This guy takes the cake. Like if its not on this website it there must not be evidence, pretty assumptive of the AUSA for the Southern District of Iowa. Chemical warfare has nearly cost me my life and he thinks its a good idea to put all my evidence out here for the public to view, even the deranged people who used chemical warfare to eliminate me from my property. What is it that he is calling assumptive? All the evidence I have posted is hard copy original documents. If he cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that chemical weapons were used to eliminate me from my private property when even a civil court order or no law enforcement would stop him from applying chemicals to MY property, he should really find a new job. This case is cut and dry. Any reasonable person who would read the evidence I have posted has no doubt this was an intentional act. This evidence is based on facts, SA Reinwart wanted to used hearsay evidence, when the hard copy evidence is right in front of him. He wasted tax payer money to travel clear to the tip of Iowa to refuse to review hard copy evidence and ask for hearsay. When a person knows he is causing another person physical harm and doesn’t stop what he is doing to cause it, its pretty obvious why he is doing it. There is nothing that I have posted that does not have hard copy evidence to support. Reinwart did not follow procedure for investigation and you have not followed procedure for prosecuting criminals. VanderSchel you are assuming that reasonable people do not know it is illegal to do anything to another person property, not to mention unheard of act of chemical warfare as stated by the EPA field investigator. That is a F(&99+ fact. And I have to mention that you advised me that you would not be the person prosecuting this case anyway so why do you think you have any input about this case at all? You are assuming you have some kind of authority over a case that you are not the prosecutor of. That show a defect in your personality any reasonable person can determine that to be a fact also. An attorney of minimum experience could win this case. The evidence is solid as a rock. Not the hearsay, the hard copy evidence. Hearsay does not stand up in court, don’t you know that?
Here is an example of how well FBI SA and the AUSA reviewed my evidence. In this letter the AUSA claims that most of the activity occurred 2003-2005. It is well documented that 2003-2005 is when the City allowed for the non compliant to State building code structures built on Mark Conlee’s nonconforming lot to be built. If they would have actually reviewed my evidence, instead of asking that I tell them this complex story they would have discovered the chemical warfare started in 2005-2010, during that time I was unable to get any protection of the law, there was a civil trial that the court ruled in my favor, however Conlee would not comply with that court order and the chemical attack continued on a weekly basis. There is nothing in this letter that is based on the facts the evidence supports. VanderSchel has advised that he has reviewed my website. He could not have mistaken the timeline if he actually had reviewed it. VanderSchel the chemical poisoning began in 2005. Are you being intentionally negligent? I also advised you that when I was forced to flee from my property because I could get no law enforcement to stop this man from applying the toxic chemicals to my property, the full body skin condition was so severe it was unbearable to wear clothes, I was blind, and I was homeless for the following 4 years. So that takes us up to 2014 before I was able to make contact with anyone who has the duty to protect my Constitutional Rights. SA Reinwart does not know that private property rights are Federally protected rights. He does not seem to know about any Federal laws except hate crimes. He did not review my evidence, He did not interview any of my witnesses, he did not interview my Drs., he did not interview the perps or he could have easily charged them with lying to the Feds. You tell me Mr. VanderSchel just what did SA Reinwart do to investigate my allegation. You claim that the statute of limitations had expired between 2013 and 2016, am I responsible to make Reinwart investigate in a timely fashion? I couldn’t even get him to review the hard copy evidence which was the purpose for him to come to my home 16 months after I contacted him. I had previously contacted a female agent from the Hiawatha division and was waiting some time for her to respond as she advised she would, finally I telephoned the number I had previously contacted her with, Reinwart answered and advise that she had been transferred. Is it my responsibility to call and check if an agent has been transferred? I have not read that as a standard procedure for complainants. Not to mention my emails to the Omaha division, and telephone calls to the Washington DC headquarters. I have gone above and beyond reasonable efforts to contact an FBI agent. Senator Grassley advised me in 2009 that an agent would be contacting me. I waited 10 years then I got impatient. Its not as if I have physically recovered from the chemicals illegally applied to my property without any protection of the law and my private property rights for those significant 5 long years.
Well this may be against my best interest but at this point what do I have to lose. I am publishing the email of the FBI SA who refused to review my hard copy evidence. Did not look into the financial record of the accused to see if perhaps a bribe has been paid. He accepted hearsay to be evidence. My case did not even get issued a case number. He did not recognize that private property rights are Federally protected rights. He continued to claim that no Federal law has been broken when anyone who has taken the time to review the evidence agrees with me that Federal laws have been violated on more than one occasion. email@example.com. He goes by the first name of Thomas.
The AUSA immediately advised me that he would not prosecute giving me three different reasons at three different times. The first three reasons I submitted evidence that he was incorrect as to what the evidence proved he was basing his decision on. Knowing he has been given false information or information based on hearsay by the above named FBI agent. The most recent decision not to prosecute was because he has the authority. I sent him guidelines suggested by the Attorney General but to no avail. The letter states that I am not supposed to contact this AUSA again. They will not put any more resources into my insignificant case. I explained that a civil court order early on in my favor was violated by the local government officials and he callously does not care. Kevin.VanderSchel@doj.gov. he of course goes by the name of Kevin.
There is no record of any citizen being forced to flee from their private property due to unlawful application of toxic chemicals being applied, ongoing for over 5 years. NONE. It seems to me that anyone who would continue an act that he knows is causing anyone else physical harm has some mental health issues. I know I would not do anything to anyone else’s property because it is illegal and immoral. It seems the Federal authorities feel that they can join in this figurative gang rape. I feel they need to be held accountable as well as the locals. There is nothing I have posted that is based on hearsay or based on fabricated information. There is much evidence that I have not posted. If these individuals are satisfied that they have upheld their duty and the oath they took to uphold the Constitution of the United States then they should be proud of their job performance in my unnumbered case. They never showed any real intent to defend my rights given by Federal law. They should be proud of their actions in this case that has multiple violations of Federal law. Anyone who reads my information and feels my Federally protected rights have been violated I urge you to email these individuals and let them know that private property rights are Federally protected rights and any other opinions you may have that Federal law has in fact been violated. Terrorism is not a violation of Federal law I have been told. Only supporters of terrorism are violating Federal law, so clearly the local officials who would not stop this neighbor from applying the chemicals to my property are supporters of terrorism. Yes herbicides and pesticides are considered chemical weapons. I have done all the research to know that violations of Federal law have occured.
If something happens to me it is well documented as to who may be involved. Just saying. Glyphosate is harmful to human beings when not applied as directed on the label. This is what is wrong with our Government today. Covering up and supporting corruption is not what the FBI has the duty to do. I want to know why I am exempt from the same rights that every other citizen takes for granted, as I did when I fled from my home, business and property. There is no justifiable reason any US citizen should have to suffer what I have suffered.
I have never claimed my damages occurred in 2003-2005, that is when the illegal property redevelopment was going on. My allegations of conspiracy against rights and deprivation of rights under color of law began in 2005 with the most recent occurring in April 2017. If anyone actually felt they had a duty to actually read my complaint there would be no mistaking of timelines. But in this case we rely on what someone who was not interested in the first place tell their version of the story to a third party. That is hearsay, which is not evidence that is allowed in court or in any reasonable investigation. Mr. VanderSchel, how about I send a copy of my complaint directly to you. You read the entire complaint and then you may be more able to base a decision on what the complaint states. Your information is incorrect. I should not have to continue to beg for justice based on people being misinformed as to that the evidence supports.
I contacted Senator Grassley in 2007, he forwarded my information to the FBI. Are you telling me it has taken 11 years for my case to get from the Senator to the hands of the US attorney and the information is not based on the information in the written complaint I submitted to the local FBI agent. This local agent told me 3 different versions of what would happen after I submitted my complaint to him. I do not have any evidence that he even submitted my written complaint. I have evidence that the most recent act of conspiracy happened in April 2017 well within the statute of limitations. I have not been negligent in anyway of not submitting timely complaints. How in the hell does it take 11 years for a complaint to get from a Senator to a US Attorney.
Somebody has some splanin to do. Where is the written complaint I submitted to the local FBI?
652. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR CONSPIRACY
Conspiracy is a continuing offense. For statutes such as 18 U.S.C. § 371, which require an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy, the statute of limitations begins to run on the date of the last overt act. See Fiswick v. United States, 329 U.S. 211 (1946); United States v. Butler, 792 F.2d 1528 (11th Cir. 1986). For conspiracy statutes which do not require proof of an overt act, such as RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961) or 21 U.S.C. § 846, the government must allege and prove that the conspiracy continued into the limitations period. The crucial question in this regard is the scope of the conspiratorial agreement, and the conspiracy is deemed to continue until its purpose has been achieved or abandoned. See United States v. Northern Imp. Co., 814 F.2d 540 (8th Cir. 1987); United States v. Coia, 719 F.2d 1120 (11th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 973 (1984).
An individual’s “withdrawal” from a conspiracy starts the statute of limitations running as to that individual. “Withdrawal” from a conspiracy for this purpose means that the conspirator must take affirmative action by making a clean breast to the authorities or communicating his or her disassociation to the other conspirators. See United States v. Gonzalez, 797 F.2d 915 (10th Cir. 1986).
|songboat <firstname.lastname@example.org>||Aug 19, 2018, 12:33 AM|
You have never looked into the financial records of Conlee and the County Attorney or my attorney or any of the rest of this criminal enterprise, have you? I told you that Mark Conlee’s personality disorder would not allow for him not to keep a record of who he payed off. It the linked case is Federal then why would my case be exempt? My case also falls into the guidelines of violation of international human rights crimes I have been told.So I would think there would be many allegations like mine. If there is no Federal law to hold City and Countys accountable for using chemicals to force you from your property and they happen to have a conflict of interest with the local officials, but the local officials instead of recognizing the conflict, they use the situation for personal gain. Hey, I read about conflict of interest on the FBI website. Why is my case not within the guidelines for Federal conspiracy against rights and deprivation of rights under color of law? By rights I mean my rights given by Amendments 4, 7,8, 14
The FBI is the primary federal agencyresponsible for investigating allegations regarding violations of federal civil rights statutes. These laws are designed to protect the civil rights of all persons—citizens and non-citizens alike—within U.S. territory. Using its full suite of investigative and intelligence capabilities, the Bureau today works closely with its partners to prevent and address hate crime, human trafficking, color of law violations, and Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act violations
Color of Law Violations Preventing abuse of this authority, however, is equally necessary to the health of our nation’s democracy. That’s why it’s a federal crime for anyone acting under “color of law” to willfully deprive or conspire to deprive a person of a right protected by the Constitution or U.S. law. “Color of law” simply means the person is using authority given to him or her by a local, state, or federal government agency.
The FBI is the lead federal agency for investigating color of law violations, which include acts carried out by government officials operating both within and beyond the limits of their lawful authority. Off-duty conduct may be covered if the perpetrator asserted his or her official status in some way. Those violations include the following acts:
Excessive force: In making arrests, maintaining order, and defending life, law enforcement officers are allowed to use whatever force is “reasonably” necessary. The breadth and scope of the use of force is vast—from just the physical presence of the officer…to the use of deadly force. Violations of federal law occur when it can be shown that the force used was willfully “unreasonable” or “excessive.” chemical weapons would fall under this catagory
False arrest and fabrication of evidence: The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right against unreasonable searches or seizures. A law enforcement official using authority provided under the color of law is allowed to stop individuals and, under certain circumstances, to search them and retain their property. It is in the abuse of that discretionary power—such as an unlawful detention or illegal confiscation of property—that a violation of a person’s civil rights may occur. Fabricating evidence against or falsely arresting an individual also violates the color of law statute, taking away the person’s rights of due process and unreasonable seizure. In the case of deprivation of property, the color of law statute would be violated by unlawfully obtaining or maintaining a person’s property, which oversteps or misapplies the official’s authority. This happened multiple times in my case, This is the most personally offensive action against me in my opinion.
