7-2-1007 About Lee County Attorney Michael Short

POISONED BY MY NEIGHBOR FROM HELL PRESENTS About Lee County Attorney Michael Short

Source: 7-2-1007 About Lee County Attorney Michael Short – Google Slides

Statute of Limitations – Tolling The Statute – Time, Action, Tolled, and Debt – JRank Articles

Statute of Limitations – Tolling The Statute

Source: Statute of Limitations – Tolling The Statute – Time, Action, Tolled, and Debt – JRank Articles

Evidence based on hearsay, “Mark Conlee says”

WITNESSES on my behalf

Evidence based on hearsay, “Mark Conlee says” when my evidence was hard copy documents, photos and witnesses described as “experts in their own right” and compelling list of witnesses in its own right.

APRIL 7, 2005,   PAGE 204     MONTROSE COUNCIL MEETING                           PAGE 2        

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

a.  Standard procedure would be that the complainant would confirm whether an issue has been resolved.

b. Mark Conlee saying all is well now was far from the truth. Nothing had changed at all.

c. There was no excavation of a ditch in front of the Conlee property. Easily detected with the naked eye

d. The drainage problem was caused by the non conforming in size of the new structures and illegal change of the frontage of Conlee’s property. Easily detected with the naked eye.    

May-5-2005      MONTROSE COUNCIL MEETING

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

a. Jeff Junkins has an existing conflict of interest as he is a fellow employee of Mark and Linda Conlee.

b. Junkins made this statement at a public meeting as if it were a fact, possibly giving the general public attending a false opinion of the law.

c. The lawyer Conlee is speaking of, is not a lawyer at all, he is misrepresenting his brother, Lee County Detective Bob Conlee to be a lawyer. Conlee did not seek legal advice from a licensed attorney until later in the year.

OCTOBER 6, 2005                                                                                                              MONTROSE COUNCIL MEETING                                            

3. He (Mark Conlee) said her fence blew over during a recent storm.

a. Mark Conlee is lying about my curtain blowing over, had that of happened he would have had pictures for evidence

4. Conlee says there is a lot of traffic there.

a. Mark Conlee has no view of my driveway  from any spot on his property.

b. He fails to mention there is a 4 way stop on my corner. Everyone stops at that corner from any direction.  

c. He is defaming my character to be involved with illegal drug activity to collude with his brother’s, Lee County Detective Bob Conlee’s, defaming statements about my character.

d. The fact that I operated a successful upholstery business does bring clients to my home, however it’s not a lot of traffic. 

5. Conlee stated Mark Holland told him he could put a fence on his side of the line he shares with Melody Boatner.

a. By making this statement Conlee indicates Holland has responded to his questions.

b. In my complaints against Conlee’s redevelopment, Holland refused his appointed duty.

c. Holland stated that he had no intention of addressing my concerns about the nuisance drainage caused by the illegal redevelopment.

6. He  (Mark Conlee) says he has put weed killer on his side of the fence.

a. Photo evidence proves this is a false statement made by Mark Conlee

7. He states Melody Boatner has put a black curtain on an insecure structure.

a. I did put a privacy curtain up, however it was not insecure. I was well within my rights to install a privacy curtain. I have the right to enjoy my own property. However what I could control on my own property was very little without taking up arms. I have the right to take up arms to defend my property and my person. Being a reasonable person I expected the law to intervene they did, but not upholding the law, what they did was in violation of State and Federal law.

b. Mr. Conlee made a habit of hollering across the yard at me telling me that he was over the setbacks and such. Out of sight, out of mind. 

c. He would make sure my customers saw him by walking to the center of his yard by giving them an intense look of disapproval. This made my customers uneasy. His actions were not that of a reasonable normal person.

d. Had Conlee not been allowed to violate the law and change the frontage of his property to be the alley he may not have had the impression that my backyard was his backyard.  It is actually his side yard. He committed perjury in his  civil case against me stating he did not change the frontage of his property.

e. Conlee has no backyard to speak of as his entire property lot is filled with oversized structures that overfill his allotted space.

