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

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

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

 


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 22, 2015

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


A BILL

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

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

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

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds that—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(9) current law—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SEC. 3. PURPOSE.

The purpose of this Act is to

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

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

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

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

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

SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

For purposes of this Act the term—

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

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

(A) takes a property right; or

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

(3) “just compensation”—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(iv) easements;

(v) leaseholds;

(vi) recorded liens; and

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

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

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

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

(i) national security reasons; or

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

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

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

(6) “taking of private property”

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

(B) shall not include—

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

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

SEC. 5. COMPENSATION FOR TAKEN PROPERTY.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SEC. 6. JURISDICTION AND JUDICIAL REVIEW.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SEC. 7. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.

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

 

SEC. 8. ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS.

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

SEC. 9. ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION.

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

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

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

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

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

SEC. 10. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.

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

SEC. 11. SEVERABILITY.

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

SEC. 12. EFFECTIVE DATE.

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

Behavior so outrageous no reasonable person would commit such immoral acts, this behavior was condoned by an entire enterprise of local government authorities.

  • These crimes were committed by my local government officials. I have been denied the right to speak locally at a public forum. My case is complex and unprecedented. It is true that chemicals were used unlawfully on my property with intent to cause serious injury. The chemicals did cause serious injury. Had I not chosen to be forced to flee and remained on my private property I would have lost me life to the illegal intentional chemical exposure. This is nothing short of attempted murder. The motive for this enterprise of  local government officials to commit the criminal offenses they committed was at least in one case for personal financial gain. Mayor Dinwiddie had the opportunity to make a profit from a property he owned that was basically worthless. Worthless because the lot is a legally nonconforming property. The guidelines for redeveloping nonconforming lots are strict. Mayor Dinwiddie’s own statements at the council meetings prove he was aware of the written law and was a willing participant in violating the rights given to me. The other individuals that were in on violating the law and Federally protected rights from the beginning of the attack were, appointed building official/ Fire Chief/council member Mark Holland. on behalf of one person. One of them had to acquire my property. He illegally redeveloped the lot that he purchased from the mayor. With no regard to the State building code and drainage laws.  Illegal issued building permits by the city building official. He chose to build nonconforming structures. I complained after the second structure cause damage and loss of value of $10,000 to three undeveloped lots of my property. The building official refused his duty to address my concerns. He issued 3 more building permit after my complaint. When this neighbor went to have the redevelopment recorded on the county plat map he was denied. Too much square footage of structures for too little square footage of property. He determined the remedy was to acquire my property.  I had purchased my property in 1995. This property  provided my home and my livelihood. I operated an upholstery shop from that location.

    The plot began by defaming my character by this neighbor’s brother who at the time was an officer for the County Sheriff’s dept. Soon after he was promoted to Detective. With that he knowingly made false statements that I was associated with illegal drug activity over the police radio. He was stalking me and if the truth were known I would bet that is the cause for this high ranking officer to retire and take a full time job driving a school bus.  Before long the entire community believed that I was going to be busted for illegal drug activity. Anyone with common sense would have realized that the drug task force does not leak any information of that type to the general public. I was never concerned of being busted for any illegal activity. Then defamation of my character was began by a family member, stating that I was crazy, this is the same person the detective was claiming I was associated with in the alleged illegal drug activity. I defended my property against the massive amount of storm water that was intentionally diverted onto my property from the illegal property redevelopment. This was foreseeable by a review of the blueprints by the city building official, required by the State before a permit is ever issued. When the neighbor began unlawfully applying toxic chemicals to my property I could not defend or defeat those. They took me from happy and healthy to a state of unable to function in a rapid time period. I suffered for five years believing at some point somebody would step up and protect my rights, they never did. Even in spite of a civil court order citing my right to enjoy my own property. This neighbor had no concern of ever being held accountable for his trespassing, his intent was to cause me physical harm or death. He was determined to acquire my property at any cost. He had to eliminate me. Evil has won so far.  I have always been one that will take the short end of the stick just to avoid confrontation. I do not have that mindset today. I feel like these criminals are going to get away with the brutal attack they made on me. I feel it is my duty take up arms against my oppressors, I have been more patient than any reasonable person could expect to be.