Failure to keep from harm: The public counts on its law enforcement officials to protect local communities. If it’s shown that an official willfully failed to keep an individual from harm, that official could be in violation of the color of law statute. This one is a given. Did you look at the affects the chemicals had on my skin? The scars that I will carry with me on my arms the rest of my life. Nobody protected me from harm. You have the evidence that proves this without a doubt.
Title 42, U.S.C., Section 14141 makes it unlawful for state or local law enforcement agencies to allow officers to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives persons of rights protected by the Constitution or U.S. laws. This law, commonly referred to as the Police Misconduct Statute, gives the Department of Justice authority to seek civil remedies in cases where law enforcement agencies have policies or practices that foster a pattern of misconduct by employees. This action is directed against an agency, not against individual officers. The types of issues which may initiate a pattern and practice investigation include:
- Lack of supervision/monitoring of officers’ actions; City of Montrose and Lee County Ia
- Lack of justification or reporting by officers on incidents involving the use of force; Lee County Sheriff’s Dept. and City of Montrose Police Dept.
- Lack of, or improper training of, officers; and Lee County Sheriffs Dept. and City of Montrose Police Dept
- Citizen complaint processes that treat complainants as adversaries. City of Montrose, Lee County sheriff dept, State of Iowa prosecuting attorney for Lee County
ADDRESSING POLICE MISCONDUCT LAWS ENFORCED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Federal laws that address police misconduct include both criminal and civil statutes. These laws cover the actions of State, county, and local officers, including those who work in prisons and jails. In addition, several laws also apply to Federal law enforcement officers. The laws protect all persons in the United States (citizens and non-citizens).
It is a crime for one or more persons acting under color of law willfully to deprive or conspire to deprive another person of any right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. (18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242). “Color of law” simply means that the person doing the act is using power given to him or her by a governmental agency (local, State, or Federal). A law enforcement officer acts “under color of law” even if he or she is exceeding his or her rightful power. The types of law enforcement misconduct covered by these laws include excessive force, sexual assault, intentional false arrests, or the intentional fabrication of evidence resulting in a loss of liberty to another. Enforcement of these provisions does not require that any racial, religious, or other discriminatory motive existed. What remedies are available under these laws? Violations of these laws are punishable by fine and/or imprisonment. There is no private right of action under these statutes; in other words, these are not the legal provisions under which you would file a lawsuit on your own.
Federal Civil Enforcement
“Police Misconduct Provision”
This law makes it unlawful for State or local law enforcement officers to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives persons of rights protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. (42 U.S.C. § 14141). The types of conduct covered by this law can include, among other things, excessive force, discriminatory harassment, false arrests, coercive sexual conduct, and unlawful stops, searches or arrests. In order to be covered by this law, the misconduct must constitute a “pattern or practice” — it may not simply be an isolated incident. The DOJ must be able to show in court that the agency has an unlawful policy or that the incidents constituted a pattern of unlawful conduct. However, unlike the other civil laws discussed below, DOJ does not have to show that discrimination has occurred in order to prove a pattern or practice of misconduct. What remedies are available under this law? The remedies available under this law do not provide for individual monetary relief for the victims of the misconduct. Rather, they provide for injunctive relief, such as orders to end the misconduct and changes in the agency’s policies and procedures that resulted in or allowed the misconduct. There is no private right of action under this law; only DOJ may file suit for violations of the Police Misconduct Provision.
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
and the “OJP Program Statute”
Together, these laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, and religion by State and local law enforcement agencies that receive financial assistance from the Department of Justice. (42 U.S.C. § 2000d, et seq. and 42 U.S.C. § 3789d(c)). Currently, most persons are served by a law enforcement agency that receives DOJ funds. These laws prohibit both individual instances and patterns or practices of discriminatory misconduct, i.e., treating a person differently because of race, color, national origin, sex, or religion. The misconduct covered by Title VI and the OJP (Office of Justice Programs) Program Statute includes, for example, harassment or use of racial slurs, unjustified arrests, discriminatory traffic stops, coercive sexual conduct, retaliation for filing a complaint with DOJ or participating in the investigation, use of excessive force, or refusal by the agency to respond to complaints alleging discriminatory treatment by its officers. What remedies are available under these laws?DOJ may seek changes in the policies and procedures of the agency to remedy violations of these laws and, if appropriate, also seek individual remedial relief for the victim(s). Individuals also have a private right of action under Title VI and under the OJP Program Statute; in other words, you may file a lawsuit yourself under these laws. However, you must first exhaust your administrative remedies by filing a complaint with DOJ if you wish to file in Federal Court under the OJP Program Statute.
Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 prohibit discrimination against individuals with disabilities on the basis of disability. (42 U.S.C. § 12131, et seq. and 29 U.S.C. § 794). These laws protect all people with disabilities in the United States. An individual is considered to have a “disability” if he or she has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, has a record of such an impairment, or is regarded as having such an impairment.
The ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in all State and local government programs, services, and activities regardless of whether they receive DOJ financial assistance; it also protects people who are discriminated against because of their association with a person with a disability. Section 504 prohibits discrimination by State and local law enforcement agencies that receive financial assistance from DOJ. Section 504 also prohibits discrimination in programs and activities conducted by Federal agencies, including law enforcement agencies.
These laws prohibit discriminatory treatment, including misconduct, on the basis of disability in virtually all law enforcement services and activities. These activities include, among others, interrogating witnesses, providing emergency services, enforcing laws, addressing citizen complaints, and arresting, booking, and holding suspects. These laws also prohibit retaliation for filing a complaint with DOJ or participating in the investigation. What remedies are available under these laws? If appropriate, DOJ may seek individual relief for the victim(s), in addition to changes in the policies and procedures of the law enforcement agency. Individuals have a private right of action under both the ADA and Section 504; you may file a private lawsuit for violations of these statutes. There is no requirement that you exhaust your administrative remedies by filing a complaint with DOJ first. It was the misconduct of these officers that causes my disability.
It seems it would be appropriate to bring a complaint in violation of fair housing act, I would need to speak with the US Attorney about this issue;
I have also been advised this case is one of environmental protection violations. This case has some elements of all Federal law violations. If you have read this reply “ok”
You know full well that there are laws that protect citizens from aggressive neighbors. There is no record of a citizen having to shoot a neighbor in the knee caps to keep him from applying chemicals to their property. I would think if all you had to do was apply chemicals to a neighboring property until they have no option of excaping the chemcials except by fleeing, it would be happening everyday. It is not happening everyday, it does not happen everyday and the reason is because it is against the State and Federal law to do anything to the property of another person. They cannot do it and if they do they are subject to arrest by law enforcement. They do not get to continue the terrorist crimes against humanity until the people who are being poisoned flee. It does not happen and It is not going to happen to me. So whoever had the duty to file a trespassing complaint against this neighbor, I want to know right now. Is it the City police chief? Is it the County Attorney? Because I am going to challenge them to a fist fight. How dare they treat me as an undeserving citizen. How dare they use attorney discrection when the acts agaisnt me were life threatening. Kevin Vanderschel I am coming to town and I am going to request that you review the factual evidence, not the hearsay that you have gotten from third parites. If you collude with these local imposters I am going to swing on you. You do not have the right to violate my rights and you do not have the right to allow anyone to get away with intentionally causing me physical harm. I do not care if you can show me where it is written that you do, I am telling you you can find someone else to violated because I am not going to allow you or anyone else to do it to me . You oath or you office, which is it going to me, I am pissed off. I spent the last two years with an FBI agent who is either ignorant to the natural rights given to the people or he simply is protecting those people who gave him false information and he used it as facts. He has lied to you, I can prove it and you are going to give me the opportunity to prove not one of these locals are credible. I think I could take you in a fist fight, I don’t care how big you are. I am bigger because I have not violated anyone, I have not lied to anyone and most of all I have not critially harmed anyone. Be expecting me as I intend to come to your city on business, perhaps we could have lunch, my treat. Have your evidence prepared because I have mine all ready to battle it out, I do not want you on my case. You are not committed enough to your job to represent my case. You have already as much as told me you are going to allow my property to be taken by force and leave me with only the calassed hands from building my home, business and happiness. You should be ashamed to call your self a public servant just as the rest of them are. Collusion comes to mind.
March 2002, Mark Conlee purchased the property adjoining mine from then Mayor Ron Dinwiddie. Creating a conflict of interest Boatners property is numbered 1-6 in the photo, Conlee property in not numbered. Both properties are equal in size however they are non typical in layout. These are the only 2 lots in Montrose that are legally described as being 6 half lots. running from street to street. Typical lots run from street to alley. Double frontage properties and reverse frontage lots shall be avoided, except where their use will produce definite advantages in meeting special situations in relation to topography, sound site planning, and proper land use. Being long and narrow lots restricted new redevelopment structures.
March 2003 Mark Conlee trucked in tons of fill dirt on lots 1 & 2 of his property (4Th St). He constructed a non-conforming, over sized, 2 story garage. The fact that this building was positioned 90 degreesfrom what would be considered normal and there was no drain tile installed caused me great concern. It was foreseeable that roof surface of this massive structure being directed to my property was going to cause adverse effects by flooding. I assumed he would install guttering and downspouts to divert storm water to the cities open drainage ditch as required by law. Mark Conlee intentionally diverted storm water to my property. He installed a culvert and new driveway which requires a special permit, as do all driveways. I suspect no standard procedure for acquiring the proper permits were followed. Prior to the redevelopment of Mark Conlee’s lots 1 & 2 there were no structures and the grade ran down to the city ditch. Iowa drainage laws state “new construction and property redevelopment stormwater run off to a neighbors land “can not be more than before development”. The amount of runoff onto my property was significant and caused my property to lose value as evident in the County property assessment records.
I spoke to Montrose Chief of Police John Farmer, at that time, about my concerns. According to Officer Farmer, the reason Mark Conlee built the over sized 2 story garage with the intention of making the second story his living quarters. Mark Conlee had recently divorced.
Soon after Mark Conlee finished building his garage he remarried. This was quite surprising since most of the neighbor and I were unaware that Mark had a girlfriend. He never introduced me to his wife when there was an plenty of opportunity. Marks new wife, Linda is co-worker of Mark Conlee. The factory they work at is considered high paying wage. Mark Conlees finances doubled with this marriage. Soon after he married the existing double-wide mobile home burnt in a suspicious nature. The double-wide home and the berm were put in place in 1972. I am certain the cause was arson because Mark Conlee told me and another witness that he “wished the trailer would burn”. Two weeks later his wish comes true.
The fact that the only 4 firefighters were on the scene were Mark Conlee, Mayor Ron Dinwiddie, Fire Chief/ Council member/Appointed building administrator Mark Holland, and Jake Holland(Mark Hollands son) and not at their regular job in neighboring towns that morning.
Mark Conlee went to work as usual that day. He returned home soon after he got to his job at a factory 3 miles from Montrose.
I called Iowa arson hotline, of course, my tip to the hot line was never investigated.
Montrose Chief of Police John Farmer stated he felt the fire was suspicious and warranted further investigation however he was told not worry about it they had it “taken care of”.
Every neighbor with the exception of one approached me stating they thought it was arson. I did not ask for details as to their reason for there suspicion.
One neighbor was curious where Mark Conlee was getting all his money from.