8. Conlee says Boatner has broken the law with her wording.

a.This is another false statement made in a public forum for the purpose of giving the community an unfavorable opinion of my character.

b. I was well within my right to post “Do not spray weed poison on my property.

c.The sign was on my property

9. Conlee says the black plastic on the lawn is a nuisance.

a. There is no ordinance stating black plastic is a nuisance, the material was not black plastic it was commercial landscape fabric.

10. The Conlee’s say they have never had words with her and they have done  nothing wrong. 

a. He has had words with me such as hollering across the yard to inform me that he was over the setbacks.

b.He along with the police chief acting as a witness advised me that he was going to violate the civil court ruling that cited my right to enjoy my property, by physically moving the landscape timbers I had placed on my side of the common boundary to divert the excessive stormwater runoff that he intentionally diverted onto my property.

c. They have violated every law in the book regarding redeveloping a legally nonconforming property.

d. However it is the duty of the City of Montrose to oversee that the redevelopment is compliant to State law.

e. The false statements he made to the public defaming my character were enough to give an unfavorable opinion of the general public, I was unable to wear clothes and was unable to function enough to publicly challenge him on his false statements. Not that I have the duty to hold him accountable to the law, that is the duty of law enforcement and the city.

 11. They were attacked with the writing on the curtain and are emotionally upset.

 a. This is not even debateable, I had every right to post “do not spray” and to install a      privacy curtain

b. At the time there was no city fence ordinance.

c. I was physically and emotionally and financially destroyed by the intentional terrorist acts committed against me by Mark Conlee and his conspirators of local government authorities. Using chemicals as a weapon is according to law an act of terrorism.

d. My right to equal protection of the law was violated by the criminal offenses                 committed by Conlee and the other officials who acted on his behalf.

e. Evidence shows Conlee was actually advised by Mayor Dinwiddie not to encroach      on the property line, to set the fence back from it. Conlee did not take Mayor                Dinwiddies advice. Conlee installed his wooden fence with the wrong side out,              however no person ever made him do it correct and compliant to State building          code.

e. Conspiracy against rights and Deprivation of rights under color of law. Both of             which are violations of Federal law.

 Authors note:

 12. According to Chief of Police Brent Shipman the reason he acted as a witness that                Mark Conlee gave me advance verbal notice that he was going to violate the civil                court order was because “Mark Conlee told him” that the wooded staubs I had put as        markers  36″ away from the common boundary were survey markers. 

  •   a. Police Chief told me this several hours after he acted as a witness for Conlee       giving me advanced verbal notice
  •         b. Who would take a man’s word for something knowing there was a civil                        dispute between the parties involved
  •         c. Police Chief also advised me that Mark Conlee told him that I had paid for                   half of the survey. Complete fabrication, Conlee stated in court that he was                 going to have a survey done, he never did. I certainly did not pay for half of               it.
  •         d. How ignorant for any reasonable adult to believe a survey marker is made                 from wood, wood rots. Survey markers are metal and do not rot away.
  •        e. It is hard to decide if Shipman is fabricating this information about Conlee or            if Conlee actually told his this fabricated story. Chief Shipman had issues with            being truthful early on in his short career as City of Montrose Police Chief. He            was given the option of resigning and the City would give him a favorable                  recommendation at whatever department hired him next or he would be                    terminated for ethical violations.  He slipped his resignation under the door                of City Hall. He was hired as an officer in the Quad Cities, I believe Davenport            but not positive. The staubs are 1½” X 8″ commonly used by construction                    companies. 
  • f. On one of the occasions when the city charged me with frivolous charges Officer Shipman was in the courtroom and made the statement that “he was       wrangled into filing the complaint against me.” The city attorney immediately   requested the judge to dismiss the case and the City of Montrose, Ia would pay   all court fees. I never had to utter one word.

