers.
The occurrence of cataracts is rising rapidly, particularly in Mid-Western states such as ND, SD, NB, IA, KS, and MO. According to Prevent Blindness America’s statistics, 17% of adults over 40 years have cataract problems. The NIH projects the rate will reach nearly 40% by 2030. Monsanto’s study showing glyphosate activity in the eye may be contributing to this epidemic. Dr. Seneff stated that the eye’s exposure to sunlight reacts with glyphosate residue thereby potentially making the chemical more toxic. Farmers often apply glyphosate on crops when it is warm, moist and when there is plenty of sunlight in order for the chemical to activate more effectively. These are similar conditions to our eyes during the day.
Monsanto’s research was not limited solely to the Roundup compound. It also performed extensive research on glyphosate’s individual metabolites, the intermediate molecules that result after Roundup’s breakdown through metabolic reactions. Many of these metabolites are every bit as toxic as glyphosate. All the glyphosate metabolites in solutions fed to rats were measured before and after feeding. One of Samsel’s more disturbing discoveries was that levels of the metabolite N-Nitrosoglyphosate (NNG) were found in higher concentrations in the rats’ feces and urine excretions than the original amount in the feeding solutions. NNG is a known carcinogen and endocrine disruptor. Samsel postulates that our own body’s natural nitrous acid reacts immediately with glyphosate, without requiring a catalyst, to produce NNG. Both the EPA and the World Health Organization acknowledge that NNG is present in glyphosate during the manufacturing process. The agencies therefore have established safety limits for NNG. However, for any endocrine disruptor, there is no realistic safety limit because such chemical disruptors destroy cells on a molecule to molecule basis.
Nitrous acid naturally occurs in the colon, urinary tract and skin tissue. According to the CDC, skin cancer is the most common form of cancer in the US, and affects more men than women. The Skin Cancer Foundation estimates that “each year there are more new cases of skin cancer than the combined incidence of cancers of the breast, prostate, lung and colon.”[18,19] Basal cell and squamous cell carcinomas are the two most common forms, both which have been identified by Monsanto with glyphosate exposure, particularly in males. When glyphosate reacts in the skin along with nitrous acid the metabolites NNG contributes to skin melanomas. Other chemicals are added to Monsanto’s Roundup to increase its effectiveness such as the surfactant POEA (polyethoxylated tallow amine), which also increases its toxicity.
We don’t pay enough attention to these other ingredients, Samsel states, because the EPA permits Monsanto to add anything it wants to enhance Roundup’s potency while identifying these substances innocuously as “inert.” When Monsanto convinces the public that glyphosate breaks down quickly, we are not told that the compound’s metabolic byproducts are equally toxic.
Therefore Anthony Samsel’s unprecedented discovery and review of Monsanto’s actual scientific and toxicological data of Roundup has provided us with information that warrants a thoughtful pause. Samsel and Seneff cover the subject in more detail in a new peer-reviewed paper titled “Glyphosate Pathways to Modern Diseases IV: Cancer and Related Pathologies.” The paper has been approved for publication in October.
During recent years dozens of states are submitting bills to label GMO foods. These food crops are heavily laced with glyphosate residue. Not only GM crops, but even non-GM produce are sprayed with Roundup. According to the Organic Consumers Association, non-organic and non-GM foods such as wheat, barley, oats, flax, peas, lentils, beans and sugar cane are also being sold to farmers “as a dessicant, to dry out all their crops so they could harvest them faster.” Monsanto, Dupont, Syngenta, Grocery Manufacturers of America and other agro-chemical companies are aggressively combating labeling efforts. The Big Ag lobby is today pushing for a national bill to prevent GMO labeling that would supersede individual state’s rights. We can only wonder what the voting outcome in California, Colorado, Washington and Oregon may have been had Monsanto’s own research been made available to the media and public. Is it therefore not time for full Congressional hearings to learn the truth once for all and make the disclosure of Monsanto’s Roundup research public for all?
Richard Gale is the Executive Producer of the Progressive Radio and a former Senior Research Analyst in the biotechnology and genomic industries. Dr. Gary Null is the host of the nation’s longest running public radio program on nutrition and natural health and a multi-award-winning director of progressive documentary films, including Seeds of Death about GMOs and Poverty Inc. More at the Progressive Radio Network
 Daniel Cressey. “Widely Used Herbicide Linked to Cancer” Nature. March 25, 2015
 RT (Russian TV). “California EPA mulls labeling Monsanto’s Roundup as being ‘known to cause cancer” September 6, 2015 https://www.rt.com/usa/314544-california-epa-glyphosate-carcinogenic/
 Alexis Baden-Mayer, “Monsanto’s Roundup. Enough to Make You Sick” Organic Consumers Association. January 21, 2015
 Mary Ellen Kustin. “Glyphosate Is Spreading Like a Cancer Across the U.S.” Environmental Working Group. April 7, 2015
 Jack Kaskey, “Monsanto Raises Forecast as Profits Tops Estimates on Corn” Bloomberg Business, April 3, 2013. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-04-03/monsanto-raises-forecast-as-profit-tops-estimates-on-corn-seed
 Alexis Baden-Mayer, op.cit.
 Environmental Protection Agency “Glyphosate Fact Sheet” http://www.epa.gov/safewater/pdfs/factsheets/soc/tech/glyphosa.pdf
 Environmental Protection Agency. “Basic Information about Glyphosate in Drinking Water”
Zen Honeycutt, Henry Rowlands, Lori Grace. “Glyphosate Testing Full Report: Findings in American Mothers’ Breast Milk, Urine and Water,” Moms Across America. April 7, 2015 http://www.momsacrossamerica.com/glyphosate_testing_results
 “Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement,” Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_Master_Settlement_Agreement
 “Monsanto Timeline of Crime 1901-2014” Children of Vietnam Veterans Health Alliance. February 16, 2015. http://covvha.net/monsanto-1901-2014-timeline/
 EPA, “Glyphosate Fact Sheet” op cit.