     I hired an attorney to sue the city for the nuisance drainage issue the redevelopment caused to my property, prior to the use of chemicals. There is a nuisance drainage ordinance that was ignored by the city and my attorney in my defense. He sent a letter of intent to the neighbor the following day. I hired him to sue the city as they are the libel party, he is the one who advised we would sue both the neighbor and the city, adding the city is where the money is at. I already knew that. That is why I hired him to sue the city. He never did anything in my behalf after the letter of intent. He never filed a complaint against the city. He never filed the injunction as he stated in the letter. He took my money the first day we met specifically to file the complaint against the city. that was in May. In Sept. i get served papers that the neighbor is suing me for, get this, loss of enjoyment of his property. Between the time my lawyer sent the letter of intent and I got served from the neighbor I developed the “rash”, my attorney knew about it. He advise he would file a counter for the drainage, when I handed him my list of witnesses his jaw about hit the floor, he stated “this witness list is compelling in itself” which I already knew. Throughout this time he assured me he did file the complaint against the city. I admit I was naive. I had never needed an attorney before. I requested the attorney to come to the location and review the situation. He declined, again with a snicker stating that he did not need to see it. I took that to mean he had this case in the bag, he definitely had the evidence.  In hindsight perhaps he declined looking at the situation because he is morbidly obese. He needed to set of three or four chairs in the courtroom. There are complaints filed against him by the ABA. A year later when got to court. The neighbor committed multiple counts of perjury, my attorney was well aware of this, he was also aware that the judge misquoted the testimony of his only witness. My witnesses all took the stand even though we all thought they would be testifying against the city. My attorney never asked one single question of any one of my compelling witnesses, not one. When the first witness stepped down from the stand I asked my attorney why didn’t he question him, his testimony was very relevant in regards to the existing berm that was illegally remove, increasing the storm water runoff. My attorney advised me that the judge uses his own common sense. Now I might be naive, but I am not ignorant. A person must be given relevant information to make a sound judgement. It was the final day of that civil case that I asked him “what about the city” he advised me with a “snicker” that he did not want that case any longer. No attorney is that incompetent and passed the bar exams. He clearly did not stand behind his oath to represent my best interest. He sent me a final bill for $4,000. I made a complaint against him to the bar assoc., they determined he had not misrepresented me, but he never sent me another bill. The fact that this neighbor offered me two out of court settlements, had they been submitted to the court, is evidence of admission of guilt. How often does a plaintiff offer out of court settlements to the defendant?

    The judge in that case dismissed both complaints citing my “right to enjoy my own property”. He ordered that we split the court fees. I have never paid my half, hoping I would get a bench warrant and access to the judge again but I know that is not going to happen. My attorney did not submit the written affidavits or the photo evidence. I was advised by an online contact to go to the courthouse and see just what he did submit, he submitted nothing. I had the case covered against the city, the was no defense to the behavior these officials  displayed. My attorney did not have to do any leg work. I only needed someone to present it to a judge.

    With the dismissal of his case against me the neighbor decided to get on the city council and use his position to continue his vendetta against me. This was  all planned, to allow this neighbor to acquire my property. The police chief did every he was told to do by this neighbor, not according to his duty to enforce the law. He was given the opportunity to resign with a good recommendation to the next department that hired him or be terminated within the year. I understand his resignation was related to ethical behavior. With the County Attorney actively conspiring against me the only option I have left to my knowledge is the FBI. I have contacted every agency, organization and individual I can find. All agree that I have been violated but none seem to have the authority to hold accountable. Senator Grassley has requested two congressional inquiries into my case, no Fed authority has ever reached out to me. I on my own have multiple times called the FBI only recently have I made any progress at all. An agent has agreed to meet with me to review my evidence, but every week he or I have had to canceled, last week he told me that it will be a couple more weeks before he can even consider having the time, I told him the evidence I have takes a good 12 hours to review. He advise that he has no intention of spending 12 hours reviewing my evidence. So how can you determine the status of a case without reviewing all the evidence? I ask myself. He had an attitude from the get go, He seems to have grasped some of what I have told him. I know that reality all the law enforcement have the blue line syndrome, to protect other officers. I have no expectations of anything coming from the half-ass review of my evidence.  The most recent act of conspiracy was in April when the newly elected sheriff told me that he went to city hall and WARNED the city clerk that an investigation was happening, I am not aware of any investigation happening. I asked him what she said and he told me that she told him she didn’t know what he was talking about. By the weekend the city’s webpage had been taken down. The web page contained all the council meeting minutes from 2005 to date. The sheriff conspired with the clerk to suppress evidence. He also told me his guys were investigating my allegations. I have heard no more from him. How much intelligence does it take see that document fraud has been committed by the city clerk, the forgery looks like a kindergarten did it. That is just one count of fraud she committed, do you have the link to my site https://poisonedbymyneighborfromhell.com  