According to a witness several weeks prior to the Conlee fire there was a case of mobile home fire the cause of both fires being the same.
The cause was in a nature that a reasonable trained firefighter as Mark Conlee would not be so reckless.
The morning of the fire I was not awakened by the fire station siren as always, I woke from the noise of Jake Holland hooking up the hose to the hydrant on my corner.
Conlee, Dinwiddie and Mark Holland were doing nothing more than standing on the sidewalk talking. When Jake did get the hose hooked up to the hydrant, one of them told him to put the hose down.
After several hours of waiting on the sidewalk in front of the residence Mark Conlee dressed in the full body firefighters suit and went inside the home. Several minutes later he returned outside. I noticed he was empty handed. It seems unreasonable that someone’s house unexpectedly burns and they are the firefighter that enters. They would try and save a treasured memento or at least one item from inside the home.
The timeliness of this fire is suspicious in itself.
Though none of this information was disclosed to me. After the fire Mark Conlee opted not to build his living quarters upstairs in the non-conforming garage. With his newly acquired financial gains from his marriage and insurance claim from the fire Mark Conlee decided to build a new home. He wanted a large very nice home. The one thing he was unable to make larger was the size of his property lot that he bought from Mayor Ron Dinwiddie. His lot was always going to be 70 X 300′.
Mark Conlee’s grandiose behavior toward me was undeniable. The last time Mark Conlee spoke to me in a neighborly fashion, he stated to me that he wanted to top my trees so he could build his house without the limbs from my trees obstructing his space where he would need to work on the roof of his new home. I replied “I do not have a problem with that.” I wrongly assumed he would clean up the waste in the yard from the limbs and such. It was an elm tree and they do have a lot of small growth that comes with topping them, more than most other types of trees for sure. He hired a group Amish workers to top the tree and clean up the scrap material strewn about in his yard. I assumed the ran out of daylight the first day. The second day my yard was a mess. I could not get to the clothes line without clearing a path. Which I did. The third day I dropped what I was scheduled to do in my business and cleaned up the mess in my yard into 3 large piles of waste. Mark Conlee never offered to assist with any of the mess he made in my yard. I was very offended that I was kind enough to let him top my trees for his benefit and in return I was left with a major cleanup in my yard with no regard or concern that I had a business to run and I certainly did not have cleaning up the massive amount of yard waste in my scheduled customer deadline. Reflecting back, knowing narcissist I understand that when he stated “He wanted to top my trees”, he was not asking permission as a reasonable person would. He was stating that he was going to top my trees. Mark Conlee never spoke a kind neighborly word to me from that point on. He did talk to me. He did communicate with me. At one point he hollered across the yard at me informing me that “his house is over the setbacks required by State Law”. I look at him but had no verbal response.
Mark Conlee had blueprints for his new home in at this time. Standard procedure requires site layout and drainage are determined before anything else in property redevelopment. There is no previous record of complaints that suggest Building Administrator Mark Hollands acted with intentional disregard to perform his appointed duty as building administrator by following standard procedures required by Law. Witnesses were and are available to testify that Mr. Holland studied their blueprints and questioned the layout of building on their plans. Holland’s intentional negligence leaves the City of Montrose liable for Boatners damages.
Legal theories of Liability a manual provided by the State Association for Floodplain Management explains the grounds in detail. Lee County Federal Emergency Floodplain Management officer is Steve Cirinna, Husband of City of Montrose Clerk, Celeste Cirinna.
Mark Conlee’s property redevelopment simply would not fit on the narrow half lots and be in compliance with Uniform Building Laws. He illegally changed the frontage of his property so that now the massive roof surfaces directed storm water directly onto my property. This is a legally non conforming property. Not developable in anyway making the footprint of any new structures larger than the existing structures. Standard procedures require stormwater drainage be directed into the city drainage ditches. The law states that a redevelopment cannot divert more stormwater runoff onto a neighboring property than before the redevelopment. The existing structures the roof surface ran parallel with the property. Boatner received no run off from the existing structures. The adverse effects to her property were foreseeable and intentional. Mark Conlee had fill dirt trucked in and regraded his property so that all storm water was diverted onto my property. He raised the alley as it were his private driveway. General procedure is that alleys are lower than the homeowners property to receive storm water on Boatners behalf. According to Mr. Dodds a developer can not take it upon himself to remove any berm or swale that is protecting neighboring property from flooding and has existed for 10 or more years.
On 7-4-2004 Mark Conlee was putting the finishing touch on his dirt work. His work with the rented uni-loader was meticulously smooth in both the grade and level. On what looked to me to be his last pass I hollered to get his attention over the noise of the uni-loader. I stated to him that we needed a ditch dug on the common boundary because it was foreseeable that my property going to be flooded as a result of his redevelopment. He heard me but never acknowledged me, he just drove on past me without a word. I was devastated. Mark Conlee had not installed drain tile, he had unlawfully remove the berm that protected my home and property from flooding, and he had changed the frontage of his new home and garage to face the alley as his front yard and the rear of his property now was my property to serve the purpose of his alley in regards to stormwater.
My repeated requests for the proper City authority went unaddressed. The drainage issue continued. At this time also Conlee began using what is defined as terrorist acts using toxic chemicals as the weapon unlawfully applied to my property, not his as the photo evidence shows. His intent was to cause me bodily harm or death. The motive for him to eliminate me was because he discovered that he could not get the illegal redevelopment recorded on the county plat map. He simply did not have enough land to set the oversized structures on legally. This is documented in Poisoned by My Neighbor From Hell, Good Old Boy Network From Hell, My Neighbor Poisoned Me.
Feb. 3, 2005 Bob Conlee was promoted to Detective for Lee County Sheriff’s Office. Bob Conlee is Mark Conlee’s brother. He has been employed with the sheriff’s dept for most of his adult life. They actually removed the 6’ height requirement in order to hire him when he got his job as a deputy.
3-22-2005 Lee County Detective Bob Conlee was present at Mark Conlee’s property presenting himself to be the authority of the building administrator on behalf of the City. Lee County Sheriff’s Dept. Detective Bob Conlee being the brother of Mark Conlee acted in violation of a conflict of interest rule. Detective Bob Conlee having no jurisdiction in the City of Montrose acted with Mark Conlee, Mayor Ron Dinwiddie and Building Admin/Council Member/Fire Chief actions support CONSPIRACY DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW.
SA Thomas Reinwart disputed the allegation that I made saying that Bob Conlee was acting as a city building authority. Reinwart suggested that he was merely giving his brother advice. But we know that building official Mark Holland refused to come to the location, so yes Bob Conlee was misrepresenting his authority as a city building official.
Det. Conlee began knowingly making false statements, defaming my character to the general public. On one occasion Montrose Deputy, Mike Smith and I witnessed Det. Conlee say over the police radio in response to a report about my brother “are you sure it is not Melody driving Reggie’s truck? “I (Bob Conlee) know she used to drive Reggie’s truck”. Detective Conlee knowingly made a false statement. There is no evidence that I have ever driven my brothers truck, because I never have. Officer Conlees motive was to associate me with illegal drug activity. Based of the content of that statement it is reasonable to believe that what he is referring to is an incident in 1997 when I was mistaken for my brothers girlfriend at the time due to the fact that my brother and I have the same color truck. He owns a Chevy S10 and I own a Ford Ranger. The task force had my brothers house under surveillance waiting for his girlfriend to pull up. My brother was incarcerated at the time. He and I had not associated since an earlier disagreement in 1995. I arrived on behalf of a phone call from my Aunt, Connie Reuther. She was concerned about some movement at Reggie’s and called me asking if I would come and check on his place. Had Reggie not been incarcerated I would not have been there. Aunt Connie watched out for Reggie’s place knowing it was vacant and she lived next door to his property. When I pulled in the task force surrounded me before I had time to get out of my truck. Senior Officer Tom Crew requested identification, searched my vehicle and cleared me from any wrong doing immediately, Senior Officer Buck Jones was also on the scene and apologized for any inconvenience they had caused me. Lee County Deputy Bob Conlee could identify me on sight and knew I was not the individual who the warrant was issued for. I did not know who the warrant was issued for until a later time. That is what Detective Conlee was referring when he falsely stated he knew I used to drive Reggie’s truck. I have had no other interaction with the drug task force, ever.
Lee County Detective Bob Conlee in his delusional state of mind began defaming my character, claiming I was going to get busted for drugs. He had me under constant surveillance. When Bob Conlee was on duty he never let me out of his sight. I was well aware of his presence. I was unconcerned because I knew I was innocent of any wrongdoing. I was a homebody, I enjoyed staying home and keeping busy in my upholstery shop, yard or the house. When Detective Conlee began psychopathic stalking me I was concerned for my own safety. On two occasions he followed me from my house to my destination point. I was at a service business just out of town using the owners chop saw for a chair frame fabrication I needed. Bob came tearing in the door like a mad man. He came to the back of the building where I was operating the saw. He observed what I was doing and just turned around and left. He didn’t say a word to me or the owner of the business. When he got back in his unmarked car he defamed my character again making false statements on the police radio. He stated that I had hidden my truck at the destination point. That is a complete fabrication.
Before long the entire community knew that I was a drug dealer and my arrest was imminent. Officer Brent Shipman defamed my character by repeating this false information to the general public. Mark Conlee defamed my character at a city council meeting suggesting that I am a drug dealer. After the meeting an witness approached me stating that in her opinion Conlee’s statement was a reaching an all time low view of his character.
My initial complaint in reference to the drainage issue in March 2005. I contacted Mark Conlee, Council member/building admin. Mark Holland and Mayor Ron Dinwiddie via written notes taped to their front doors and leaving messages on their answering machines when my calls were not answered. Having not responded in May, I took the aerial photo with me to Mark Holland’s home. Mark Holland was planting his garden. I showed him the photo and pointed out the berm that Mark Conlee had removed and was causing adverse effects to my home structure. Mark Holland stated “I forgot about that” (the berm). With that I assumed as any reasonable person would, that Mark Holland would follow up or at the least re-access the redevelopment that he had issued the building permits for. He took no action to resolve the problems. He at no time represented my interests as required by the City Authority. He did continue to serve Mark Conlee’s every request with no discretion, Holland issued two more permits to Mark Conlee each for an outdoor structure.
I began having severe panic attacks, the mental anguish of watching my property being taken from any of my control was unbearable.
I knew Conlee committed arson of the existing home on his property
I was terrified that he would burn my house down with me in it.
I believe he to be a psychopath
He has absolutely no conscience.
He is a habitual liar
I knew he had no fear of being held accountable by the law for any criminal act against me.
I contacted every council member and requested they come and look at the situation. Cathy Roberts Farnsworth was the only council member having the professional courtesy to respond to my request. Cathy witnessed my property flooded as a direct result of Mark Conlee’s property redevelopment. She also told me that she asked Mark Holland if he was going to address my concerns, Mark Holland stated to her that he was not. I called Mayor Dinwiddie several times, one of which he did come to my property. I expected Mayor Dinwiddie to follow some type of standard procedure and together would walk the property line visually and discuss the drainage issues that were so prominent. He got out of his vehicle and stood near the sidewalk long enough to tell to me “he (Conlee) can’t do that (divert storm water onto my property), but its a private issue”. He returned directly to his truck and left with no intent of being open to my opinion or further discussion. Certainly not the character I know Ron Dinwiddie to be.
I have known Ron Dinwiddie personally since I was a teenager. He and his family have been like my second family since I was young. His sister and I have been best friends throughout our youth. His mother made it a point to tell me she loved me when she became ill prior to her death. I can visualize Dinwiddie’s mannerisms as he would and should have stated at the City Council meeting advising them and Holland that “he can’t do that”. Ron Dinwiddie knew he was telling me a lie when he made that statement to me.