 Interview with Anthony Samsel and Stephanie Seneff. Gary Null Show, Progressive Radio Network. Broadcast on September 4, 2015. http://prn.fm/the-gary-null-show-09-04-15/
 Mesnage R, Arno M, Costanzo M, Seralini G-E, Antoniou M., “Transcriptome profile analysis reflects rat liver and kidney damage following chronic ultra-low dose Roundup exposure” Environmental Health 2015, 14:70 doi:10.1186/s12940-015-0056-1
 “Lung Cancer Fact Sheet.” American Lung Association. http://www.lung.org/lung-disease/lung-cancer/resources/facts-figures/lung-cancer-fact-sheet.html
 Salbero I, Pretto A, Machado da Silva V, Loro V, Lazzari R, Baldisserotto B. “Glyposate on digestive enzymes activity in piava (Leporinus obtusidens). Cencia Rural Vol. 44 no. 9. September 2014.
 “Vision Problems in the US,” Prevent Blindness America. http://www.visionproblemsus.org/cataract/cataract-map.html
 Skin Cancer Foundation. “Skin Cancer Facts.” http://www.skincancer.org/skin-cancer-information/skin-cancer-facts
 “Skin Cancer Statistics,” Centers for Disease Control. http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/skin/statistics/
 Alexis Baden-Mayer, op cit.
What about this situation am I not understanding? I get no response from those who are supposedly experts in this field. This is one example of many that I understand clearly to be a violation of Federal Law.
In my mind is a not questionable. Why am I mistaken in my conclusion? Include references please as the local law enforcement have been far less that honest in anyway in their involvement.
So my neighbor was putting chemicals on my property for an extended period of time, right?
That act is described as trespassing, right?
I requested an incident report stating that I had verbally told the neighbor to cease and desist the the day I noticed the chemicals from the Police chief, right?
The police chief did not act in a timely manner, 16 months is not acceptable by any reasonable person to receive a request for a document, right?
The neighbor in the mean time sued me because I installed a privacy curtain, claiming loss of enjoyment of his property, right?
The civil court dismissed his case citing my right to enjoy my property, right?
The neighbor violated that court order without missing a beat, right?
I notified in person the county attorney that I wanted to file a complaint against this neighbor/council member and the city clerk bringing with me the evidence that proves my allegations, right?
I was denied filing a complaint against this neighbor by the police chief and the county attorney, right?
The right to enjoy property is a Federal law, right?
A criminal conspiracy exists when two or more people
agree to commit almost any unlawful act then take some action toward its completion. The action taken need not itself be a crime, but it must indicate that those involved in the conspiracy knew of the plan and intended to break the law. One person may be charged with and convicted of both conspiracy and the underlying crime based on the same circumstances.–
For example, Andy, Dan, and Alice plan a bank robbery. They 1) visit the bank first to assess security, 2) pool their money and buy a gun together, and 3) write a demand letter. All three can be charged with conspiracy to commit robbery, regardless of whether the robbery itself is actually attempted or completed.
The “Agreement” Requirement
You might be wondering how exactly the agreement between two co-conspirators actually takes place. First, the agreement does not need to be expressly conveyed. For instance, in the above example,Andy isn’t required to tell Dan and Alice in unequivocal terms,”I agree to commit a conspiracy with you,” (although, that statement would surely be a prosecutor’s dream and strong evidence of a criminal conspiracy). Instead, the agreement may be implicit or shown by the action of “two or more guilty minds,” as required under common law. Examples of evidence of an implicit agreement can include the appearance of the co- defendants at transactions and negotiations in furtherance of the conspiracy such as a planning meeting It is important to note that courts have found that mere presence or association with those committing a crime doesn’t, by itself, make someone a co-conspirator unless there are other factors that collectively point to an implicit agreement.
The Element of “Intent”
As with other specific intent crimes, your intention means everything. But that’s not the only intent the court will care about. Not only does one other individual in the conspiracy need to intend to agree, all parties must intend to achieve the outcome. Simply put, knowledge of a crime isn’t enough to get you thrown behind bars. For instance, just because your friend tells you he is going to burglarize a house, doesn’t mean you are part of the conspiracy to burglarize it. Not unless you also agree to help by acting as a getaway car or helping him scope out the property ahead of time.
A conspiracy conviction can yield some pretty tough penalties depending on the underlying crime. You can be punished for both the conspiracy and the actual crime itself if, it were completed. For example, if you are charged and convicted of conspiracy to commit robbery and the actual crime of robbery, you may have to suffer the consequences of both. Additionally, in some cases if you are convicted of a conspiracy to commit a felony, you may have to serve a mandatory minimum sentence.
So what is different about my evidence that is would not be considered a criminal conspiracy between the neighbor and the Police Chief, and the neighbor and the County Attorney? I see just this part of the attack against me as a conspiracy against my rights. And since it was committed by officers of the law, why would this not be considered Deprivation of rights under color of law
crime (krim) n. ca.1920. An unethical or immoral act against fellow man.
Here are a few of the documents that prove Federal law was violated. The most recent date a public official participated in an act of public corruption was April 2017. That person was newly elected Sheriff and City of Montrose clerk, Celeste Cirinna. At that time these two public officials conspired to suppress evidence that was posted on the City of Montrose website. It really was a brutal attack on my physical and private property. This man is not fit for society, he intended to acquire my property the cost was of no concern to him. I had only two options, stay at my property and die from chemical exposure or flee from my property in an attempt to save my own life. I felt forced to flee. I had obligations to make good on. During the five years that the chemicals were unlawfully applied to my property I was unable to function. I had borrowed basic living expenses from friends, well over $10,000 during these five long years of intentional negligence or in my opinion full out conspiracy against my rights and deprivation of rights under color of law committed by my corrupt city and county officials. I could not just leave this earth owing that much money to friends who really did not have it to loan it the first place. I suffered for 5 years of excruciating pain, believing that at some point someone of authority would feel obligated to step up, uphold the law and issue this man a trespassing complaint. One of my witnesses, a County Deputy stopped by my home in 2010 and advised me that this neighbor/council member had no intention of stopping with the chemicals.
Understand the basics of this case. This neighbor purchased a legally nonconforming property from the Mayor. He began redeveloping the lot in 2003, beginning with the removal of the existing two story single car garage shown in the upper center of the heading photo of this post. The State building code requires a standard procedure in issuing building permits. illegal building permits issued by the City building official. The redevelopment was illegal from day one. The building permits are not completed as required by the State of Iowa. From the words of the Mayor himself at a city council meeting, “you cannot increase the size to be bigger than the existing buildings”. Even though he had a conflict of interest with every local authority and was allowed to commit these illegal acts, the one thing that caused problems and the most important thing of all was that he could not get the illegal redevelopment recorded on the county plat map. He simply did not have enough square ft. of legally nonconforming property to accommodate the oversized nonconforming structures to comply with State building code or State drainage law. He decided the answer to his problem was to eliminate me. This was an easy task for him have the local authorities for whatever reason do whatever this neighbor requested of them. Had the attorney I hired to file a complaint done what he was hired to do and we had gone to court, the court would have order removal of the structures and return the lot to existing condition. There was no option in this case.