    I knew I was dying, the chemicals he used are lethal, he had been using chemicals on my property for a year before being elected to council. After that he assumed he had the authority to act as the position of street department director. He does not have that authority. The city doesn’t have insurance to cover anyone but the actual street dept. employees.  A neighbor two properties down contacted the EPA.  They only got involved because after he was elected to counsel he decided to apply chemicals to the city easement of my property. Not thinking about it being the point source of a creek that feeds into the Mississippi river. He has connections with the local agri supplier. They would not test our common boundary as I requested. I believe he used something they still had around that has been banned the first year. I believe that due the rapid effect it had on my health. I was disabled in the first year. His intent was to acquire my property. no holds barred. The police chief told me once that he did not want to make this neighbor mad by filing any complaint against him. I needed a trespassing complaint filed if I were to ever get protection from the law. What the heck kind of statement is that, afraid of this guy to the point that he can kill me with illegal application of chemicals? I don’t get it. What is so special about this guy, beside the fact that he is vindictive and an habitual liar? Not one person upheld the law in this case. The county attorney recently retired. I read something about the statue not starting until a violator has left his position, do you know anything about that. I have a limited formal education. I am an upholsterer for crying out loud. It is not my job to protect my rights it’s the job of the city and local police. Sorry but if someone will listen I am compelled to tell what I can squeeze in. Not one person has given me the opportunity to present my case. Only me and this neighbor know the entire story.

  • I contacted many reputable attorneys in Iowa since the first one threw me under the bus. All agree that I have a case. All had the same reason for not taking my case. They simply do not have time to dedicated to such a complex and unprecedented case. I understand that, but I do not and will not be the only victim in this situation. I have been as patient as anyone can expect. On behalf of my dad I can not let them get away with this. I will do what I feel necessary to expose this enterprise of criminals. Please share with any contact that may have a contact, I really do not want to take the law into my own hands. I want the system to do their job. I am losing hope that will happen. No person has ever been subject to intentional chemical exposure. The law of trespassing has prevented this from happening to anyone else. This is typical to my life. I have been bullied my entire life. This was so significant I cannot simply walk away. Do you understand how I can feel this way?The current county attorney along with several other experts have advised me that this is a case for the FBI.

    The city clerk has a conflict of interest. The storm water management manual is put out by FEMA, her husband is the County Fema officer, He would have been the expert for me to go to when the city failed to enforce the nuisance drainage ordinance against this neighbor. But due to the conflict of interest I got an expert opinion from the Lee County Extension officer Robert Dodds. Mr. Dodds came to the location, took photos and wrote me a letter answering my questions, he also sent a copy of the letter along with the storm water drainage laws to Mayor Dinwiddie. It was Robert Dodds who noticed that no fee was charged to this well-connected neighbor for his illegal building permit. I noticed that the building official issued and approved the permit and he signed it, however it was missing the most relevant thing that alleviates the city’s liability, the builder’s signature. Mr. Dodds happened to live in Montrose to, I did not know that until he came to the house that day. He came out of professional courtesy. The building official had the duty to address my concerns and stated to a council member that he had no intention of addressing my concerns. You are familiar with legally nonconforming properties right? They have very strict rule when it comes to redeveloping those properties. This guy was completely allowed to disregard any rules, he built a two-story garage oversize to the degree he altered the direction of the roof surface so that it diverted all storm water directly onto my property. You are required by law to divert storm water to the city drainage ditches, that is the standard procedure whether we are talking about typical or nonconforming property. He never installed drain tile around the slab. I was told that the reason he was building such an over sized nonconforming structure was because he intended to build a living quarters in the upper level. The next spring there was a suspicious fire, that destroyed the small existing double-wide mobile home. I called the State arson hotline. But when the Fire chief is also the building official what are the results going to be? He was issued a permit to build an over sized new home, again both of his structures are illegal. The new home he also had to squeeze onto the property, he altered the roof with this structure also to divert all storm water onto my property. He illegally removed an existing berm, regraded his lot so that all storm water from his entire lot diverted onto my property. All of this is illegal. The permits are illegal. The building official continued to issue three more building  permits to this guy who is above the law. In fact when I first notified the building official that there was a problem with the drainage it was not the city building officials who arrived at his house, it was his brother, a detective for the Lee County Sheriff’s office. This detective has no authority to act as anything in the City of Montrose, he has no jurisdiction in the city. He sure has no authority to act as the building officials. That amounts to a conspiracy as defined by law. I have no authority to prosecute criminal offenses. When Mr. Dodds sent the letter referring to why he was charged $97.00 for a permit for a garden shed, he questioned why this neighbor was charged no fee for the permit for his new home, not to mention the lack of the builder’s signature. The following year the Mayor never ran for election. He began building a beautiful new home on the riverfront. He was the Mayor for 8 terms. He sold this property adjoining mine and hauled butt on my complaint. Not that he was ever considering actually managing the building official to do his job and remedy the drainage issue caused by the illegal redevelopment. This neighbor suspiciously was elected to council. This needs to be investigated as I do not believe the timeline for being a candidate was enforced.