 

 

Protecting Civil Rights: A Leadership Guide for State, Local, and Tribal Law Enforcement

Executive Summary

PROTECTING CIVIL RIGHTS:

A Leadership Guide for State, Local, and Tribal Law Enforcement

BACKGROUND

Protecting Civil Rights: A Leadership Imperative 

All law enforcement leaders recognize the ethical and legal imperatives to which they and their officers must adhere to ensure that civil rights of all individuals in their communities are protected. Law enforcement officers, in fact, are the most visible and largest contingent of the nation’s guardians of civil rights. Every police officer commits to upholding the nation’s prime guarantor of rights, the U.S. Constitution, when sworn into office. To be effective, a police department and its individual officers must be seen primarily as protectors of civil rights, rather than agents of social control whose main purpose is to limit individual freedoms. The effectiveness of police in their varied missions—from law enforcement to community service—depends on the trust and confidence of the community. Public trust and confidence are severely reduced when individuals’ civil rights are compromised. And when any community perceives that its civil rights are systematically violated by the police, all sense of trust, cooperation, and partnership between the police and that community will be undermined. Understanding these ethical imperatives, law enforcement leaders must be continually vigilant to ensure that the actions of their officers do not violate civil rights and do not compromise public support. Officers are granted a tremendous amount of authority and discretion to enforce the law, that is, to protect individual rights from being infringed upon by others in the community. At the same time, officers themselves must act within the confines of the Constitution while executing their tremendous power and wide discretion. They must never consider themselves above the law while executing their responsibility to enforce the law. This commitment is what distinguishes police in constitutionally based, democratic societies like ours from police in nondemocratic countries, where they too often are perceived as oppressive agents of a government whose main purpose is to restrict, rather than protect, the rights of civilians.

 Across the United States, law enforcement personnel have an overwhelmingly positive record of accomplishment for respecting and protecting civil rights. Leaders should find it heartening and a source of pride that the vast majority of the countless interactions that officers have with civilians result in actions that are conducted lawfully, professionally, and within constitutional boundaries. The fact that the overwhelming majority of police officers routinely respect civil rights under the most trying and volatile conditions is remarkable. Given the risks inherent in police work and the grave consequences that can occur when civil rights are violated, law enforcement leaders must be unwavering in holding their officers accountable. Their officers are vested with authority and discretion that can be abused. Unlike any other profession, the possibility of violating civil rights, or being perceived as violating civil rights, is inherent in many of the duties officers are required to perform on a day-to-day basis. Unfortunately, the notoriety and harm that arise from even isolated instances of civil rights violations can easily overshadow the vast majority of police-civilian encounters that are performed respectfully and professionally. Law enforcement leaders bear the tremendous responsibility to ensure that individual officers and units within their agencies uphold the law and its most basic guarantees.

 Realistically, law enforcement leaders recognize that on rare occasions officers will violate a civilian’s civil rights, wittingly or unwittingly. On even rarer occasions, groups of officers or small factions within an agency may act without regard for civil rights, perhaps even asserting that effective law enforcement can come only at the expense of civil rights. Leaders must be resolute in their responses to isolated incidents of civil rights violations to minimize damage and set a clear example. In the case of officers who systematically violate civil rights, their behavior must not be tolerated and action must be decisive and uncompromising.

Effective leaders, supported by the managers who serve them, must strive to identify and intervene when officers exhibit potentially problematic behavior before it escalates to the point of violating civil rights. Against this backdrop, the seriousness of law enforcement leaders’ responsibility to communicate a consistent and far-reaching commitment to civil rights protections cannot be overstated. Although laws, departmental policy directives, and standard operating procedures are critically important, law enforcement executives’ leadership and communication skills are the most critical elements for ensuring that officers regularly exercise sound judgment and engage in professional and ethical policing. Law enforcement leaders can and must demonstrate a fundamental and complete allegiance to civil rights protections in a coordinated manner using multiple approaches. They must clearly convey a simultaneous commitment to effective law enforcement and civil rights protection; they must codify this commitment in their agency’s mission statements; they must ensure that their department’s policies are clear, sound, and consistent with civil rights guarantees; they must train and supervise officers in manners that are consistent with this commitment; and they must respond to alleged civil rights violations with vigilance and with fair and decisive action. As law enforcement leaders succeed in these regards and make these efforts transparent to the public, they validate the core premise that civil rights protection is not only an ethical and legal imperative but a practical imperative as well. Protecting civil rights is good for police, good for the community, and essential for maintaining the partnerships that must exist between the two.