It is true, a person does know when they are dying. I knew my days were numbered. I was ready to go, I had suffered long enough. To me it was worse than cancer as I had no timeline to estimate how much longer I would have to suffer. Cancer patients generally get told a timeline. I would not be here to tell this story if not for reasons unknown to me, months later I received a call from the University of Ia hospital. They said they had a member of staff waiting for me in the ER and to get there asap. I did and this Dr. did save my life. To answer your questions, yes I was forced to flee from my property in order to escape the chemicals. The EPA field investigator advised me that he had never heard of a case in which a neighbor intentionally applied chemicals to his neighbors property. I understand that is because trespassing laws exist. Law enforcement had a duty to protect my rights. This man was aware that I thought the chemicals were causing my health problems. He never hesitated, he applied the chemicals to my property as if it were part of his maintenance routine for his own yard. There is no other case like this in the USA. This is complex and unprecedented. I was blind as a result of the medical treatment the local hospital administered to me in an unsuccessful attempt to offer me some relief for the severe pain I was having from the full body skin eruptions. In the one picture you can see that my legs are burnt. chemical burnt, I am tough country girl but to suffer that long with no assistance from law enforcement to protect my right to private property I believe was worse that a cancer diagnosis, I was never given a timeline before I would loose my life. I only knew I was going to die as a result of the actions of one man who has no regard for the law or life of another human being.sincerely, Melody Boatner there is so much more evidence to prove my case. I simply do not have the skills to put it together in a formal manner. Links containing relevant information that has been suppressed or intentionally overlooked by recently retired Lee County attorney Michael Short and in a civil court in which this neighbor sued me. Witnesses, conspirators, severe skin disorder. The Good Old Boy Network, About Celeste Cirinna, City of Montrose Clerk, No adverse impact and the courts
Anyone who believes they would be able just to let it go a brutal attack with the perpetrator using chemicals unlawfully applied to your property with intent to eliminate you and simply walk away, I can testify that you do not have the mental capacity to walk away from such a brutal attack. I have taken the short end of the stick my entire life. I have been the victim of narcissistic abuse my whole 59 years on this earth. I made a clean break from that situation. I will be damn if a man with such an obvious, severe case of narcissism and psychopathic mental disorder is going to get away with this unscathed. After eliminating the toxic person that I had no choice to be raised with what are the chances a person with as severe or more severe individual would purchase the property adjoining mine.
This case was clearly premeditated. as he had blueprints that the building officials had to have reviewed,I am mad and I want these individuals held accountable. This never leaves my mind not for a second, not that one man is capable of such brutal acts, but that the entire local city and county government knew and allowed this to happen. The conspiracy to cover up these crimes is ongoing as recent as Memorial day. It will continue to be covered up until someone has the courage to put this story out for the general public to read, hear and see the photo evidence proving this happened. Yet I am the one whose character has been defamed by being falsely associate with illegal drug activity, and when asked any questions about this situation, the only response is that she is crazy, Mark Conlee has done nothing wrong. That statement according to two witnesses came from the mouth of the Mayor. The same Mayor who tried to convince me this is a private issue. He offered me a job at the local community hospital in the maintenance dept. He was the head of the department in or about 1995. I declined because I had just purchased this property so I could open my own upholstery business. He has known me personally for longer than he has been the Mayor of this city. I knew him when he was in college. I consider his siblings and mother as my family. I believe outside sources influenced his opinions and decisions. In fact I know that he was told I was crazy, but he should have considered the source, recognized it was hearsay. There is no excuse for an term Mayor to allow and participate in crimes to be committed against me.
To whom it may concern, 9-5-2017
I have a case of conspiracy deprivation of rights under color of law, terrorist’s acts with intent to cause me serious injury or death. Contrary to the advice of a local FBI agent that my case is civil. All actions against me are criminal not civil. I believe bribes have been taken by several of the local government officials involved in this conspiracy to acquire my real property. I have no authority to access financial records. The FBI does. In my opinion the main attacker has a severe case of narcissistic/psychopathic personality disorder. I have no authority to require those involved to take a polygraph. The FBI does. I am requesting some legitimate answers to questions I have been asking for several years and have received no response.
What exactly determines whether a case of conspiracy against right and deprivation of rights under color of law is civil or criminal. I have researched similar cases. I can find no other case in which the evidence supports one neighbor using chemicals to poison a neighbor. I have found cases where a neighbor has poisoned the neighbors pets. Those case are tried as criminal cases by a prosecuting attorney.
I finally convinced a local agent to come to my home and review my evidence. I forewarned him that a review of the evidence takes an estimated 12 hours. He advised me that he has no intention of reviewing 12 hours of evidence. This agent stayed for 2 ½ hours. He only took notes from the information I was verbally giving him. He never reviewed the evidence stating that he had seen enough evidence. Never have my witnesses been interviewed.
The county attorney advised me that he would need an independent investigation. What does that mean? I told him that I wanted an investigation. He never responded. I suppose his recent retirement suggests that he never intended an investigation be done. They have no defense. My evidence is undeniable.
According to the official website the FBI investigates cases alleging,
Fabricating evidence against or falsely arresting an individual also violates the color of law statute, taking away the person’s rights of due process and unreasonable seizure. In the case of deprivation of property, the color of law statute would be violated by unlawfully obtaining or maintaining a person’s property, which oversteps or misapplies the official’s authority.
- False arrest and fabrication of evidence: The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right against unreasonable searches or seizures. A law enforcement official using authority provided under the color of law is allowed to stop individuals and, under certain circumstances, to search them and retain their property. It is in the abuse of that discretionary power—such as an unlawful detention or illegal confiscation of property—that a violation of a person’s civil rights may occur.