    My only duty for a remedy to the drainage was to report the nuisance drainage issue to the building official. Knowing that the previous Mayor most likely did not forward my complaint to the new Mayor I again went to the city council meeting to address this drainage issue again. The neighbor newly elected council member should have been excused to leave the room due to my complaint being about him, but that did not happen. I mentioned to the council that the building permit for the new home showed no fee had been charged. The neighbor sitting as a council member and the building official at the same time spoke up and stated there was a fee paid for that building permit. I knew at that moment document fraud had occurred. A person does not need a degree in criminal justice to figure this situation our. A need for common sense is required. The next day when I knew the clerk was at lunch I went down to city hall and got a copy of the permit that was now on file. Sure enough to contradict the information Mr. Dodds had mentioned in his letter about no fee was charged there was now a fee amount shown on the permit. It looks like a kindergarten did it. It is a criminal offense however and I do not have the authority to prosecute criminal offenses. My point is why should these people not be criminally prosecuted by the justice system for their criminal offenses? The clerk committed multiple counts of fraud on behalf of this well-connected neighbor/council member. Generally civil cases come after criminal cases, such as OJ Simpson for an example. The use of chemicals was intentional to cause me serious injury. The evidence leaves no doubt about that, it is a fact. That is defined as terrorist acts by law. A Federal agent should be anxious to investigate a case alleging public corruption since it is listed as a high priority for the DOJ. I may be wrong but it takes a prosecuting attorney to file criminal complaints against citizens, doesn’t it. Perhaps that’s the reason no attorney would respond. There were attorneys interested due to the detection of Roundup but I had to be diagnosed with cancer or dead first. They were interested in suing Monsanto. If given the opportunity to present my evidence to a higher authority they would know that I had no authority to do anything to stop this criminal enterprise. They conspired to violated my rights in every way. They used chemicals to acquire my property. For crying out loud how can that be acceptable and not deprivation of rights under color of law. I am not skilled in presenting information with computer programs, the slideshows I put together are pretty good in understanding I have been told. Did you have the opportunity to view them? You do understand in summary all my asset are gone. I was blind until 2012 when I was accepted for disability and was able to have my vision restored through Medicaid program. Three of my undeveloped lots lost a value of over $10.000 do to the drainage.You are not allowed to do anything to your property that causes a neighboring property to lose value, that is illegal.

    My credit rating was 760 prior to the intentional chemical exposure. I did the Suzie Orman thing. I practiced preventive medicine. I had enough saved to last me six months without income. I had a successful self-employed business that I operated in the workshop that I customized just for upholstery work. I did everything according to Hoyle. Now I live on $730.00 p/mo. I had my property paid in full. I have to pay rent out of my monthly check. There is nothing right about what they put me through. It was torture.  He could not have accomplished this without the assistance of these local city and county officials. The evidence supports Conspiracy against rights and deprivation of rights under of law.

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

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

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

THE DUTIES OF SHERIFF INCLUDE:

  • Execution and return of all legal civil papers
  • Enforce the law of the State of Iowa
  • Enforce County Ordinances
  • Conduct criminal investigations
  • Provide Law Enforcement services to the Judicial Court System
  • Supervise all jails and the custody of incarcerated offenders
  • Maintain the Sex Offender Registry
  • Patrol all areas of the county
  • Respond to any and all disasters within the county
  • Assist other Law Enforcement agencies
  • Sustain Iowa VINE for Victims
Mr. Short failed the citizens of Lee County to a serious degree beginning in filing two criminal complaints against me on behalf of his number one colleague Detective Bob Conlee and his brother, Mark Conlee. The complaints were clearly frivolous and fabricated.  There is no existing law against giving the middle finger to another person.
6-26-2007 State vs Boatner, second Complaint on Conlees behalf .jpg

Harassment, (simple misdemeanor) defendant with intent annoy another person by flipping the middle finger, continuously.                                                                                                                  County Attorney and Chief Shipman are acting as puppets on Mr. Conlee’s behalf. Denies legitimate allegation with hard evidence supporting Conlee was continuously applying chemicals  unlawfully to Boatners property with intent to cause serious harm.

 

 

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

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

This meeting minutes seems so relevant in the dumbing down of the citizens it in my opinion is ridiculous.

March 3, 2005                                                                                        PAGE 196

MONTROSE COUNCIL MEETING PUBLIC HEARING & REGULAR MEETING

The Montrose City Council met for Regular meeting at 7:00 p.m. on the 3rd day of March 2005.  Council met at City Hall, 102 S. 2nd St. pursuant to law with Mayor Ronald Dinwiddie presiding and the following Council members present: Brisby, Holland, Junkins, and Slater.  Roberts was absent.

Call to Order. Regular meeting called to order at 7:00 p.m.

Agenda. Moved by Holland, seconded by Slater to approve Agenda without Item No. 2 under New Business. All ayes. Motion declared carried.