According to City of Montrose Code of Ordinances (Code of Iowa, Sec. 380.5 & 380.6)
6. Negotiations. Represent the City in all negotiations properly entered into in accordance with law or ordinance. The Mayor shall not represent the City where this duty is specifically delegated to another officer by law, ordinance, or Council direction.
Dinwiddie had no authority to act as building administrator, Dinwiddie had the duty as Mayor to manage the City officials and had the duty to direct my issue to the proper authority, Mark Holland.The following day I went to City Hall and got copies of the building permits issued to Mark Conlee by appointed building administrator Mark Holland for Mark Conlee’s garage and new home. By this time Holland had issued 2 more permits to Mark Conlee for out buildings. Dinwiddie and Holland were both co-conspirators with an existing conflict of interest on Mark Conlees behalf.
I was denied equal protection of the law.
My attention was focused on the permit issued for the new house. Conlee’s entire property redevelopment increased stormwater run off on to my property. But it was Conlees new home that was causing adverse effects to structure of my home. The permit is not completed according to general procedure. The permit was signed by building administrator Mark Holland, but not signed by the builder Mark Conlee. The authority is Mark Holland. His intentional negligence to disregard his duty to address my concerns on behalf of his special relationship with buddy there leaves no oversite or accountability, this is unacceptable. Hence, the purpose of uniform building codes and the issuance of building permits as noted on public record by Mayor Dinwiddie
I contacted State Rep. Phil Wise requesting some assistance, he called City Hall and requested I be added to the agenda so I could direct my questions to building admin Mark Holland. With in minutes of Mr. Wises phone call to City Hall, Lee County Detective Bob Conlee arrived at his brother Mark Conlee’s home. Mark Holland did not respond. It was no surprise that at the City Council meeting in which Mr. Wise requested I be added to the agenda Holland was absent, a rare occasion according to his history. I did address the council and public record shows Mayor Dinwiddie implicated the City of Montrose as being liable by interrupting me when I following procedure had the floor to speak to Council. When Mayor Dinwiddie finished what he interrupted me to say I submitted the building permit in question showing that Mark Holland representing the City has signed it but Mark Conlee the builder had not. There was no discussion as to Mayor Dinwiddie’s acknowledgement of liability was obviously on the City after I submitted the unsigned permit. There was no response from Mayor Dinwiddie to me privately either. I followed up with an email to State Rep. Phil Wise. Mr. Wise did not respond. I am aware that Mr. Wise did not have any real authority to rectify my problem. He was up front with that information, out of professional courtesy he used his political influence to contact City Hall on my behalf. Also this was just prior to Mr. Wise’s retirement I am sure he felt the City would address my concerns when I presented the questionable document. Mayor Dinwiddie’s own statements at that public meeting implicate himself in CONSPIRACY DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW.
July 2, 2005 My skin condition is spreading Mark Conlee continues to unlawfully apply chemicals to my property on a regular basis when he maintains his yard. Officer Shipman still denies my request for an incident report as requested in May.
July 7, 2005 Council minutes state Mark Holland and Jeff Junkins are both are looking for nuisance violations. Both have a special relationships with Mark Conlee, evidence supports an existing conflict of interest. This meeting also includes evidence that the City was uncooperative in submitting documents to the Ombudsman on behalf of my allegations in a complaint I filed with them. It is unreasonable behavior for the City Clerk not to cooperate with the ombudsman’s request. I find it more unreasonable the Ombudsman determine to drop the case based on hearsay from Cirinna and it is beyond suspicious as to why the City would not submit the request for documents, yet the Ombudsman dismissed my complaint stating they found no wrongdoing, without viewing the questionable documents. I am offended that the ombudsman was negligent in investigating the evidence I had supporting my side of the case. I am offended that this City finds no duty to follow standard procedure on behalf of one individual.
Still searching for a solution to rectify the drainage situation, I joined cyburbia forum on the internet. I was desperate for some assistance as my property was being washed away due to uncontrollable flooding. One individual on the forum was particularly interested in my situation, he advised me to contact Lee County Extension agent, Bob Dodds. Mr. Dodds had no duty or authority to rectify the situation. Mr. Dodds did come to my property to access the situation. He took photos and wrote a letter to Mayor Dinwiddie on my behalf, including a copy of the State of Iowa Drainage Law Manual. Mr. Dodds happened to live in Montrose. In reviewing the building permit issued by Mark Holland for Mark Conlees new home, Mr. Dodds noted a few discrepancies. One being that Mark Conlee had not been required to paid the fee for the permit. There was no response from Mayor Dinwiddie in reference to the letter written on my behalf by Robert Dodds. Mayor Dinwiddie was intentionally negligent in his duty as Mayor to manage and direct appointed to Mark Holland to perform his duty. I have found no case in which the building administrator was allowed by a Mayor to refused his duty to represent the State building code. This is unreasonable professional behavior by all these officials by any standards.
With all the written laws, rules and regulations in place to protect citizens from being forced to sue City’s and neighbor’s being ignored on behalf of Mark Conlee. The City’s intentional negligence left no other recourse but for me to sue them.
I was looking for an attorney. John Farmer suggested Steve Swan. John briefed Steve Swan as to the case and our initial meeting 6-21-2005. Steve Swan advised that we would sue the City of Montrose and Mark Conlee adding the comment, (that I was already aware of), that the City is where the money is. Mr. Swan was quite taken when I submitted my list of witnesses, he said he felt the list itself was quite compelling, another fact (that I was already aware of). Mr. Swan made a comment that in hindsight I now question in regard to his ethical behavior. He told me that Bob Conlee had already lied to him, stating that his brother Mark had not altered the grade or elevation of the lot located at 105 N 5th St. Swan also said that officer Farmer told him that I did not have money for such an unnecessary expense and agreed that we would barter upholstery service for his representing my case. On the way home I had to pull over because I was literally sobbing, so grateful that Steve Swan was going to submit my evidence to the court. He sent a letter of intent to Mark Conlee on my behalf that afternoon.
The unexpected attack on my property also caused adverse effects to my business. This was the first time in 15 years in business I had failed to meet a customers requested delivery date. I bought 28 railroad ties and placed them down the non typical 300′ common boundary to divert the storm water from Conlee’s to the City ditch. Typical psychopathic traits began to emerge from Mark Conlee. He was upset that I had diverted the storm water. According to a witness, Mark Conlee contacted Building Admin Mark Holland requesting that Holland find a code or ordinance that would require me to remove the diversion. Mark Holland could not find a loophole to overrule my Federal Right to defend my property. Mark Holland should have followed standard procedures as he had always done in the past and all my damages could have been avoided.
I lost the enjoyment of my property due to the fact that every time I would go out in my yard Mr. Conlee would make his presence known. He would make his presence known, then just glare at me and anyone accompanying me. The day that he hollered across the fence that he was over the setbacks required by state law I decided to install a privacy curtain. Fully within my legal right, allowing for the encroachment, I erected a conduit frame and stretched industrial landscaping fabric down the property line to serve as a privacy curtain. My technique was bare bones conduit and pipe clamps but it served my purpose well. Welcome to the City of Montrose, Iowa . MINUTES10-6-05 evidence supporting Mark Conlee has a vendetta against me. A vendetta that has no end to it until he acquires my property, at any cost. He knew he had to have my property to ever get his illegal redevelopment recorded on the county plat map. Conlee is not completely liable, the City of Montrose allowed and assisted in every criminal act committed against me. There are many court records in which a noncompliant structure is ordered to be removed, there are no other cases in which a person has been allowed to unlawfully apply chemicals to a neighbors property ongoing for 5 years, until the neighbor has only two options to remedy the situation themselves.
Defamation of my character referred to as “crazy” by Mayor Dinwiddie as told to me by a witness was taken to be a truth by the local community in general. Dinwiddie’s wife Sue Kearns Dinwiddie and a former friend of mine sent me email stating everyone, “thinks your crazy, Mel”. I felt no duty to explain to either of these people my situation. I did want to preserve my friendship with Sue Kearns Dinwiddie. I invited her over to my house to talk. She arrived with her granddaughter, the conversation was minimal. Not directly addressing my mental stability, I assume she was observing the severity of my skin condition. In hindsight, when she was leaving Sue walked around to the side of the house facing Conlees property. She indicated that my sidewalk has sunk. I did not respond at the time. I will now state that my sidewalk sloped away from my house in a manner of directing stormwater to the existing swale, besides the house. Was Sue Kearns Dinwiddie acting on behalf the City of Montrose Building Administrator? She did not announce that she was, but I believe her intent was doing exactly that. She has no authority to do anything on behalf of the City of Montrose. According to what Sue had told me when I rented her garage in 1995 she has used her position as the Mayor’s wife to influence former City employee Police Chief John Farmer. In 1995 one of Sues identical twin boys had been caught by Officer Farmer in a moving violation of some type. She was concerned that the twin would lose his driving privileges. She told me that she was going to contact Officer Farmer, as she didn’t need a problem like that affecting her sons driving privileges. I am sure she did contact Farmer, I do not know if he dismissed the complaint or not. I assume he did if Sue Kerns Dinwiddie directed him to do so as a threat to his employment. Sue Kearns Dinwiddie took her position as the Mayor’s wife to a position of authority when in fact she had absolutely no power of authority. The State Representative following behind Phil Wise has been Jerry Kearns, relative to Sue Kearns Dinwiddie. He has failed to respond to any of my attempts to get answers from him. No response at all. There is an option of recusal for anybody with an existing conflict of interest, not an option for any of these criminal supporters.
Mayor Dinwiddie gave up his seat in the 2006 election after 8 terms, he was busy building himself a beautiful new home on the river. Mark Holland did not get re-elected. Mark Conlee ran and was elected as council member.
Tony Scumbaito running unopposed was elected to Mayor. John Geyer who held his position in the past was elected council member, and appointed building administrator. Chief of Police John Farmer resigned taking a job with the LCSO. The City hired Brent Shipman to be Chief of Police. Brent was not from Montrose, he was 20 years old and he was all ears and mouth in listening to Bob Conlee‘s false allegations about me, repeating the false information publicly.
A witness advised me on a Monday that Mark Conlee had been at City Hall reading the codes and ordinances. I drove past City Hall the rest of the week and, Mark Conlee was at City Hall from 3:30 until 5:00 p.m. every evening. Soon after he and City Clerk studied the City Code he announced he was running for City Council. Witnesses were and are prepared to testify that their family member was aware that his intent was to use his position to “get me back”. His narcissistic personality disorder he could not control
Mark Conlee was elected to council. His intent was clearly to use his position to act on the vendetta he has against me. Mark Conlee appointed himself to a community development committee that never existed prior to his election. He obviously decided that he would get me back by using nuisance weed ordinance against me. He was, like his brother, literally consumed by making me out to be something I am not. Filing frivolous complaints was a constant vehicle to harassment me. According to my research psychopaths is known to be a genetic disorder.
About City Clerk Celeste Cirinna conspiracy deprivation of rights under color of law, intent to cause financial harm
At this time Mark Conlee acted as an authority on the City Street Dept. which he had no authority to do. The City insurance does not cover him as an employee. Mark Conlee unlawfully applied toxic chemicals to the City easement on my property along 4th St. A neighbor/witness Sally Fowler Sandquist contacted the Epa, The investigation determined Glyphosate a toxic chemical in Roundup by Monsanto had been unlawfully applied to my property and had washed downstream to the next two property, killing all living plant life.