- The Fourteenth Amendment secures the right to due process; the Eighth Amendment prohibits the use of cruel and unusual punishment. During an arrest or detention, these rights can be violated by the use of force amounting to punishment (summary judgment). The person accused of a crime must be allowed the opportunity to have a trial and should not be subjected to punishment without having been afforded the opportunity of the legal process.
- Failure to keep from harm: The public counts on its law enforcement officials to protect local communities. If it has shown that an official willfully failed to keep an individual from harm, that official could be in violation of the color of law statute.
Significant Racketeering Activity
The FBI defines significant racketeering activities as those predicate criminal acts that are chargeable under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations statute. These are found in Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 1961 (1) and include the following federal crimes:
- Mail Fraud
- Obstruction of Justice
“Domestic terrorism” means activities with the following three characteristics:
- Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
- Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
- Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.
18 U.S.C. § 2332b defines the term “federal crime of terrorism” as an offense that:
- Is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; and
- Is a violation of one of several listed statutes, including § 930© (relating to killing or attempted killing during an attack on a federal facility with a dangerous weapon); and § 1114 (relating to killing or attempted killing of officers and employees of the U.S.).
This began when my neighbor purchased that lot adjoining mine from the Mayor of my town. I purchased mine in 1995, completely renovated, and upgraded all structures. I had a comfortable home, a garage, and workshop which I operated a successful upholstery service. I had satisfied the loan within 5 years.
Both the neighbors and my property are legally nonconforming lots 70’w X 300’l. The frontage of both properties was 5th St. When he first constructed the illegal nonconforming garage I was concerned. The fact that not only had he regraded the fill dirt he trucked in to direct storm water onto my property, he also changed the direction of the over sized roof surface 90° from the existing garage diverting all storm water onto my property. His garage was illegal to begin with in regards to redeveloping legally nonconforming property. A building permit should have never been issued for this structure. The building official refused to address my concerns. I was advised he intended to build living quarters on the second story; The County reassessed the value of my property at a loss of $10,000 for my three undeveloped “half” lots.
The following year a suspicious fire destroyed the existing home. The neighbor apparently changed his mind about building a living quarters in the upper level of the nonconforming garage. He constructed a new over sized home; again, to large to comply with current building codes, he altered the frontage of his home, now the frontage of the home is the city alley. The building permit for this structure was signed and approved by the city building official. This permit lacked a fee amount charged and the signature of the builder.
The existing conflict of interest between those involved made it impossible for me to get any protection of my rights from law enforcement. Multiple times I attempted to contact the city building official as standard procedure provides citizens to remedy of such situations. The building officials never responded. I did catch him outside his home planting garden and showed him the aerial photo, advised him that the illegal removal of the berm was the cause of my foundation washing out. He stated that he had forgotten about that berm. I assumed he would take action as his duty describes and remedy the situation. He did not, when asked by a witness on my behalf and fellow council member if he was going to address my concerns he stated that he was not. The mayor did come by and tell me “he cannot do that but it was a private issue”. Apparently, the mayor had not reviewed the permits prior to voicing his opinion, According to the city ordinances he has no authority to act as City building official. I went to the next council meeting with the building permits in hand and before I could ask my question the Mayor volunteered his knowledge that the builder’s signature alleviates all liability of the city. At that time I submitted the building permit issued and approved by the building administrator but not signed by the builder, there were no comments made by the mayor or any other person attending the meeting. You could have heard a pin drop. My questions have yet to be answered. Public record shows the mayor implicating himself in several similar situations.
Lee County detective Bob Conlee did misrepresent his authority by acting as a building authority for the City, advising his brother, “the neighbor” that he was not responsible for my damages. The County detective had no jurisdiction or authority to act as a city official and violation of a conflict of interest being he is the brother of this neighbor.
At this point the neighbor, Mayor, building official, and Lee county detective intentionally conspired to deprive me of equal protection of the law.
I developed what I referred to as a “rash” on my shins. This was not a normal itch as from a bug bite or poison ivy, although I have never had poison ivy. This was an intense itch, according to the dermatologist it was caused by something I had never been exposed to. Only after the grass turned green in the spring did I discover the neighbor had applied toxic chemicals to my property. I verbally told him upon discovery not to apply anything to my property, not to come onto my property and followed up requesting an incident report from the Chief of Police. The neighbor continued to apply the chemical to my property routinely for the next 5 years. I did receive an incident report from the Police Chief 16 months after I requested it.
Within 9 months of first discovering the chemicals I was unable to function, I could not bear to wear clothes. My rash had developed into a full body severe skin condition; the neighbor was elected to City council after the first year of intentionally exposing me to toxic chemicals. His intent was clearly to cause me financial harm by using his position to harass me.
I was constantly being issue citations from the City, every time the charges were dismissed. The city clerk on the neighbors behalf fabricated ordinances, altered the original building permit for the new home to conflict with what my expert witness had observed when he came to the location and wrote a letter pertaining to the building permit issue to the mayor and myself, including the State drainage laws. All the summons against me for criminal acts issued by the county attorney were based on fabricated laws. Every dismissal only increased the aggression of the neighbor.
He began applying the chemicals to the city’s easement on my property. The chemicals washed across the property of two downstream neighbors, killing all living things. The neighbor called the EPA. A field investigator came to the location and took written statements from the two neighbors, and myself. I advised him that I just wanted to know what the chemical was so my dermatologist could provide treatment for a specific chemical. The field investigator advised me that I should go to the council meeting and ask them because it would be 9 months before the lab results would be completed. I went to the council meeting. The neighbor remained seated in his position as if there was no conflict of interest. Standard procedure would require him to leave the room because my complaint was against him. I told them that I needed to know what the chemical was that was applied to my property strictly for medical purposes. Not one person said a word. Not one person suggested they would find out what the chemical was. It was obvious by visually looking at my arms that my health had rapidly deteriorated. To me that was the most brutal of all the attacks on my person. The following day I stopped the Director of the street dept. and told him what had happened at the meeting. He advised me they could not tell me because they did not know any chemicals were being applied to the City easement. The EPA sent the city a warning letter stating all the laws they had violated in applying the chemicals. The reason the EPA got involved was the fact that the easement of my property was the point source of the headwater of a creek that feeds directly into the Mississippi River. The chemical was determined to be glyphosate, there is no specific test or treatment for exposure to glyphosate because it is against the law to trespass on the property of another. To apply chemicals to another person’s property, knowing it was believed to be causing health problems to the owner is criminal. The field investigator advised me that my situation is “unheard” of. The city was issued a warning letter stating all the laws that were violated in applying the chemicals. There have never been chemicals applied by the City in this area before or anywhere else in town that I am aware of.