Page 197     MONTROSE COUNCIL MEETING        MARCH 3, 2005,      PAGE 2

Ordinance No. 191. Councilwoman Brisby says we had a building inspector at one time.  Dinwiddie says we don’t have one now because the City didn’t want to be responsible if they inspected a home and something happened. Brisby also states the City had a building code at one time. Dinwiddie says that code was from the 1980’s. We are now adopting the International Building Code. He says even if we don’t have a building inspector, if someone has a complaint the City could enforce the International Code.  Moved by Holland, seconded by Slater to pass on first reading AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF MONTROSE, IOWA 2003 BY AMENDING PROVISIONS PERTAINING TO CHAPTER 50 SO AS TO PROVIDE A NUISANCE CODE FOR NUISANCE ENFORCEMENT. Roll call voting 4-0.  Brisby, aye; Roberts, absent; Slater, aye; Junkins, aye; Holland, aye. Motion declared carried unanimously.

Ordinance No. 192. Moved by Holland, seconded by Brisby to pass on first reading AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF MONTROSE, IOWA 2003 BY ADOPTING THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE. Roll call voting 3-1. Junkins, aye; Slater, nay; Brisby, aye; Roberts, absent; Holland, aye. Motion declared carried.

Ordinance No. 193. Moved by Holland, seconded by Junkins, to pass on first reading AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF MONTROSE, IOWA 2003 BY ADOPTING THE UNIFORM CODE ON ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS.  Roll call voting 4-0.  Roberts, absent; Brisby, aye; Holland, aye; Slater, aye; Junkins, aye. Motion declared carried unanimously.

Ordinance No. 194. Councilman Holland says the Fire Department doesn’t have the Fire Code books. They do not do inspections because of the liability. He says the City can ask the State Fire Marshal to inspect a building if needed. Moved by Holland, seconded by Brisby to pass on first reading AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF MONTROSE, IOWA 2003 BY ADOPTING THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE. Roll call voting 4-0.

Slater, aye; Junkins, aye; Holland, aye; Roberts, absent; Brisby, aye. Motion declared carried unanimously.

Ordinance No. 195. Dinwiddie says the City is responsible for the trees between the sidewalk and the street. Moved by Holland, seconded by Junkins to pass on first reading AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF MONTROSE, IOWA 2003 BY AMENDING TREES. Roll call voting 3-1.  Holland, aye; Brisby, aye; Junkins, aye; Roberts, absent; Slater, any. Motion declared carried.

Hiring Police Chief. Clerk/Treasurer Cirinna says she received ten applications. All had been notified of the physical given by the Sheriff’s Office on March 10, 2005 at Central Lee. Council will meet at 5:00 p.m. on March 10, 2005 to review applications of the persons who have passed.

Dinwiddie went to the ILEA Records Requirement School. He says they realize not all towns hire a Police Chief the proper way. The City will now follow ILEA hiring standards. First there is a physical, the first interview, the MMPI and a second interview; all the while weeding out applicants.

Hiring Reserve Officers. Dinwiddie says we should wait. Kent Rubey concurred, saying we should wait until a Chief is hired.

Authors Note: The City ordinances code does include nuisance drainage ordinance. That code was never recognized when Mark Conlee’s illegal property redevelopment was diverting a significant amount more of stormwater onto my property, causing adverse effects to my property. Including uncontrollable flooding and loss of value.   The Mayor states the city could enforce the State uniform building code if needed. There was no effort to do that when Conlee was in violation. The Mayor is mistaken, the city is responsible for any damages due to negligence of the city. Any city who issues building permits, has an appointed building official (in this case Mark Holland) is obligated to oversee compliance to State building code and drainage laws. It is my opinion the Mayor was making this statement to dumb down the citizens attending this meeting. Are people really ignorant to believe these falsehoods? Are there no experts that have access to my posts. Nobody has an educated opinion. WTH is wrong with people who are silent when a brutal intentional attack has taken place against a neighbor, friend and fellow citizen? Any opinion is welcome. If anyone has evidence that a City can legally issue a building permit, have an appointed building official and not be responsible for damages occurred due to the building officials failure to address the concerns of a neighboring property owner, not review the building plans and assure compliance to State building code the show me what I do not know about. Just say something about any of the information I have and will continue to post. I believe the actions of my local government officials are criminal. In violation of my State and Federal Constitutional Rights. I am angry that nobody locally has answered even one of my questions. Now I am posting it publically and nobody has an opinion. GRRRR.

Millions against Monsanto or Crimes against humanity?