This evidence was available but never reviewed by an investigator as it should have been.
|The Sheriff is an elected Lee County official serving a four year term.|
The Sheriff’s Office is responsible in enforcing state and county laws within the county. Duties of the office include but are not limited to the following:
Reports of, and investigation of, thefts, vandalisms, assaults, illegal drug activity, reported child and/or domestic abuse, accidents and all other criminal allegations. Deputies are also responsible for the enforcement of
I assume this only applies to the County, even though it says “enforcing State and County Laws”. Cities that do not enforce the County and State laws are not under any authority beside their own, right? I was (criminal) assaulted in the City of Montrose, I reported multiple (criminal) offenses of fraud by a city employee, I reported illegal property redevelopment and noncompliant building permits being issued, I reported (criminal) trespassing occurring on a routine basis in the City of Montrose, I reported violations of State and Federal rights by the City of Montrose and Lee County officials, I reported (criminal) conspiracy against rights and (criminal) deprivation of rights violations being committed by City of Montrose and Lee County, Iowa officials. I reported (criminal) conspiracy to cover up evidence by city and county officials. The evidence I have is solid as a rock. Somebody has some splaining to do because what is stated above and copied from the Sheriff’s website and my experience are very conflicting. Maybe they should edit their website making it clear that everything begins or doesn’t begin with
- who the parties are.
Yes that makes much more accurate and honest statement in regard to the Lee County Sheriff’s dept.
Well this letter said basically the same as the first letter I received from the US Attorney’s office.
He said he read the 43 page complaint and that my allegations are based on assumptions. I am telling you that I am not ignorant. I would not have anything in my complaint that I did not have evidence to back it up. The fact that nobody has taken the time to review this evidence is contradicting. So I emailed the nearly completed log of events as they occurred. I also ask that he be courteous enough to send me a reply that he did received the 249 page partially completed complaint. It is a long read but it is in a slide show so please give it a review and then tell me that I do not have enough evidence to prove I am a victim of conspiracy against rights and deprivation of rights under color of law. I am not impressed at all as to the way anything is this case has been handled. I advised the local FBI agent to look into the financial record to see if any of these individuals received payment, or took a bribe. He refused. I advised him that many of my witnesses have passed. I told him that two of them have been diagnosed with cancer. Here is the link to my incomplete complaint I sent him recently. I know that a person is in violation of trespassing if they do anything to your property. In this case this neighbor unlawfully applied chemicals for no other reason than to eliminate me. https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/18mtF3_4WB2u3mEe1OoSb2QpwlgvI25ulAS5BheCPq4Q/edit?usp=sharing
The letter stated that the statute of limitations has expired. WHAT? I contact Senator Grassley in 2007. I have been complaining the last several years that the timeliness is unacceptable. Seems the US Attorney is just recently getting my complaint. I am sorry but I am not responsible for any statute of limitations expiring in this case. Whoever received it from Senator Grassley is responsible for any mishandling of my case. A case that is unprecedented. A case in which the most brutal means of attack were used. Chemical weapons were used with intent to cause serious injury or death. They did cause serious lifelong injury and had I not fled I would be dead. If I would have done this to another human being I would be in prison the rest of my life. How can the statute of limitations be expired if the FBI was investigating this case appropriately? Who is the victim of mishandling of a complaint. I am. So what now. I have followed all the proper procedures, except during the time I was blind and unable to function normally. I could not get my vision restored until 2012. I could not read. This is really a disappointment, I thought my case was being investigated all this time, but it seems the US Attorney is just recently getting my complaint. Come on now, this is unacceptable. Senator Grassley will hopefully deal with incompetence. He supports whistleblowers and exposing corruption. I hope he gets to the root of the problem with my case. The evidence supports all my allegations, the perps implicate themselves on public record. What could go wrong?
You are here
The Criminal Division is charged with the responsibility of enforcing federal criminal laws in the Southern District of Iowa. The Criminal Division has a total of 24 prosecutors posted across the District–including in the Des Moines headquarters office and in the District’s two branch offices in Council Bluffs and Davenport. These prosecutors work closely with paralegals, legal assistants, victim witness specialists, and others to fulfill these responsibilities, along with a wide variety of federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies and federal grand juries empaneled to investigate violations of federal law.
Terrorism and National Security
The fight against terrorism is the highest priority of the U.S. Department of Justice, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office is dedicated to combating and defeating terrorism. We work with our partners in law enforcement, the intelligence community, the military, and diplomatic circles to investigate, prosecute, disrupt and prevent terrorism. Criminal Division attorneys work with the Anti-Terrorism Advisory Council and an intelligence specialist in pursuing this important mission.
Fraud and CorruptionCriminal Division attorneys investigate and prosecute complex fraud, public corruption, and financial crimes that the federal government is uniquely qualified to handle.
- Criminal Division attorneys participate in a Working Group, along with the office of Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller, to pursue mortgage fraud cases, along with investigating agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Housing and Urban Development–Office of Inspector General, and the FDIC-Office of Inspector General.
- Criminal Division attorneys play a leading role in the Iowa Health Care Fraud Task Force, which identifies cases involving medicaid fraud, insurance fraud, and other types of health care fraud for investigation and prosecution. Federal agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Health and Human Services–Office of Inspector General, as well as the Iowa Attorney General’s Office and state agencies also participate in these efforts.
- Criminal Division attorneys pursue other types of fraud and public corruption cases with these same agencies, as well as with the United States Postal Inspection Service, the Internal Revenue Service–Criminal Investigation, and the United States Social Security Administration–Office of Inspector General, among other agencies.
Narcotics Trafficking and Violent CrimeWorking with both the United States Drug Enforcement Administration and a wide variety of state and local drug enforcement task forces, Criminal Division attorneys investigate and prosecute federal criminal offenses involving the unlawful importation, possession, distribution, and manufacture of controlled substances, including methamphetamine, cocaine, heroin, ecstacy, and marijuana, as well as prescription drug abuse. Criminal Division attorneys also handle cases involving violent crime, such as armed bank robberies, unlawful possession of firearms (as part of the Department’s Project Safe Neighborhoods program), arson, and violent crime associated with narcotics trafficking.
Computer Crimes, Child Exploitation, and Human TraffickingCriminal Division attorneys, working with the Iowa Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) and other agencies, prosecute a broad range of computer-related crimes, with special emphasis on crimes that involve the sexual exploitation of children and Internet child pornography, including as part of the Department’s Project Safe Childhood Program. Criminal Division Attorneys, along with victim-witness specialists and others, also work to investigate and prosecute interstate prostitution, human trafficking, the enticement of children across state lines for immoral purposes, and unregistered sex offenders who travel across state lines in violation of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA).
Environmental and Wildlife CrimesCriminal Division attorneys, working with both the Environmental Protection Agency and the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, investigate and prosecute criminal violations of federal environmental laws, including violations relating to the improper disposal and storage of hazardous materials and violations of the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act. Criminal Division attorneys also work with the United States Fish & Wildlife Service in pursing cases involving interstate trafficking in unlawfully taken wildlife and similar crimes.
Immigration Crimes and Program FraudCriminal Division attorneys handle a variety of offenses involving the integrity of government programs, such as those administered by the Social Security Administration, the Small Business Administration, the Veteran’s Administration, and the Railroad Retirement Board. Criminal Division attorneys also work closely with the Department of Homeland Security and its agencies to prosecute violations of the immigration laws, such as visa fraud, alien smuggling, and unlawful reentry to the United States following deportation.
Civil RightsCriminal Division attorneys, together with the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, assess complaints alleging violations of the criminal civil rights laws and, in appropriate cases, conduct grand jury investigations and initiate criminal prosecutions for civil rights violations.
Appellate UnitThe Criminal Division’s Appellate Unit handles the office’s criminal appeals before the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is the federal appellate court with jurisdiction over cases arising from Iowa and several neighboring states. Additionally, the Appellate Unit, in consultation with the Department of Justice, decides when to seek appellate review of trial level rulings adverse to the United States, and coordinates with the Department of Justice if further review of cases arising from the Southern District of Iowa is sought before the United States Supreme Court.
Asset Recovery Team–Forfeiture and CollectionsThe Criminal Division’s Asset Recovery Team supports the prosecution of criminal and civil forfeiture cases and enforces and collects criminal and civil debts, including restitution for victims in criminal cases. In addition to litigating civil forfeiture cases, this team of specialists provides support to Criminal Division attorneys on all criminal forfeiture issues. Forfeiture attorneys and paralegals work with federal law enforcement agencies, assisting their criminal investigations by identifying assets subject to forfeiture and developing evidence for seizure and forfeiture. The team also collects criminal debts, such as fines and restitution orders, and civil debt to federal agencies, such as student loans and federally-guaranteed mortgages, and works with Criminal Division attorneys to identify assets that can be used for restitution to crime victims.
The Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office represents the United States and its departments and agencies at both the trial and appellate levels in civil actions filed in the state and federal courts in the Southern District of Iowa. The activities of the Civil Division include defensive civil litigation, affirmative civil enforcement actions and miscellaneous matters.
The types of defensive cases handled by the Civil Division include tort cases filed against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act; claims against individual employees of the United States alleging constitutional violations (also known as Bivens Actions); discrimination cases brought by federal employees based upon race, color, sex, religion, national origin, disability or age; review of administrative action under the Administrative Procedures Act; and appeals of denial of Social Security disability claims.
Affirmative LitigationThe Civil Division brings civil affirmative actions under the False Claims Act to pursue false claims or fraud against the government, Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act and other statutes designed to enforce civil rights, as well as environmental statutes and other health and safety laws.
Miscellaneous MattersCertain miscellaneous matters are also handled by the Civil Division, including summons enforcement action on behalf of the Internal Revenue Service, subpoenas to federal officials, commercial litigation to collect debts owed the United States and protect the government’s interests in bankruptcy and foreclosure actions.
The motive was to acquire my property as his new redevelopment of an otherwise worthless property was non-compliant to State building codes and he could not get the illegal redevelopment recorded on the County plat map. Having been successful in acquiring my property after 5 years of exposing me to the chemicals, He and those who participated are living large and I suffer from chronic health problems and was homeless for over 3 years and blind.
The Bureau’s Public Corruption program focuses on:
- Investigating violations of federal law by public officials at the federal, state, and local levels of government;
In my case it is the City and County officials who conspired against my Federally protected rights. It is the local law enforcement who deprived my of my Federally protected rights under color of law. So if the FBI works closely with local law enforcement agencies there is no doubt some locals will be lying to the Feds. They cannot work closely with the local law enforcement if they are going to expose local public corruption in my City and County.
That statement conflicts with this statement
- No other law enforcement agency has attained the kind of success the FBI has achieved in combating corruption. This success is due largely to the cooperation and coordination from a number of federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies to combat public corruption. These partnerships include, but are not limited to the Department of Justice, Agency Offices of Inspector General; law enforcement agencies’ internal affairs divisions; federal, state and local law enforcement and regulatory investigative agencies; and state and county prosecutor’s offices
I have to say with the amount of solid evidence that I have posted to this page I find it a little creepy that I have had minimal comments in regard to my story. I do not know if it is because, this happens all the time as some have suggested, if people think this is a fictional story, or if people just do not care about fellow citizens rights being violated. The as long as they do not hurt me or my family reasoning. Let me tell you this could happen to anyone and I would be the first to speak up on anyone whose Federal or State Constitutional rights have been violated. Just saying, I do not know of any case in which a neighbor need a property due to his violation of the building laws and determines the remedy is to eliminate the neighbor.
03/26/10 A little outdated but still the front page article on their webpage.