There is no other case in which one neighbor has been allowed and assisted by law enforcement to expose his neighbor to toxic chemicals with intent to cause serious injury or death. This man was using these chemicals to eliminate me. His illegal property redevelopment was rejected from being recorded on the county plat map. He determined to remedy the situation by eliminating me and acquiring my property. He chose to do this by unlawfully applying toxic chemicals to my property. This man could have never achieved his goal of eliminating me if not for the assistance of his co-conspirators all of whom were city or county government officials. This was premeditated and nearly cost me my life.
I am requesting a full investigation into my allegations and this criminal enterprise be held accountable to the highest degree of the law.
- My right to due process was violated.
- My right to enjoy my property was violated.
- My right to free speech was violated.
- My right to equal protection of the law was violated.
Using chemicals with intent to cause serious injury or death can and should be considered attempted murder in this case. I did not willingly give up my property. A County officer stopped by my house to advised me that this man had no intention to stop using chemicals to eliminate me.
Perjury, knowingly making false police reports, fabricating evidence, fraud, obstruction of justice, conspiracy against rights, deprivation of rights under color of law. All of these allegations are all criminal offenses.
Being advised this is a civil case in my view is nothing short of advising me to take the law into my own hands. I have no authority to prosecute criminal offenses. I have no authority to search for bribes being taken by reviewing the financial records of these individual’s. The Federal authorities are the proper authority to investigate and prosecute the crimes alleged in this document. Advising me that this is a civil case is the same as telling me that for justice to be served I must invoke my rights given by the second amendment.
Is that what I should be forced to do? I need answers to these questions. I am being forced to commit a criminal offense, so justice can be served? Nobody has ever been in this position in the history of the United States. How many civil cases are filed against criminal offenses?
I know the duty of law enforcement is to protect the rights of the people. I know it is not the duty of law enforcement to fabricate evidence, act as a witness for a person who intends to violate a court order. As recent as April 2017 warn a city clerk an investigation is going to happen so she has the opportunity to suppress evidence that was prior to the warning, posted online for the public to read. When I tally it up every crime that has been committed against me in this case it completely describes what is listed on the FBI website as being high priority. An FBI investigation is required to hold government accountable for public corruption. Any information that has been or will be stated by local authorities to a higher authority will be fabricated, I know that for a fact. No person has ever reviewed my evidence. The only two people who know the facts of this story are me and my terrorist attacker, the neighbor. I have been advised this is a civil case. I strongly disagree. I was not allowed to file a trespassing complaint against this man when he was unlawfully applying chemicals to my property. I did in fact hire an attorney to sue the City, he took my money and I suspect he took some money from the neighbor. My attorney claimed he filed the complaint. He did not file a complaint.
The neighbor filed a civil complaint against me for, of all things, loss of enjoyment of his property. I within my legal rights put up a privacy curtain. The attorney that I hired to sue the city countered with a nuisance drainage complaint. He failed to question any of my “compelling” witnesses. The same witnesses he referred to as experts in their own right. He failed to notify me that a decision had been made. When I did find out a decision had been made I called him and he advised me that to file an appeal he would need $4000 and he did not want to do it anyway. He advised me that I only had 7 days left to file an appeal. I did attempt to get the transcripts from the court and spoke with a Jody Green. She advised me that the transcripts would not be available until Feb. and the price would be $27.00 I believe. I have the detail including date and amount written down in my evidence. How ethical is it for an attorney to withhold testimony and written affidavits from the court. How ethical is it for an attorney to acknowledge the judge had errors in his decision based on what the only relevant witness the neighbor had. How ethical is it for an attorney to claim he file a complaint on your behalf against the liable party but did not. The evidence will support my attorney conspired with the neighbor violating my State and Federal Constitutional rights. The court dismissed my counter complaint because the evidence and witness testimony was suppressed. I did not understand why he countered against the neighbor in the first place. I knew what my attorney advised me of the first day we met. The city is the liable party in my case. My attorney advised me that we would sue both parties. I hired him to present my case against the city I had nothing to do with a complaint against my neighbor. The city allowed and assisted the neighbor to violation the state building code and drainage law. The counts of perjury the neighbor and his attorney committed are unbelievable. He could not keep his interrogatories from conflicting with his courtroom testimony. Was the judge involved in this conspiracy? You review that evidence and give my your opinion. The court dismissed his case citing my “right to use my property as I see fit”. I felt a sense of relief. I understood the judge intention was for me to control my property in all matters.
After the court ruling the neighbor, accompanied by the police chief, approached me while I was in my yard to informed me that the neighbor was going to move the 48 landscape timbers that I had placed on my side of the common boundary to divert the nuisance stormwater drainage to the city drainage ditch the best I could. I advised the neighbor that if he had a problem with the boundary the proper procedure is to file a civil complaint against me again. I asked the police chief why he was there. He responded that he was acting as a witness that the neighbor told me in advance that he was going to move the landscape timbers on my property. At that time I advised them both that I intended to invoke my second amendment rights. I went directly into my house and returned with a long arm single shot pellet gun. I told the police chief to never knock on my door again. He never knocked on my door again. As a normal human being, I to need to sleep. I was still trying to operate my business. I had not planned on spending this many hours defending my person and property against a neighbor who showed no sense of reason since he began his property redevelopment 2 years earlier. I went out in the yard the next morning and he had moved the protective landscape timbers and pulled up the lawn edging I had just installed as an additional form of protection. The only authority available for me to file a complaint to was the same police chief that had conspired to allow me to be poisoned in the first place. He stated the reason he would not issue the neighbor a citation was because he did not want to make him mad. I completely understand why someone would not want to get on this seemingly psychopaths bad side. I experienced his unconscionable, unreasonable behavior personally.
Within a matter of weeks the police chief was given the opportunity to resign with a positive recommendation to the next police department that hired him or be terminated. He chose to resign. The day after I was forced to defend my property with a weapon against the neighbor and law enforcement, one of the city deputies called me and advised me that the city did have an ordinance prohibiting bb guns. As if an ordinance was going to prevent me from defending my person and property from trespassers.