I had no protection of law enforcement to prevent my neighbor from applying roundup to my property against my wishes, this went on as if it were part of his maintenance routine for his yard, The effects were brutal, my health went from excellent to unable to function within the first years. I suffered through this for over five years, the neighbor did not let up on the unlawful application of the toxic chemicals for five years. My many pleas for law enforcement to protect my right by filing trespassing complaints against this psycho were ignored. This man actually sued me in civil court for “loss of enjoyment of his property”. That case was dismissed with the judge citing my right to enjoy my own property. I felt a sense of relief because my interpretation of that ruling meant for him to stop applying chemicals to my property. I couldn’t have been more wrong, even though there is no doubt in my mind that is what the judge was implying, Within a matter of months this neighbor along with the chief of police (acting as a witness) approached me in my yard to let me know in advance that the neighbor was going to physically invade my property and move some railroad ties that I had put in place to divert the initial problem which was a nuisance drainage issue resulting from the Illegal property redevelopment on the nonconforming lot he purchase from the mayor. The building permits could not have been and still are illegally issued by the city building officials. I following standard procedure requested the building official come to the location to discuss a remedy to the nuisance drainage issue that left my property with an uncontrollable flooding situation. Three of my undeveloped lots lost a value of over $10,000. The person who did show up misrepresenting himself to be an authority for the City building official was this neighbor’s brother, he was the highest ranking member of the County Sheriffs dept. He had no jurisdiction to act as an authority of any kind in the City of Montrose, Iowa, Not to mention that there is no doubt about an existing conflict of interest between this Sheriff’s officer and the neighbor due to the fact that they are blood brothers. With that and after the fact a different County deputy showed up at my house the reason told to me by the deputy that he was sent to my house due to concern by the County Attorney that there may be of a conflict of interest. I thought this may be legitimate and sat down with this officer, showed him all the hard copy evidence of this neighbor and his attorney committing perjury multiple times in the civil case he filed against me. I showed him the court ruling, specifically the citing of my right to enjoy my own property by the judge, This officer, who is not an attorney, explained that since the judge did not specify the neighbor could not apply toxic chemicals then the neighbor was within his rights. This deputy also informed me that “Roundup” is not harmful to humans, he uses it all the time. He completely ignores the laws that it is my property and I have the right to say what can and cannot be done on my property, Roundup when applied correctly may not be directly as extreme as the effect is had on me but, no rules were followed in the application to the chemical to my property. I have never even had poison ivy so for me to have an itchy place on both shin was unusual to say the least. I call BULLSHIT. I SAY THAT NOT ONE OF THESE INDIVIDUALS ARE ACTUALLY SO IGNORANT THAT THEIR ACTIONS CAN JUSTIFY ANYTHING OTHER THAN A CONSPIRACY TO DEPRIVE ME OF MY FEDERAL RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW, THE USE OF THESE CHEMICALS AND THE EFFECT THAT HAD ON MY BODY WERE ALMOST IMMEDIATE, WHEN I TOLD THIS NEIGHBOR THAT I THOUGHT THE CHEMICALS MAY BE CAUSING ADVERSE EFFECTS TO MY HEALTH HE CONTINUE TO APPLY THE CHEMICALS WITHOUT HESITATION, THE CHIEF OF POLICE REFUSED TO GIVE ME AN INCIDENT REPORT IN A TIMELY FASHION (16 months) AND BY THE TIME HE DID I WAS TO THE POINT OF COMPLETELY UNABLE TO FUNCTION, BOTH SHERIFF’S OFFICERS VIOLATING, MISREPRESENTING AND DETERMINING THEIR OWN INTERPRETATION THE COURT RULING, THE COUNTY ATTORNEY DENYING MY RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW AND MY RIGHT TO ENJOY MY OWN PROPERTY. Can only be recognized as a conspiracy against my rights, intent to cause serious injury or death. Conspiracy against rights under color of law. Had I not fled, the only way possible for me to escape the chemicals that were illegally applied on my property offered me three option, Shoot this neighbor dead, which in my opinion is pretty extreme due to the fact that law enforcement get paid to do that job so I would not be pushed to that extreme. Stay in my home and die from chemical poisoning or sell my home, business and property to the first person who would offer me $25,000 for it which would allow me to repay my debts to friends who supported my basic living expenses for the previous 5 years that it was unbearable for me to even wear clothes and cover my final expenses, There was no doubt that I was dying, the question was how long would it take before my suffering would end. Now if any of you can find what in this story is not a violation of Federal law please inform me of what and why. The county attorney being the highest authority of the law in my county clearly has a conflict of interest, the evidence I have supports he conspired to deny me of my rights to equal protection of the law and my right to enjoy my own property. He denied my right to access the court by refusing to file a trespassing complaint against my neighbor, and the brother of his colleague of 17 years. Trespassing is a criminal offense. Every action that was committed against me by this enterprises of self-serving imposters