Public corruption is a breach of trust by federal, state, or local officials—often with the help of private sector accomplices. It’s also the FBI’s top criminal investigative priority. To explain why the Bureau takes public corruption so seriously and how we investigate, we talked with Special Agent Patrick Bohrer, assistant section chief of our Public Corruption/Civil Rights program at FBI Headquarters.
Question: Why is public corruption so high on the FBI’s list of investigative priorities?
Answer: Because of its impact. Corrupt public officials undermine our country’s national security, our overall safety, the public trust, and confidence in the U.S. government, wasting billions of dollars along the way. This corruption can tarnish virtually every aspect of society. For example, a border official might take a bribe, knowingly or unknowingly letting in a truck containing weapons of mass destruction. Or corrupt state legislators could cast deciding votes on a bill providing funding or other benefits to a company for the wrong reasons. Or at the local level, a building inspector might be paid to overlook some bad wiring, which could cause a deadly fire down the road.
Q: Can you describe the kinds of public corruption that the FBI investigates?
A: It really runs the gamut. Bribery is the most common. But there’s also extortion, embezzlement, racketeering, kickbacks, and money laundering, as well as wire, mail, bank, and tax fraud. Right now, based on our intelligence on emerging trends, we are focused specifically on several major issues: corruption along our national borders; corrupt officials who take advantage of natural disasters or economic crises to divert some of the government’s aid into their own pockets; and a myriad of officials who may personally benefit from the economic stimulus funding.
Q: Where do you find this corruption?
A: Just about everywhere—at the federal, state, and local levels throughout the country. And I should point out, the vast majority of our country’s public officials are honest and work hard to improve the lives of the American people. But a small number make decisions for the wrong reasons—usually, to line their own pockets or those of friends and family. These people can be found—and have been found—in legislatures, courts, city halls, law enforcement departments, school and zoning boards, government agencies of all kinds (including those that regulate elections and transportation), and even companies that do business with government.
Q: How does the FBI investigate public corruption?
A: We’re in a unique position to investigate allegations of public corruption. Our lawful use of sophisticated investigative tools and methods—like undercover operations, court-authorized electronic surveillance, and informants—often gives us a front-row seat to witness the actual exchange of bribe money or a backroom handshake that seals an illegal deal…and enough evidence to send the culprits to prison. But we have plenty of help. We often work in conjunction with the inspector general offices from various federal agencies, as well as with our state and local partners. And we depend greatly on assistance from the public. So let me end by saying, if anyone out there has any information about potential wrongdoing by a public official, please submit a tip online or contact your local FBI field office. Your help really makes a difference.
Seriously? My experience with the lazy FBI agent. This is my life you have taken. Do you understand being gang raped? The damage done?
I have taken 1 step forward and 10 steps backward. Let me tell you how my interaction has developed with the FBI. I actually have made contact with an agent at the Federal level and it has been a difficult task that is not nearly over and done with to my satisfaction by any means. The article above talks about wasted money, in my case I can identify wasted money as in the local division agent actually getting taxpayers money for doing nothing that is described as an investigation. I began seeking assistance from the FBI in 2007. My case if reviewed any reasonable person could recognize, clearly supports local government corruption. I do not care who you are if you do not understand that private property rights are protected, Federally guaranteed to every citizen. It makes no difference for those who want to argue, these rights are protected by the Constitutional law, by natural law, or by God’s law. These are unalienable rights never to be taken. It’s been well over a year since I first contacted this local agent. I had a vision of how this would play out. I was totally disillusioned to the reality of how this really works. I contacted the FBI numerous times since 2007. It was always a quick excuse to why they cannot assist and goodbye. To have the opportunity to speak directly is nonexistent. I did write to my US Senator in 2007 requesting that he help me get my case investigated. Initially he blew me off probably thinking that I was “crazy”. The difference in this case is if Mr. Senator had that opinion he kept it as a thought. Unlike my local government officials who defamed my character by making statements that I was “crazy” with intent to give the general public an unfavorable opinion of my character. Defamation of character is a violation of Federal Law 28 U.S. Code § 4101 – Definitions
Eventually I did convince my Senator that my case is a Federal case. During this extended period of time he has requested two congressional inquiries on my behalf. That being done I assumed it was reasonable an agent would reach out to me. Never happened, I had no name or contact information for any agent. I had no idea how the agency is structured. At some point I became determined that somebody with authority of the FBI was going to review the evidence supporting my allegations. I packed up my old truck and headed to Cedar Rapids with my extensive library of evidence. I arrived in the parking lot around 2:00pm. I call the number listed for this division. Apparently with the local division the agent you get is the one who answers the telephone. I told him my intention. He advised me that is was to late in the afternoon for me to meet with anyone. I advised him that I would get a room and be there first thing in the morning. He advised me that I would not be able to speak with anyone on the following day because it was Columbus Day. I couldn’t believe I had not recognized that day as being a Federal holiday and accepted it as an error on my part. We spoke several times after trying to make arrangements to meet but those appointment were canceled do to various reasons, I did request that he come to my home because I have limited resources and frankly could not afford to travel that distance again. My vehicles is old and not trustworthy. After all this time of pleading and begging for anyone of authority to simply review my evidence. He finally agreed to meet me at my house. Prior to the date we had set to meet I advised him that my evidence takes an estimated 12 hours to review. He advised me that he did not intend to spend 12 hours reviewing anything. I was ready to get a room when I went to his location. He arrived and I had placed evidence supporting specific allegations in separate piles for his convenience, I was in the process of explaining what was where when he advised me that he would just take notes on what I would tell him orally. There is no way to tell this story verbally. It is simply too complex and confusing in that the witnesses and criminal actors are family member and many same names. There are so many individuals involved. There were 4 Mayors over this period of five years not to mention the turnover in law enforcement and council members. The agent arrived at 11: 00 am. I had not even gotten started telling him what took place before he advised me that he believed this to be a civil case. We both agreed that neither of us were lawyers. I asked him to please submit what few facts he did have of the case to a US Attorney. He advised me that he did not intend to submit my case to an attorney. He left my house at 2:00pm timing the ride so he would be back to his office by 5:00pm. I think his unwillingness to work overtime or on a holiday was odd, different than I expected. I expected an officer whose duty it is to expose public corruption to be more interested in a case alleging public corruption, Not long after he left the mail came. In the mail that day was a letter from an Assistant Deputy Director at the Washington bureau. The letter informed me that it had been determined there has been no violation of Federal law. At that point I became angry. At what point can a determination of any kind be made without a through review of the evidence. I need an answer to that question. I demand an answer to that question. I have since been advised by credible State attorneys that my case is in violation of Federal law. I know a person cannot unlawfully apply chemicals to another person’s property with intent to cause serious injury, I know a person cannot redevelop a property violating State building codes. I know that all the acts committed against me are criminal offenses, not as the agent advised me civil offenses. I know I will not settle for the word of any person disputing what I know to be true. I recognize hearsay and facts determine the ruling of a court. I have emailed this agent requesting the name of his supervisor. He will not reply. I sent a certified letter to the Assistant Deputy Director of the letter determining no Federal law has been violated and someone did receive it, So when law enforcement is negligent at the Federal level what recourse for justice does one have? The only resource available that I am aware of is the right given by the second amendment. I am not an attorney but I am not completely ignorant of the law either, Who are these people falsely portraying themselves as representatives of defenders of the law and protector of the Constitution. I have reach out to every resource available, all have assaulted me as a woman unequal for protection of the law. Give me liberty or give me death. In regard to the last sentence of the article. I have tried to get information to this agency for 10 years and making contact must be similar to breaking into Ft. Knox. I submitted tips, I called the Washington bureau, I called the Omaha Division multiple times. No person ever showed the professional courtesy to respond. The newly elected Sheriff went so far to put me in contact with an agent he knows. He has a conflict of interest and has violated State laws on behalf of the corrupt local officials I have evidence supporting all my allegations and I have not had the opportunity to touch on them yet. Fortunately he was not an agent with my local division. This contact from the Sheriff was quick to advise me that the statute of limitation has expired. I returned a message on his voicemail advising him that there is no statute of limitation for acts of terrorism. There was no response. I am not accepting of what this enterprise of local rapist have perpetrated on me. Someone needs to be a hero sooner than later in my opinion, I believe I have the right to file a formal complaint. I do not have access to the information as to how to file a complaint.
In this case it would be suitable to bring Federal charges for torture 18 U.S. Code § 2340
INTRODUCTION Public Corruption, Request for Federal Investigation. Conspiracy against rights, deprivation of rights under color of law, defamation of character, conflict of interest, intentional negligence, fraud………………..
This case concerns my neighbor Mark Conlee’s redevelopment of a legally nonconforming property purchased from the Mayor of my city. He began redeveloping the property adding a new non compliant garage. He trucked in fill dirt and not only was the massive illegal roofs rotated to drain storm water onto my property he set the grade of the elevated fill dirt to drain down onto my property. The five building permits are illegal, the building official refused to address my concerns in regard to the nuisance drainage the redevelopment caused my property as his duty requires. When this neighbor discovered he could not get the illegal redevelopment recorded on the county plat map, he determined the remedy was to eliminate me. He began unlawfully applying chemicals onto my property. It took very little time before the chemicals cause me a severe skin condition. I verbally told this man not to apply anything to my property, and requested an incident report from the chief of police. Needless to say that I had developed a full body severe skin condition before the 16 months in it took the Chief of police to give me the incident report. This was so severe that it was unbearable to wear clothes. I hired an attorney to sue the City. He was onboard with the law at our first meeting. I was questioning him about his knowledge and he passed. The liability was the City. One of the building permits was not signed by the builder and had been forged at a later date from the original on file. The other permits are illegal based on the fact that this was a legally non conforming property. For those who don’t know there are very stringent rules that apply to redevelopment of such properties. As commented by Mayor Dinwiddie on public record. You’re not allowed to build any structure larger that the existing structures. This guy even went so far as to put in a garden pond that drained onto my property. I am a single middle-aged female. I owned my property outright having purchased it in 1995. I opened an upholstery shop that I operated from one of the existing structures on my property. I could not have been happier with my ideal of acquiring my American Dream.
The chemicals continued nonstop. I was surprised when I got served notice that I was being sued by this neighbor for “loss of enjoyment of his property”. It seems that the legally installed privacy curtain that I installed on my side of the 300′ common boundary was too much for him to bear. He could not see out of his windows. Does he even realize that he was looking into his actual side yard? His lot was too narrow to set the oversized structures on. When I spoke to my attorney I was clear that my intent was to sue the City. He advised we would sue both parties adding that the City is where the money was. I know, the libel party is where the money is. I have a long line of paternal parents that held authority titles for a neighboring city. I did not know why he wanted to sue the neighbor to but that is why I hired an attorney. I did not question it. I have never needed an attorney and I am unfamiliar with the court process. The letter of intent my attorney sent the next day did state that if no remedy in 10 days he would file an injunction. Upon receiving the letter, the neighbor removed all evidence of an existing berm he had illegally removed. He illegally changed, the frontage of his home to now be the city alley. Apparently, the repositioning of his home-made him believe that my backyard was now his backyard . He added a little roof over the side entrance door to make it look as though his frontage was the street but it clearly was the alley now. This being one of many counts of perjury he committed in the civil court case
I continued to go to council meetings each time a new Mayor was elected. That would be an unprecedented four Mayors in 5 years. As a citizen being affected by a nuisance drainage as a result of the noncompliance redevelopment I had the duty to notify the building official that there was a problem. I tried to call him on the telephone, I left messages on his answering machine. He never returned my calls. My attempts to address the city council were in vail, I had the floor and there would be a distraction caused by the former building official. I was never allowed to speak about my complaint or try to get the proper authority to make him to stop applying the chemicals. He would not stop and no law enforcement would file a complaint against him for trespassing.