Federal Investigations: A Response to “Patterns or Practices” of Civil Rights Violations Despite the ethical, legal, and practical imperatives to protect civil rights, law enforcement officers occasionally abrogate their oaths. When these unwitting or intentional violations of citizens’ civil rights go unaddressed, they can escalate into more widespread patterns or practices of civil rights violations that can undermine the credibility of an entire law enforcement agency and erode public trust and confidence. Moving beyond isolated instances, pattern or practice violations of civil rights comprise an urgent call to law enforcement executives and the municipal, county, or state governments under which they serve to reassume the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that officers uphold their oaths of office and adherence to constitutional guarantees.

During the last decade, the federal government has responded to such situations in the rare, but urgent circumstances where allegations of pattern or practice civil rights violations have arisen. The passage of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law No: 103-322) enabled the federal government to take action to remedy any pattern or practice of conduct by state and local law enforcement agencies “that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.” In response to this enabling legislation, the Special Litigation Section of the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice assumed the responsibility for investigating alleged pattern or practice civil rights violations and for establishing remedies to such violations.

During the last decade, the Special Litigation Section has investigated an array of alleged pattern or practice civil rights violations including the following:

  • Unlawful or excessive use of force
  • Inadequate training on use-of-force techniques
  • Racial profiling
  • Illegal stops and searches
  • Intimidation by police
  • Harassment of civilians in retaliation for reported misconduct
  • Inadequate supervision
  • Failure to investigate alleged officer misconduct.

Investigations by the Special Litigation Section resulting in a determination of actionable civil rights violations generally have been resolved through negotiated agreements in the form of memorandums of agreement (MOA) or consent decrees. Through such agreements, the federal government and law enforcement agencies agree to a course of action to correct the patterns of civil rights violations and to remedy the conditions that allowed the violations to occur. Since 1994, 14 agencies have been or currently are under federal monitoring as a result of civil rights violation investigations. While these 14 agencies represent an infinitesimal fraction of the country’s nearly 18,000 state, county, local, tribal, and special jurisdictional law enforcement agencies, the impact of these federal investigations and agreements has been and continues to be profound and far-reaching.

18 U.S. Code § 245 – Federally protected activities | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Source: 18 U.S. Code § 245 – Federally protected activities | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

18 U.S. Code § 242 – Deprivation of rights under color of law | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Source: 18 U.S. Code § 242 – Deprivation of rights under color of law | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

18 U.S. Code § 241 – Conspiracy against rights | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Source: 18 U.S. Code § 241 – Conspiracy against rights | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

18 U.S. Code Chapter 13 – CIVIL RIGHTS | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Source: 18 U.S. Code Chapter 13 – CIVIL RIGHTS | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

18 U.S. Code Chapter 11B – CHEMICAL WEAPONS | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Source: 18 U.S. Code Chapter 11B – CHEMICAL WEAPONS | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

 Violations of Federal Law in Criminal Case Boatner vs City of Montrose, Ia and Lee County Iowa.

18 U.S. Code § 229 – Prohibited activities

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

(1)to develop, produce, otherwise acquire, transfer directly or indirectly, receive, stockpile, retain, own, possess, or use, or threaten to use, any chemical weapon; or

(2)to assist or induce, in any way, any person to violate paragraph (1), or to attempt or conspire to violate paragraph (1).