The next violation committed against me the neighbor reported gun shots fired from my property. A city deputy along with a string of Sheriffs officers swarmed my home. The reason for this was because the neighbor wanted to know if I did have weapons in my possession. They went so far as to call my son at his work and as him if I had weapons. The neighbor knowingly made a false police report. Making false police reports is also listed on the FBI website as a criminal offense. Again a review of my evidence will support all my allegations. No person of authority has ever reviewed my evidence except the county attorney. All evidence as been supported by “the neighbor said”.
This man and the local government officials have shown no regard for my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. The chemicals he was using were literally killing me. Lee County attorney sent a deputy to my home to investigate a second criminal complaint the neighbor had filed against me for “giving him the finger”. I showed the deputy the court order, specifically where the judge is citing of my right to enjoy my own property. I advised the deputy that I wanted to file a trespassing complaint against the neighbor. The neighbor ignored the court order as if he was above the law. The deputy advised me that the court order did not specify chemicals could not be applied to my property adding that he was only at my home to investigate the complaint my neighbor filed against me for giving him the finger. He left and that complaint was dismissed due to lack of evidence. There is no law against giving anyone the finger, this was the second complaint for the same criminal charge the County attorney file on his behalf against me. This one the citation included “he was tired of me doing this all the time. Trumping up the charge to harassment.
I was advised that all criminal complaints must be referred to the county attorney by the Sheriff or other law enforcement authority. Well in this case that is not going to happen because of the conflict of interest existing among my attackers. I do not know if the city and county officials who followed behind this County Attorney, Mayor, building official/council member, and neighbor/council member were involved on the conspiracy against my rights or if they were manipulated into believing all they were told by this neighbor. I do know I have never been given the opportunity to tell the story and present the evidence in its entirety to any authority. about this in a public forum, or in a private meeting. Exposing public corruption in my case has been one of the most difficult tasks I have had to face in my 60 years on this earth. In this land of the free. This was nothing less than a brutal life threatening attack waged against me by my local government officials. It was not the neighbor until after he suspiciously was elected to city council that had the duty to protect my State and Federal rights.
I am mad as hell and I am not going to take it anymore. I will not allow my rights to be violated It is not my duty, nor did I take an oath to uphold the rights given by the Constitution as every person involved or notified about this situation has. I simply will not let it go. This was nothing short of feeling as if I have been gang raped. This is constantly on my mind. It will not go away. It should not go away as this in not what the Nation aspires to do to its citizens.
If I put chemicals on anyone’s property only one time I would be charged with trespassing. This was done to me with no regard to human life for over 5 years. I am angry and time does not ease the pain. I suffer from PTSD as a result of the ongoing attack against me by this enterprise of government officials. To suggest a statute of limitations has expired is an insult to my intelligence. There is no statute of limitation for terrorism. The attack against me was in violation of my State and Federal constitutional rights. The State itself was actively supporting the violation of my rights. The attorney I hired conspired against my rights. You can visit https://poisonedbymyneighborfromhell.com to see some of the hard copy evidence that supports my allegations. This is only the tip of the iceberg of the criminal offenses committed against me to acquire my property. Deprivation of rights under color of law.
I am searching for any civil cases in which the plaintiff has filed a civil complaint alleging trespassing against the private party. I want to see any civil cases in which the plaintiff has filed multiple counts of fraud against another person. I want to see any legal action in which the plaintiff has filed a civil case alleging the defendant has committed a criminal offense. I came across the document above when I believe Lee County Detective Bob Conlee was attempting to set me up for a drug bust. If you would review Lee County Attorney Michael Short . Short advised me that “he” would decide who gets prosecuted in Lee County, Iowa. He wasn’t kidding he was willing and did everything needed to protect Mark Conlee in his unprecedented illegal actions against his neighbor.
Most of you have the common knowledge of the laws and rules a Sheriff has the duty to provide to the citizens in their County described below. I am still waiting for the results of an investigation into my allegations as stated by then County Attorney Mike Short and current Lee County Sheriff Stacy Weber. Weber has a conflict of interest that is next to none according to the record. He certainly learned from the best of the best as former County Detective Bob Conlee is described as his mentor. His reason for getting into law enforcement as a career choice.
Working with Federal and State Legislatures to create laws providing safer communities
The SHERIFF is the only elected Law Enforcement Officer in the State of Iowa.
THE DUTIES OF SHERIFF INCLUDE:
- Execution and return of all legal civil papers
- Enforce the law of the State of Iowa
- Enforce County Ordinances
- Conduct criminal investigations
- Provide Law Enforcement services to the Judicial Court System
- Supervise all jails and the custody of incarcerated offenders
- Maintain the Sex Offender Registry
- Patrol all areas of the county
- Respond to any and all disasters within the county
- Assist other Law Enforcement agencies
- Sustain Iowa VINE for Victims
Mr. Short failed the citizens of Lee County to a serious degree beginning in filing two criminal complaints against me on behalf of his number one colleague Detective Bob Conlee and his brother, Mark Conlee. The complaints were clearly frivolous and fabricated. There is no existing law against giving the middle finger to another person.
This is an example of the standard procedure followed in any action in this “criminal” case. There was no local government official willing to honor their ethical oath. They were all completely devoted to Mark Conlee’s goal to acquire his goal. It was like they were hypnotized. I know full well that the County attorney should know what is a criminal violation and what is a fabricated law. Chief Shipman scratched out the last sentence as I advised him there was no law preventing a citizen from having two licensed, insured vehicles on their private property. Mark Conlee used his position as council member to push past any recognition of ethical standards. I feel like I have been raped by these public servants. I will never be the person I was prior to the physical assault by this gang.in their quest to acquire my property. No holds barred, they were intent on this goal. I was unable to assert my rights to save my life.
Sheriff Weber recently told me there has been an investigation into my allegations since May 1st. The only thing that I am aware of that has happened is the city clerk still participating the the conspiracy to cover up the evidence of the City officials implicating themselves by taking down the City’s webpage that had the min of the meeting since 2005.
This situation is not difficult to understand.