I believe that if I had been a male, he would never have been brave enough to ignore my request. The Chief of Police did advise me that he did not want to file a complaint against him because he did not want to make him mad. The civil court case he filed against me was dismissed sighting my right to enjoy my property. I felt a sense of relief assuming the chemicals would stop based on the citing of my right to enjoy property I could not have been more wrong. This made him mad. He suspiciously is elected to city council for the sole purpose of “getting me back”. The chemicals continue without hesitation. I hear nothing from my attorney in regards to the case against the city even though I email him multiple times. I went to give him a payment and mentioned that the Mayor actually took my side in regards to the privacy curtain I installed. He advised me that the reason the Mayor took my side was that he had received a letter from my attorney. My attorney had lied to me all this time. He never filed the complaint against the city. He never did anything on my behalf. He did suppress evidence on behalf of this neighbor.
This guy and the police chief physically altered Railroad ties I had placed along the common boundary to try to divert the excessive storm water from my property to the city drainage ditch. This was a direct act in contempt of court. There was no reason but to prove to me that he was not going to abide by the court of anyone else’s ruling. He had to have my property.
The county attorney advised me that he would decide who is prosecuted in his county. He then proceeds to file criminal charges against me several times for fabricated laws. Laws that do not exist, but I cannot get one for criminal trespassing against this neighbor whose intent is clearly to cause me serious injury or death. I suffered for five long years severe pain. I knew I was dying. Only when a former city police chief now moved on to the Sheriff Dept stopped by my home to advise me that this neighbor had no intention to cease and desist with the chemicals did I know I had no option. I had either to shoot this neighbor dead or sell my home business and property for enough funds to repay the debt I owed my friend for supplying the funds for my basic living expenses over the 5-year period and pay for my final expenses.
I could not leave this earth without repaying my friends well over $10,000 dollars. My condition only increased, I could not bear to have anything touch my skin the pain never stopped it was 24/7, I had lost my eyesight by this time also as a result of the medical treatment administered to offer my skin some relief. This neighbor has more than less of the traits to determine a psychopath according to Hare’s list. I now know the reason the police chief or anyone else for that matter did not want to make this guy mad. However, for me to be the sacrificial lamb and live to tell about it, no way. It is the duty of law enforcement to protect the rights of the people in these United States. They take an oath to do just that, the criminal acts committed by this enterprise of local government officials is unbelievable. However, the evidence does not lie.
I did survive and I am now seeking compensation for my damages. According the stormwater management handbook, the courts see cities as having deep pockets in not complying to the State building code and drainage laws. Now I am looking for law enforcement and prosecuting attorney that is committed to protecting the rights of their fellow citizens. What is truly unbelievable this group of thugs being afraid to do their duty to the degree that they would rather commit serious criminal acts against me than make this man mad makes me concerned for the entire community. This man showed no empathy when saw my skin. His intent was to acquire my property at any cost. Something’s not right here. I have known these individuals most of my life and I have never witnessed or heard rumor of any of them committing criminal offenses on someone else’s behalf. Mayor Dinwiddie clearly had a personal financial gain when he sold this otherwise worthless piece of property to Mark Conlee. I question whether Dinwiddie disclosed the property to be legally nonconforming. Nevertheless, the city building official intentionally allowed the illegal construction, and avoided his duty to address my concerns. Lee County Attorney Michael Short recently retired and I believe the shuffling of the new County Attorney is finished so I believe it should be possible to hold those who have committed criminal acts be prosecuted and I should be compensated for being the victim of the criminal acts that were committed against me. As it stands, I am forced to watch these individuals living large from the guts of my property. I sit here with chronic health problems in a small section 8 rental houses that is not satisfactory for my lifestyle or sewing machine. I do not know how long I can contain my patience. It has been an extended period. The chances I will be diagnosed with cancer are overwhelmingly a high percent based on the studies on glyphosate. These people have new homes and garage no worries. My achieved American dream has been ripped (taken) from my hands causing injury not compensation. If you read my webpage, you will find much more about this story and the others who conspired to deprive me of my rights under color of law. There just is no other way to view or excuse these events.
This cannot be allowed in the USA under any circumstances. I certainly do not intend to be the first and only citizen who has been subject to such brutal criminal acts by my local government officials. There is no more time for excuses this needs to be addressed. These crimes are in violation of the Constitution of the State of Iowa and The Constitution of the United States of America. I am requesting an investigation into the evidence that I have that has never been reviewed by any authority.
Original property layout
This building permit is fraudulent as it is impossible to construct this building from pouring a slab to complete finish in the timeline of 5 days, It is incomplete as there in no fill dirt amount, setbacks or other information required by the State of Iowa. This document is folded for scanning purposes. Boatner was initially informed the this structure was noncompliance because the owner intended to build a living quarters in the second story.
After a suspicious fire supposedly destroyed the existing double-wide mobile home this building permit was issued. Fraudulent building permit issued by City of Montrose, Ia. Not signed by builder, no fee charged, no fill dirt or setbacks recorded. This permit is also folded for purposes of scanning.
When the city building official refused to address my concerns about a nuisance drainage issue according to city ordinance I contacted Lee County extension agent for an opinion. He wrote a letter to me and a copy to Mayor Dinwiddie including a copy of the Iowa drainage laws. There was no immediate response. Only after Mark Conlee was elected to the city council and I followed standard procedure to get the nuisance drainage issue address by a newly elected mayor, City clerk Cirinna altered the fee charged on this original permit to conflict with Lee County Ext. Agents observation. Cirinna’s criminal act of fraud is one of several crimes she committed conspiring with Mark Conlee in order for Conlee to acquire Boatner’s property.
Water standing in yard
Water standing in yard. Note upper right hand corner retaining fill dirt on neighbors new garage.
Ground in crawl space saturated with groundwater caused by increased storm water runoff from neighbors new redevelopment and illegal removal of existing berm foundation washed out. This side of the house had never received water like this because of the existing berm that Conlee removed unlawfully.
Neighbor’s allegation that my nuisance drainage was caused by from city street is false. This photo shows crawl space toward street is dry. Dark area of soil is saturated from side of home that faces neighbors property
Common boundary supporting neighbor applied chemicals to my property (on rights side of photo). This boundary is 300’ long and there was never any action by law enforcement to stop the application of chemicals to my property.I began to report the unlawful acts in late April 2005 and nothing was ever done on my behalf until I was forced to escape from them in Aug 2010.
I know that most people do not realize what a liar Conlee is. First he claimed in court he thought Boatner wanted a fence. The evidence shows He knew Boatner wanted a ditch dug diverted the storm water from his property to the city ditches as it is written in the first notification Boatner gave him. Anyone with a reasonable mentality could easily predict the foreseeable consequences Conlee’s illegal redevelopment was going to have on Boatner’s property. Boatner’s property lost value after the construction of the garage only. Conlee installed the wire fence to keep Boatner from digging a ditch down the common boundary. Even though no other neighbor’s are required to protect their property from a neighbors redevelopment. Boatner should not have had to be concerned with flooding of her property had Conlee not been held above the law.
If the building codes would have been recognized Conlee would have never been allowed to expand the size of the new structure larger that the existing structures. The Mayor and building official were well aware of the legality of Conlee’s redevelopment that is why they refused to address her grievances. They violated their oath of office. They conspired with Conlee to allow Boatner’s State and Federal RIght to be violated. They conspired with Conlee by allowing him to use chemicals as a weapon to eliminate her from her property.
Boatner did not notice the chemicals until the grass was getting green in the spring
The day Boatner discovered the chemicals applied to her property she suspected that was the cause the “rash” on her shins. On that day she advised neighbor not to apply anything to my property and requested an incident report from the Police Chief Brent Shipman.
Condition continues to get worse. No action from law enforcement to protect of private property rights
Poison continued to be applied to my property on a routine basis. By this time the “rash had developed into a full body severe skin condition that cause severe pain to the degree it was unbearable to wear clothes. Poison continues to be applied to my property without my permission against my control
I can think of no more of a brutal way to eliminate a neighbor. In the background is the Steel Roofing I had just purchased to put on my home. It was in no way my decision to move. This was heavy 1/4 “ j channel steel.
I had no authority to stop this neighbor from unlawfully applying chemicals to my property except to take up arms. It was my opinion that law enforcement had the duty to provide protection of my private property rights. effects on my life.
This is a chemical burn. I was completely unable to function. This was an intentional brutal attack that had serious
I advised Conlee not to apply anything to my property in May of 2005 upon discovery of the chemicals unlawfully applied to my property. I followed up directly contacting Police Chief Shipman requesting an incident report. This was sixteen months after I requested an incident report. By this time the skin condition had progressed into full body condition.
9-16-2006 intentional untimely incident report requested by Boatner 16 months after the discovery of chemicals on her property. By this time it was too late the skin condition had become chronic. There was never any intervention from local city and county law enforcement to protect my right to private property. Police chief Shipman advised me that he did not want to make this neighbor mad.
Lee County Attorney evidence deprivation of rights under color of law
Lee County attorney dismissed the photo evidence and advised me that the neighbor had told him (hearsay) that he only applied the chemicals to his side of the fence.
Boatner hired an attorney very early in this case. He was hired to file a complaint against the City of Montrose early on. Her attorney requested $100 to cover th cost of the complaint that day. Her attorney advised her that he would file a complaint against both parties. He added that the city is where the money is at.
In fact Boatner’s attorney did nothing in her best interests except the letter of intent, though it was sent to the wrong party. Attorney Swan advised Boatner at their first meeting that he had already spoken to Lee County Detective Bob Conle about the situation between Boatner and Mark Conlee (the detectives brother). Attorney Swan advised Boatner that Detective Conlee had already lied to him about the property redevelopment.
Her attorney could not be so incompetent to fail to question her witnesses or submit the photo evidence as well as the witness affidavits without doing so intentionally. Attorney Steve Swan’s negligence can only be explained by he conspired to violate Boatner’s rights.
Boatner was served a summons by Mark and Linda Conlee months later, in Sept 2005. The complaint was for loss of enjoyment of their property. The Conlee’s claimed that by Boatner installing a privacy curtain legally on her own property, she caused them severe distress.
Conlee commits perjury in the civil case Conlee vs Boatner also. Her attorney knowingly lie to her. He reassured her that he had filed the complaint. That Sept the neighbor filed a civil complaint against Boatner for loss of enjoyment of his property in regards to a privacy curtain she installed. Legally on her own property along the common boundary.
His case was dismissed. The judge, citing Boatner’s right to use her property as she see fit . Boatner believes that Attorney Swan was eager to take her case that it leaves to question whether arrangements were premeditated by Conlee and Swan for him to do just what he did, nothing except suppress evidence that is right here in this file. Suppress testimony of witnesses that he advised Boatner were “experts in their own right” and “compelling”. He did not ask a question to any of them. He suppressed the written affidavits that were supposed to be submitted to the court. This case followed no standard procedures. What began as a simple nuisance drainage issue that could have been easily remedied. Turned into a criminal conspiracy. Because one of the good old boys was held above the law in redeveloping his otherwise worthless lot of land. Site layout and drainage is step #1 in redevelopment. He should have known his nonconforming lot have stringent laws in redevelopment. Dinwiddie acknowledges this in the public record. The building official should have known this, if not there is a reference manual at city hall. This entire five years was a complete mockery of the law. The presentation for the public was stellar in that they kept Boatner oppressed from speaking to the public. Only presenting falsehoods to the general public. Defaming Boatner’s character by claiming she is “crazy”. This was instigated by a third-party who had nothing to do with the drainage issue.