was criminal. I have no authority to prosecute criminal offenses. As the County attorney stated to me. “he will decide who is prosecuted in Lee County, Iowa. His job description clearly states his duty is to prosecute all criminal offenses in his county. I have been patient, more patient that most. This is the type of thing that would cause a citizen to go armed to a city council meeting and just start shooting from one end of the seated members to the other, Then the media not having any information relevant to the shooters situation the headlines in the next day’s news would say something like “Tragedy at City Hall, lone crazed gunman enters city hall and begins random shooting”. I am stating right now that I am of sound mind, The chemical poisoning began in 2005 and continued nonstop until the late summer of 2010. I lost my eyesight to the point I could not read or recognize people in 2007-2012, Only when I was approved for SSID was I able to get the massive cataracts removed from what the dr stated was the worst case of cataracts he had ever seen from a person of my age.The purpose of adding that was that I was completely dependent on the word of my attorney, who simply lied about everything, I hired him to file a complaint against the city he told me he did, he took my money and he never filed a damn complaint against anyone on my behalf. So it is my opinion he also conspired to deprive me of my rights, no attorney could be so incompetent as this man was by accident. I purchased my property in 1995 is was a fixer upper to say the least, But I was well aware of what my ability were and I could do this and it was within my budget, I put much money into my home and workshop, new updated electrical service and service panel, new furnace and hot water heater for house, used furnace for workshop, insulated both structures completely. I have every receipt for everything I bought to renovate this dilapidated property. So when the neighbor claims he put much work into his home, I want him to know that every professional contractor will tell him that renovating an old home compared to new construction is not even comparable when it comes to the time and difficulty. I did not have insurance money from a suspicious fire of the existing home to redevelop my property and build huge nonconforming structures that causes adverse effects to my neighbors property. My credit rating prior to this was 760, I had established a successful upholstery business and satisfied the loan earlier that the 5 years that I took the loan for. I knew when I purchased my legally nonconforming property that there are strict regulations in place for redeveloping my property. You Mr neighbor may not have researched your options that were available in redeveloping your property, until you went to get it recorded on the county plat map and were refused because your new redevelopment was not complaint to State building code and drainage laws. Your buddies did though, the Mayor, the building official did for sure, Witnesses have been and are still willing to testify that in their new construction the building administrator followed the standard procedure as required. The Mayor even though he did ask me at one council meeting, “who knows building codes”, I never got to answer that evening but I can tell the Mayor now that I certainly do, the building officials certainly should or if not the manual at city hall contains all the information on the subject. The Mayor should know the building codes since he built himself a beautiful new home on the riverfront soon after liquidating his properties around town including the one my neighbor purchased from him. So this violation to me, seems similar to what a rape victim must feel. In regard to a statute of limitations running our, anyone who has the balls to use that as an excuse and tell me to my face, I can promise I will try to be calm and patient. Then if we are working together I will have available the next higher level of law that what has happened to me by my local government officials does fall within violations that have no statute of limitation. I have done my homework. I can comprehend the english language. I expect these individuals to be held to highest degree of the law for an unprecedented case of what could easily  fall into what is defined by international complaint as crimes against humanity.  I am not certain how long this enterprise has been happening but I know of one other person who if there were to be a Federal investigation into her ordeal with the City officials may turn up evidence that, my story is the only on in which chemicals were used with the intent to eliminate me from my property,  shows repeated plans and practices were the cause of her leaving the City also.  In both cases the personal attack was against single middle-aged women. According to the FBI website they hold public corruption as a high priority. As well they should. There is no case on record in which chemicals weapons were used with intent to cause serious injury and those chemicals being applied to the victims property. For any authority to tell me that this is not in violation of Federal law when there is no other case for reference it is not debatable, a court and a jury are the only authority qualified to make any decisions in regard to this case. This case should be tolled from my initial complaint to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. I also recently read a piece regarding for example a County attorney being inaccessable to sue while he is in office so a complaint against him and a statue of limitation does not begin until he is not longer holding that office can anyone offer me more information in regards to this.                                           💀💀