Mark Conlee, brother of Lee County Detective Bob Conlee purchased the legally non conforming property from Mayor Dinwiddie. He began redeveloping the property by tearing down the existing single car garage, trucking in enough fill dirt to elevate the property in some areas 10′ higher than before, he constructed a nonconforming 2 story oversized garage. He altered the roof surface from standard procedure by turning it so it diverted storm water runoff directly onto my property, he changed the grade of the fill dirt so all storm water ran onto my property. My property lost value of $10,000 just because the drainage was forseeable going to cause my property uncontrollable flooding. In questioning this illegal structure I was advised Conlee intended to build a living quarters in the upper level. Standard procedure requires drain tile to be installed around the base of the slab, it was not. Standard procedure requires gutter and downspout to be installed and directed to the city drainage ditch, it was directed directly to divert storm water from the massive roof onto my property.
The following spring there was a suspicious fire that supposedly destroyed the existing trailer. Suspicious to me because the only firemen on the scene that morning were Mayor Dinwiddie, building official/fire chief Mark Holland, Mark Conlee and the son of Mark Holland. The son, Jake was a former resident of the Conlee property, we discussed the fire after the fact. I discovered that only 2 weeks prior there was a trailer fire at a nearby mobile home park that was caused by the same M.O. I understand my testimony is not acceptable but several weeks prior to the fire after his new garage was finished he came over to my yard and gave a friend who was with me a message from his brother in Fla. At that time I asked him, “now that you have that nice new garage what are you going to do with the trailer, he said he wanted it to burn. I was still understanding he was going to build a living quarters in the second level of the garage. The morning of the fire, there was no fire alarm that went off, being 1 block from my house I was always awakened by the siren. That morning I was awakened by the clanging of the fire hose being connected to the hydrant on my corner of the street. The only fireman who acted in an attempt to extinguish any fire was the son, Jake Holland. The other 3 on the scene did nothing but stand on the sidewalk the entire time and chat. Jake got the hose connected and was motioned to lay it down. There was no action physical action made to extinguish any fire. After some amount of time an hour or so Mark Conlee puts on the hazard uniform and enters the home. He exits about 5 minutes later empty-handed and gives the others still on the sidewalk a nod. They continue to stand on the sidewalk for another hour or so. Jake puts the equipment away and they go on about their day. I find it suspicious that Dinwiddie and Holland did not go to their regular job that morning. Conlee went to work and was called home. There was no smoke coming from the building, there was nothing telling that a fire had happen to the building after it was over.
Conlee almost immediately builds a new home. There is no question that the building permit is illegal. He changed the frontage of the home to now be the alley, that is illegal. The roof surface is also altered from standard procedure just as the garage and directed to divert storm water directly onto my property. I advised Conlee that we needed a ditch, reasonably to run directly down the common boundary since he was the one who had the new redevelopment that caused the problems to my property. He was unwilling to have it on his property, the man I was going to barter upholstery for excavating a ditch backed out fearing a liability if he happened to get on Conlee property since there had been no survey, only a verbal agreement on the common boundary. Conlee illegally removed an existing berm that had been put in place by the original owners of both property for the sole purpose of protecting my home structure from storm water runoff from the Conlee property when the original home burnt prior to 1972 when they brought in the mobile home. Berm and swale were commonly used at that time for this purpose. The berm was on the Conlee side of the common boundary, the swale was on my side of the common boundary. The building officials refused to address my concerns, his duty is to oversee property redevelopment is in compliance with State building and drainage laws. When he refused to come to the location I contacted Lee County Ext, agent Robert Dodds, he did come to the location and took some photos. I had many questions I showed him the building permit which lacked the signature of the builder Mark Conlee but was signed and approved by the building official. Mr. Dodds noticed some other discrepancies on that building permit. He questioned why years before when he built a garage he had to pay a pretty significant amount for the fee charge of his building permit. Mark Conlee had paid no fee according to the permit. He explained that in regards to storm water drainage and property development you are not allowed to divert more storm water to the neighboring property than before the redevelopment. He sent a copy of the letter to Mayor Dinwiddie allow with drainage laws. Dinwiddie had no regard for this expert opinion. When all other times any opinion from Mr. Dodd has held high regard with the city of Montrose.
I hired attorney Steve Swan to sue the city of Montrose. Retired Sheriff’s officer, John Farmer referred Swan to me. John worked for the city of Montrose prior to moving up to the sheriff’s dept. He is well aware of the characters who hold positions in Montrose. I met with Swan and he advised me that John Farmer had briefed him on the case, John told him that I did not have many financial resources. I had been self-employed as an upholsterer since I purchased my property in 1995. I was never without work, but I basically charged what I needed to pay my bills, explains why I had a backlog of work for over a year at all times. Swan also advised me that he had spoken to Lee County Detective Bob Conlee, Bob had already lied to him when he told him his brother never trucked in any fill dirt but poured the new slabs just as the property existed. He advised me that my case was a tort case and we would sue both parties, Conlee and the city. He asked if I would be willing to barter upholstering his vehicle for his service. I willingly took him up on that offer, I was so moved by his kindness I had to pull over on the highway because I was crying with gratitude. The following day I received a copy of a letter of intent he sent to Conlee the previous afternoon. The letter demanded Conlee remedy the nuisance drainage problem in 10 day or he would file an injunction against him. Conlee began removing the existing evidence of the berm and its height, he built a little roof over the door on the side of his house as if he had not changed the frontage of his property.
I emailed Swan multiple times on the 10th day telling him to file the injunction. I never heard another word from him and he filed no injunction to stop work.
Soon after this, a rash developed on my shins, I referred to it as a rash because that was what it appeared to be to me. I thought perhaps an allergic reaction to something. I had never had any problems prior to this with my skin, I had never even have poison ivy.The itch was intense, nothing similar to a bug bite. I had used a push lawnmower since I purchased my place, I did that for cardio, and in fact I never wanted a riding lawn mower. The next time I went out to mow I noticed that the neighbor had applied something to my side of the common boundary. I had never been exposed to what I assumed was weed killer. I had not changed my routine for 10 years. It seemed reasonable that whatever this neighbor was apply to my side only of the common boundary could possibly be the cause of what had now rapidly spread over other parts of my body. I told him and the new police chief that day not to apply anything to my property and explained I thought it could be the cause of my skin eruptions. I requested an incident report from the police chief.
By this time my opinion of Mr. Conlee’s character was less than honorable. He knew my property was flooding, my foundation had been damaged and he was unwilling to allow me to have a ditch dug down the common boundary. He continued using the chemicals without hesitation as routine yard maintenance applying them to my property only. I kept requesting the incident report from Chief Shipman and he kept coming up with excuses as to why he did not have it for me, a witness says he was lying about the reason he did not have it. When I did receive it 16 months later the first on was not satisfactory in detail, I told him no that I wanted one with the details. A week later he gave me a half-hearted report. By this time my rash had become a severe skin condition. My entire body was raw. The pain was excruciating, it was unbearable to wear clothes.