 

  1. Violators of this law in criminal case Boatner vs City of Montrose, Ia and Lee County,

              (a) Mayor Ron Dinwiddie

             (b) Council Member Mark Holland

            (c) Council Member Jeff Junkins

           (d) Police Chief Brent Shipman

          (e) deputy/police chief Karl Judd

         (f) Lee County Attorney Michael Short

         (h) Mayor Greg Ruth

         (i) Lee County Detective Bob Conlee

         (j) Lee County Deputy David Hunold

(k) Council Member Mark Conlee 

 (l) Linda Conlee 

(m) Steve Swan Esq 

(b)Exempted Agencies and Persons.—

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

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

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

(B)in an emergency situation, any otherwise no culpable person if the person is attempting to destroy or seize the weapon.

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

(1)takes place in the United States;

 (a) Mayor Ron Dinwiddie is a resident of the Montrose, Ia in Lee County, Ia

(b) Council Member Mark Holland is a resident of Montrose, Ia in Lee County, Ia

(c) Council Member Jeff Junkins is a resident of Montrose, Ia in Lee County, Ia

(d) Police Chief Brent Shipman is a resident of Montrose, Ia in Lee County, Ia

(e) deputy/police chief Karl Judd is a resident of Montrose, Ia in Lee County, Ia

(f) Lee County Attorney Michael Short is a resident of Keokuk, Ia in Lee County, Ia

(h) Mayor Greg Ruth is a resident of Montrose, Ia in Lee County, Ia

(i) Lee County Detective Bob Conlee is a resident of Donnellson, Ia in Lee County, Ia

 (j) Lee County Deputy David Hunold is a resident of Keokuk, Ia in Lee County, Ia

 (k) Council Member Mark Conlee is a resident of Montrose, Ia in Lee County, Ia

 (l) Linda Conlee is a resident of Montrose, Ia in Lee County, Ia

(m) Steve Swan Esq is a resident of the Keokuk, Ia in Lee County, Ia.

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Violations of Federal Law in Criminal Case Boatner vs City of Montrose, Ia and Lee County Iowa.

 

18 U.S. Code § 229 – Prohibited activities

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

(1)to develop, produce, otherwise acquire, transfer directly or indirectly, receive, stockpile, retain, own, possess, or use, or threaten to use, any chemical weapon; or

(2)to assist or induce, in any way, any person to violate paragraph (1), or to attempt or conspire to violate paragraph (1).

 

  1. Violators of this law in criminal case Boatner vs City of Montrose, Ia and Lee County,

              (a) Mayor Ron Dinwiddie

(b) Council Member Mark Holland

(c) Council Member Jeff Junkins

(d) Police Chief Brent Shipman

(e) deputy/police chief Karl Judd

(f) Lee County Attorney Michael Short

(h) Mayor Greg Ruth

(i) Lee County Detective Bob Conlee

(j) Lee County Deputy David Hunold

 

(b)Exempted Agencies and Persons.—

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

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

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

(B)in an emergency situation, any otherwise no culpable person if the person is attempting to destroy or seize the weapon.

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

(1)takes place in the United States;

                      (a) Mayor Ron Dinwiddie is a resident of the City of Montrose, Ia in Lee County, Ia

(b) Council Member Mark Holland is a resident of the City of Montrose, Ia in Lee County, Ia

(c) Council Member Jeff Junkins is a resident of the City of Montrose, Ia in Lee County, Ia

(d) Police Chief Brent Shipman is a resident of the City of Montrose, Ia in Lee County, Ia

(e) deputy/police chief Karl Judd is a resident of the City of Montrose, Ia in Lee County, Ia

(f) Lee County Attorney Michael Short is a resident of Keokuk, Ia in Lee County, Ia

(h) Mayor Greg Ruth is a resident of the City of Montrose, Ia in Lee County, Ia

(i) Lee County Detective Bob Conlee is a resident of Donnellson, Ia in Lee County, Ia

(j) Lee County Deputy David Hunold is a resident of Keokuk, Ia in Lee County, Ia

(k) Council Member Mark Conlee  was a resident of the City of Montrose, Ia in Lee County, Ia

(l) Linda Conlee was a resident of the City of Montrose, Ia in Lee County, Ia

        

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

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

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