HOW MANY PLAINTIFFS MAKE OUT OF COURT OFFERS TO THE DEFENDANT? NONE?
First offer to settle out of court. Plaintiff offer to defendant is admission to guilt. Boatner’s attorney suppressed this from the court.
2nd offer to settle out of court. This was suppressed from the court. This offer is completely ridiculous being Boatner is not responsible for the new developments storm water drainage.
This is the privacy curtain Boatner installed. It was within her legal right as there was no fence ordinance at that time. You can also see Conlee’s property is graded down toward her property. The existing berm prior to the redevelopment was located on the left hand side of this photo, Conlee has put some bricks where the berm used to be. You can see the Conlee’s new home has the roof rotated from the original home to divert storm water directly onto Boatner’s property. Prior to the removal of the berm a heavy rain would develop a small pond in this front yard of the Conlee’s property. Boatner’s property received no storm water runoff from the Conlee property. The judge erred in what he stated Conlee’s witness actually stated in her testimony. She actually stated the her (Boatner’s) property NEVER received storm water runoff from the Conlee property. Boatner’s attorney recognized this as a fact in an email exchange. No attorney could be so incompetent not to raise issue with what he acknowledges in an email. The attorney oath swears that he will represent the best interests of his client. Boatner’s attorney failed her in violation of that oath. His action support a conspiracy with intent to cause Boatner harm.
Finding of Fact, The dismissal of Conlee’s this case only made Conlee more aggressive toward Boatner. He decided he would get elected to council member. The timeline for announcing candidacy was not within the guidelines. We never got the decision on the civil case until the end of Oct. and I believe you must have your position announces before that. Conlee went to the city hall every afternoon when he got off work for a week, and read the city codes before he announced. Having known Conlee for the period Boatner had gotten to know him, he gave her a thumbs up that he had made a deal for his position and was going to be elected to city council, his intent as a council member was to force me to take that curtain down. He intended to harass me financially. Clerk Cirinna obediently began to take orders from Conlee. She fabricated an ordinance specially for Boatner telling her the ordinance meant Boatner had to take the curtain down. Boatner plead not guilty. On the bottom of the court order the judge noted the the issues in this case been remedied by a previous court of law. These type of crimes continued along with the chemicals exposure until 2010. At that time Boatner’s condition had become dire. She also lost her eyesight. She was helpless to defend herself or her property. Conlee’s troops did not waver in their fight to acquire Boatner’s property.
Boatner understood the court ruling, citing Boatner’s right to enjoy her property meant she has been returned complete control of her own property.
She was wrong. Lee County Deputy David Hunold, who came to her home investigating a second of the same fabricated law complaint against her by Lee County Attorney Mike Short on behalf of Mark Conlee. The first complaint stated that Boatner had driven by Conlee’s home and given him the middle finger. According to Officer Hunold Boatner was wrong, since the Judge did not specify Mark Conlee was not allowed to continue to apply chemicals to her property. He could continue and he did continue to apply chemicals to her property. She had just been to court over this same allegation that she had given him the finger and it was dismissed. She never even got to see the judge. Mark Conlee in contempt of court did not show up for court. He was on vacation in Florida. The newest Police Chief Karl Judd advised Boatner that he knew Conlee was on vacation and would be a no-show prior to the court date. These frivolous charges were made against me by Lee County attorney Mike Short in State of Iowa vs Boatner. This 2nd complaint was altered from the original simply by adding the words “he is tired of this happening all the time” therefore bumping it up to a harassment charge. Someone should have advised the County Attorney that there is no law against giving anyone the finger. In Boatner’s opinion the judge would have commented that Conlee deserved for her to give him the finger. Boatner was still was being denied a trespassing complaint against Conlee. As Officer Hunold was leaving her home she told him wait, she wants to file a complaint for trespassing, having just shown him the court document. Officer Hunold advised her that he was only there to investigate a complaint from Conlee that she had given him the finger. Lee County Attorney Mike Short had sent him in case there was a conflict of interest involved. There definitely was a conflict of interest in this case. This case reeks of violations of Federal law.
May 23 2008 Mark Conlee assisted by Police Chief Shipman violates the civil court order. Somehow Chief Shipman feels he has the authority to overrule a court order and authorize Conlee to alter the railroad ties Boatner had placed on her property along the common boundary to divert the excessive amount of storm water runoff. Boatner’s property now receives 90% of Conlee’s stormwater runoff after the illegal property redevelopment. He pulled the plastic edging out that Boatner had installed, he pushed the ties out of alignment. You can see a broken stab in the foreground of this photo. The stab’s were broken off at ground level all the way down the row of ties. Boatner was putting myself in danger by being out in her yard to place these ties and edging as there was chemicals that had been applied to the entire common boundary. Boatner had no chance to secure her private property rights. Her only option other than to flee would be to shoot this man dead.
This photo is easier to indicate the broken staub’s and edging that was pull from the ground and laying on top of the soil. This action was don’t in contempt of the civil court order citing Boatner’s right to enjoy my own property. He never did this to the upper half of the property. He did this in the middle of the night. Earlier that day Conlee along the Police Chief approached Boatner and informed her that he was going to move her railroad ties. Boatner went in her house and returned with a single shot pellet gun. Boatner stood guard and defended her property till after dark. Boatner is human she was still trying to operate her upholstery shop business and did goe in the house to try to get some rest. The next morning this is what took place on her property. Several weeks later Conlee calls a false report into the police stating he heard shots fired from Boatner’s property. The purpose for the false police report was to know if Boatner had weapons. It is a violation of the law to make false police reports. There is no law that applies to Mark Conlee. You can see the amount of fill dirt that was brought into Conlee’s property by the retaining timbers on the left of the photo. He committed perjury in the civil case denying the amount of fill dirt he had trucked in. As you can see Boatner’s property has mature trees and his property has nothing that would prevent him from installing a drain pipe to divert his storm water to the city drainage ditch as required by State drainage law.
This is the finished illegal property redevelopment of Boatner’s neighbor. Completely not in compliance with state building code, Conlee went to get this recorded on the County plat map and apparently it was denied. This is the reason that he determined the remedy was to eliminate Boatner. It took 5 years of severe suffering, emotional and physical before she had no choice but to flee. The only other option she had, was to shoot this man dead or flee. This was her home, business and property. It was apparent that Boatner or Conlee was going to die if she stayed, Due to the intentional negligence and conspiracy against her rights by local government officials She is still being denied justice. These government officials have been allowed to commit serious criminal offenses. why? Boatner will not go away, No way no how. Her assets were in her property, Her property has been forcibly taken. Her credit rating before Conlee came to the worthless lot next door was 760. Two trips to the ER in the first few days of this attack wiped her credit out. Then as a council member Conlee uses his position in an attempt to cause her more financial harm. By involving the City clerk, who has no problem forging documents of file or fabricating city ordinances. There is a slough of things the clerk preformed that were criminal and ethical violations, Anyone who looks at this evidence a see that.
There is no excuse for the treatment of a human being as brutal as this attack waged against me. Boatner has EPA results and much more evidence that she has the right to submit. To date no authority has given her the opportunity.
Does anyone recognize a conspiracy against rights? Deprivation of Rights under color of Law? These are violations of Federal law.
Anyone who does not visually recognize that these oversized structures set sideways on the Conlee property has changed the frontage of his property to be the city alley is not qualified to oversee the first step taken when redeveloping begins, site layout and storm water drainage.
Anyone who does not visually see the significant increased storm water being diverted onto Boatner’s property is not qualified to oversee new property redevelopment.
Anyone who does not recognize the violations against Boatner’s State and Federal Rights please explain how Boatner’s rights have not been violated.
Boatner wants to know the process needed to redress grievances. Her attempt to get any answers from anyone has been in non productive. She has been put through hell by the chronic skin condition and the loss of her eyesight. Yet expected to continue to defend her person and property. For five years she has been disabled and unable to simply bear to wear clothes.
Had she have invoked her second amendment rights where would she be now? Would she have been found not guilty of murder and at home enjoy life as it was prior to Conlee purchasing the lot next door from the Mayor? Would she be in prison for murder. We will never know. We know that she is still burdened by the events that took place in violation of Federal law from Spring of 2005 – Fall of 1010. Her ability to enjoy life is blocked by the crimes committed against her by an entire local government subdivision. This cannot be dismissed as the basic fundamental rights are what we as Americans base our freedoms on.
Existing Conflicts of Interests Among City of Montrose and Lee County Iowa Officials
In Regard to the property redevelopment Property 105 N TH St Montrose, Ia
Mayor Ron Dinwiddie Seller Buyer Mark Conlee
Members on Montrose Volunteer Fire Department
Mayor Ron Dinwiddie
Council Member/Building Admin/ Mark Holland(Fire Chief)
Council Member Jeff Junkins
Council Member Jeff Junkins Council Member Mark Conlee
Lee County Detective Robert (Bob) Conlee Brothers Mark Conlee
Council Member Mark Holland Siblings Council Member Judy Brisby
Lee County FEMA Officer Steve Cirinna Spouses City of Montrose Clerk Celeste Cirinna
City of Montrose and Lee County, Iowa Law Enforcement
Lee County Detective Robert Conlee special relationship Lee County Attorney Michael Short
Lee County Deputy David Hunold special relationship Montrose Chief of Police Karl Judd
Montrose Chief of Police Brent Shipman Lee County FEMA Officer Steve Cirinna
According to the official website the FBI investigates cases alleging Public Corruption include
Fabricating evidence against or falsely arresting an individual also violates the color of law statue, 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 over steps or mis applies 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
(1) 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 and include the following federal crimes:
- Mail Fraud
- Obstruction of Justice
(2) 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.
My attack 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 were 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 re-graded the fill dirt he trucked in to direct storm water onto my property, he also changed the direction of the oversized 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 assessed 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 from law enforcement. When a good cop did know about unethical and criminal behavior those officers did not have jurisdiction in the City. Nobody could do anything for me in regards to upholding the law, everyone who wanted to violate the law against me did just that. 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. Due to the fact that the only person with authority to assure compliance of redevelopment refused to address my concerns, perhaps the detective convinced the proper official that he did have authority. I do not have the answer as to why this occurred. I know this is not standard procedure used by this city in any other property redevelopment. Witnesses say the this building official questioned the blueprints in regard to the planned position of their new structures when submitted to him for review. There is a manual for reference at City Hall for building officials to refer to in following standard procedure. Building official Holland has had this duty for many years. He knows exactly what he is supposed to do.
For whatever reason only Mark Conlee has been held above the law in every illegal act committed against me.
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. The evidence will show his intent was clearly use his position to for personal reasons and to try to cause me financial harm by using his 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, forged 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 this neighbors attack on me.
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. This is a violation of Federal Law.
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. This was torture, a violation of Federal law
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. There certainly was nobody willing to enforce the law to make him stop.
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 warned 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. A 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 libel 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 libel 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 storm water 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.. 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.
To establish a uniform and more efficient Federal process for protecting property owners’ rights guaranteed by the fifth amendment
Mr. Reed introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
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,
This Act may be cited as the “Defense of Property Rights Act”.
The Congress finds that—
(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.
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.
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;
(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;
(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;
(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.
(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
(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.”.
(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.
The statute of limitations for actions brought under this title shall be 6 years from the date of the taking of property.
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.
(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.
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.
The provisions of this Act shall apply to actions commenced on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.