I had requested a trespassing complaint be file on my behalf early on. Every request denied by the City and Lee County Attorney. The chemicals now had become a weapon with intent to cause me serious injury. The fact that I was denied equal protection of the law and access to the courts make this a conspiracy deprivation of rights under color of law.
It became clear to me the reason Conlee would not stop applying chemicals to my property when I realized he was unable to get the illegal redevelopment recorded on the county plat map.
Lee County attorney Mike Short suggested mitigation two years in a row, I was willing. Even sent my report in the mail to the mitigation service. However Mark Conlee was not. He knew his illegal redevelopment would be order to be removed. return the lot back to the original state. His excuse the first year was because he had paid an attorney to represent him in a civil case he filed against me. In that case the judge dismissed his case citing my right to enjoy my property. I put up a privacy curtain and Mr. Conlee believing my backyard was his backyard because he changed the frontage of his home to face the alley was offended by the curtain. I knew I was well within my rights. I always know the law before I ever act. I felt a sense of relief by the judge’s ruling. My right to enjoy my property in my mind meant no more chemicals on my property either. I was wrong about what the ruling meant to Mark Conlee and Chief of Police Brent Shipman. They approached me in my yard one day and Conlee advised me he was going to my the railroad ties I had legally placed down my side of the common boundary to divert the storm water toward the city drainage ditch. I advised him if he had a problem with the boundary line he would need to file another civil complaint. I question Brent Shipman as what was purpose of him being with Conlee. He advised me that he was acting as a witness that Conlee was telling me ahead of time that he was going to alter my property. At that point I advised them both that I intended to invoke my second amendment right. I advised Chief Shipman never to knock on my door again. I headed to the house to get my weapon, you never saw two adults run up a hill so fast.
Imagine now, here I am, my body completely raw, trying to meet deadlines for my upholstery clients and having to defend my property every afternoon from 3:30pm the rest of the night.
I retrieved my weapon, a single shot long arm pellet gun and stood guard on my property till way past dark. I had to have some rest, I had other responsibilities so I went in the house and laid down to sleep a bit. When I woke up the next morning I went out to check the boundary line. Sure enough Conlee had moved the railroad ties I placed to protect my property. I had them held in place with staubs. I had new lawn edging put in place and the railroad ties were pushed every which way. The staubs were broken off, the edging pull out of the ground and just laying there. My skin condition was full body, I was terrified to go near that boundary in the first place, I have never felt so violated in my life. This was done in contempt of a court order. I called the only authority of the law available Chief Shipman and told him I wanted to file a trespassing complaint against Conlee. He asked me if I saw him do it. I told him he was the witness that Conlee was going to do it. It was complete violation of my rights. It was a conspiracy.
I again contacted Lee County attorney Mike Short, he advised me that he doesn’t let neighbors file complaints against each other because it never stops. Yet I was charged by the State and City several times on fabricated laws and ordinances on Conlee’s behalf. I never even got into the courtroom. Conlee did not even show up. I was told by Montrose Deputy Judd that Conlee was on vacation in Fla. What kind of public servants are these people. What kind of people conspire with intent to cause serious injury to anyone? Narcissists are described as these kind of people. It only take one narcissist to manipulate a group of people into believing anything they say. With every complaint that was dismissed against me the more aggressive the City, on Conlee’s behalf, became to find me guilty of a crime. Public record has a discussion about it. The council and Mayor discuss going to speak with the judge. What does that mean? Offer him a bribe? The judge knew the laws. The judge knew what wasn’t against the law. What else would they feel they needed to speak to him about?
Well the reality set in after 5 years of being abused by my local government officials, committing criminal acts against me. I had by this time lost my eyesight, unable to read, unable to recognized people, I was terrified. A neighbor using chemical weapons with intent to cause serious injury is defined as terrorist acts. If he is capable of doing this what would he not do to eliminate me? These government officials conspired to commit terrorist acts against me. Deprived me of my rights under color of law, committed a conspiracy against my rights as well as defamed my character and fabricated ordinances and laws in an attempt to cause me financial harm.
Mark Conlee had to have my property to ever get his illegal redevelopment recorded on the county plat map and he decided the action to take was to eliminate me. I had two options one was to shoot him dead or flee and seek justice according to the law. I mistakenly chose the latter option. To date I have gotten little if any interest in my story. I am sure if the right person gets to read this action will be taken and justice will be served. But how long? The City and Prosecuting attorney had the duty not to let this happen in the first place.
One other thing I want to mention in regard to Mayor Dinwiddie and his property. Several years ago a woman spoke to the city council about opening a tattoo shop in a building that was available, the council discussed this and they did not think a tattoo shop would represent the city as they wanted it to be represented. It was only a short time later that a different woman spoke to the council about opening a tattoo shop in a building she intended to purchase from Mayor Dinwiddie, the city council was all for this new business in town. What is the difference? Mayor Dinwiddie would receive a personal financial gain just as he did when Conlee purchased the legally nonconforming lot from him.
Attorney Steve Swan conspired with Conlee in violation of his oath to represent his clients best interest
Lee County Attorney Mike Short conspired with Mark Conlee by denying me equal protection of the law, access to the court, and terrorist acts. Conspiracy against rights under color of law.
Lee County Detective conspired with Mark Conlee in misrepresenting his authority to be that of a building official, he was acting without jurisdiction, he defamed my character and knowingly made false statements associating me with illegal drug activity. Conspiracy against rights under color of law.
The most recent act of conspiracy was when Sheriff Stacy Weber advised the city clerk that there was an investigation that initiated City clerk Celeste Cirinna took down the City of Montrose website that contained the minutes of the council meeting and evidence of these officials implicating themselves to suppress the evidence. I have copies of all the meeting minutes.
City clerk Celeste Cirinna committed multiple counts of fraud, conspiracy against rights. But Lee County attorney refused to prosecute any of these criminal offenses. They already knew they could do anything and not be held accountable by local law enforcement. The evidence cannot be disputed, they have no defense.
What is not in violation of Federal law in this case is my question?