Held as a high priority issue for an investigation into Public Corruption by the FBI. Existing Conflicts of Interests Among City of Montrose and Lee County, Ia. Officials

Existing Conflicts of Interest between the individual local government officials in regard to the illegal property redevelopment, illegally issued building permits, intentional negligence by Appointed Building Official Mark Holland. Named as a relevant issue for warranting a public corruption investigation by the FBI.

Conflict of Interest existing between named Government officials

Mayor Ron Dinwiddie    Seller             Lot 105 N 5th St                        Buyer    Mark Conlee

 Members on Montrose Volunteer Fire Department, (relevant due to suspicious fire)

Mayor Ron Dinwiddie                                                                                                  Mark Conlee
Council Member/BCA, Fire Chief Mark Holland                         Council Member Jeff Junkins

                                             Co-workers                                                                     

Council Member Jeff Junkins               Council Member Mark Conlee             Linda Conlee

              Family Members

Lee Co. Detective Robert (Bob) Conlee                  Siblings                               Mark Conlee

Council Member Mark Holland                              Siblings                   Member Judy Brisby

Lee County FEMA Officer Steve Cirinna                 spouses              City Clerk Celeste Cirinna

       City of Montrose and Lee County, Iowa Law Enforcement\

Lee Co. Detective Robert Conlee     special relationship       Lee Co. Attorney Michael Short 

Lee Co. Dep. David Hunold           special relationship.        Montrose Police Chief Karl Judd 

Montrose Chief of Police Brent Shipman    Lee County FEMA Officer Steve Cirinna

Went to City Hall to get copies of building permits issued for Mark Conlee’s property redevelopment. – Poisoned By My Neighbor From Hell in Montrose, Lee County, Iowa

After being told by Mayor Dinwiddie that this was a private issue I went to City Hall. I got copies of the building permits on file for Mark Conlees new garage and his new home. This one for his new home.

 

slide0002_image002
In the circled area Value is handwritten $40,880 Fee $ is blank. The issue date at the top is 7-12-2004. Complainant had only noticed that this permit was invalid due to no Builders signature. Clearly Building Administrator Holland was intentionally negligent at least for his lack of oversight and pre-approval of issuance of this permit

5-5-2005 City of Montrose, Iowa council meeting minutes. Holland absent, Mayor Dinwiddie implicates himself by stating the builder’s signature provides the builder is complaint to State Law.

 Boatner followed standard procedure provided for all citizens to remedy issues caused by a neighbor’s property redevelopment.  This property is legally nonconforming. The new neighbor purchased the lot from the Mayor of the City. City building official Mark Holland admitted he did not intend to do his duty and follow standard procedures to address and remedy the situation. Boatner contacted State Representative Phil Wise. Having explained the situation to Mr. Wise he showed the professional courtesy to contact City Hall and have Boatner put on the agenda so she could direct her questions to Council member/Building official Mark Holland in regards to the building permits issued for Mark Conlees property redevelopment. Having Contacted the Mayor and city clerk previously, she was always told to contact the building official. Again she was denied the opportunity to point out the fact that Conlee’s property is a legally nonconforming property and Iowa building code restricts the size of structures to be no large that the existing structures and they must comply with current building codes. These nonconforming structures are much larger that the existing double-wide mobile home and single car garage.  Having reviewed the blueprints and following standard procedure Mark Holland would have never legally been able to issue building permits for these nonconforming structures. Holland was absent from this meeting. Based on the record of attendance at these meetings one may consider his absence was intentional. He was aware that Boatner was on the agenda for the purpose of getting answers to her questions concerning how these illegal redevelopment were approved, and the foreseeable nuisance drainage issue caused by the redevelopment had not been addressed and remedied.Conlee was unable to get the illegal redevelopment recorded on the County plat map. That is when he determined I was going to be eliminated. He had to have my property to get his illegal redevelopment recorded on the County plat map. He chose to use toxic chemicals to eliminate me. He applied chemicals to my property as if it were a normal part of his routine yard maintenance. My Federal 1st Amendment right was violated by the chief of police and the County attorney. I was literally begging County attorney Mike Short to protect my rights. I knew the chemicals were causing my death. Many people knew I was dying. They just did not care. They refused to file a trespassing complaint on my behalf. Their acts were blatant and intentional. State Representative Phil Wise retired soon after I contacted him. Since Jerry Kearns has been elected to State Rep. I have contacted him multiple times. He has made no comment. I want to know who he is representing. He is not representing me. He is not representing the State law. That only leave Mark Conlee’s best interest to be what he is representing.  

5-5-2005-council-meeting-dinwiddie-implicates-himself-state-rep-phil-wise-assisted-boatner

Mayor Dinwiddie states City liability ends when building permits are signed by builder and Building Adm. I then presented the illegal building permit that is signed by Building Administrator Holland but not signed by owner/developer Mark Conlee. Junkins said according to Conlee’s lawyer there was no problem. Fact, the evidence shows Mark Conlee had not talked to an attorney at this time. It is reasonable to believe he was referring to his brother Lee County Law Enforcement officer. Bob Conlee misrepresented his authority on a different day also. Brisby said she and Holland have also driven by the properties. Fact Brisby and Holland are siblings. Holland had the duty to assure compliance to State law by the redeveloper before he approved illegal building permit, he approved the permit without have the required builder’s signature. This violates Boatners right to equal protection of the law, and her right to enjoy her own property both rights are in violation of Federal Law.