No remedy for terrorist assault using chemical weapons in Iowa?

I was advised it is difficult to hold local government officials compliant to the law. That statement I will never understand. The justice system hold citizens accountable for their illegal acts, but they find it difficult to hold citizens with government titles accountable to the law?

I have recognized for several years that nobody is going to act on my behalf. Someone has the authority and the duty to investigate and prosecute corrupt public officials. Is it that you do not know the name of any Federal authority that is willing to become personally involved in a case of torture committed by government terrorists or is there none that exist?

I can make a statement to the public that I am going to take up arms against my attackers and there still will be no Federal authority who will come after me for threatening the lives of those who have tortured me. You know why? Because at some point someone would have to review my evidence. Someone would have to represent me. Somebody would have to hold accountable, not your run of the mill corrupt public officials, but public officials who without a single doubt participated in the torture of an American civilian in the State of Iowa.

No Federal agency or authority could give two shits about their oath to uphold the Constitution. The only option I have is to serve justice myself. I have been disrespected and treated less than human for to long now. My terrorist have no concern about ever being held accountable because no Federal agent will question the lies they have been told. To be an US citizen today and still have a belief that the cops are honorable, servants of justice you would have to be completely off grid with no access to the news at all. Anyone who would question my credibility over that of the local law enforcement officers simply has not reviewed the evidence. You cannot review the evidence and not recognize the false statements made by these local officials. They implicate themselves on public record, you cannot get more solid evidence than what I have.

I have hard copy evidence that my attackers have lied to the FBI. If the shoe were on the other foot I would be criminally charged with the crime of lying to the FBI. When an AUSA tells me that he has the authority to violate a civil court order, an order that if it had be complied to or enforced when it was issued my suffering would have ended right then and there, he is lying.  That order was ignored and my suffering has only increased. In any other situation ignoring a court order is an act of contempt.

Why am I the only citizen who has ever been a victim of chemical warfare committed by my government for the purpose of eliminating me? There are laws in place to prevent this from happening, those laws have been enforced in every other case. Trespassing is a common criminal charge in Lee County, Iowa. Why was I denied the right to have a trespassing complaint filed against someone the evidence supports is a psychopath?

I guess I will never know. I know that one day I will wake up and the camels back will have broken. I know that I will lose my life defending my honor at this time. I accept that to be my destiny. I will die with dignity. My attackers will burn in hell.

There is someone whose title gives him or her the authority to intervene in cases of willful misconduct and intentional negligence of Federal and State authorities, be them elected or hired. Someone with a name and a phone number. Someone who I believe that, if they had any clue as to the facts of this case instead of the hearsay given to the FBI and AUSA would feel obligated to step up on my behalf. I simply do not have the name of the person who has that obligation. All I have is a blank wall to speak to an nobody has heard me.

I don’t know what else to say. Without the contact information I cannot do anything but invoke my 2nd amendment. I just hope after a tragedy happens you and the few others who have been kind enough to listen to me will insist on a thorough investigation as to why this had to happen. Because it has to happen or I am disrespecting myself. I cannot do that any longer. I wish they would come and get me for threatening someones life, then I would have the opportunity to submit my evidence. That’s why they won’t.

Nobody should be treated less than human. I have been and it has been devastating to be the victim of such evil human beings. My life is natters to those who love me. To be forced to defend myself is going to effect the lives of many people. It can only be saved if the Federal laws are enforced. There is no other way.

Torture is a serious criminal offense. My condition is chronic. There is not a day since spring of 2005 that I have not felt the physical and mental suffering of torture. Who prosecutes acts of torture? That is the person who hold lives in their hands. It cannot be any Federal official from Iowa. I asked for an independent investigation years ago. No response, is like putting a cigarette out on my cheek. Denying me the right to present my case to a grand jury is like putting a cigarette out on my cheek. I can tell you there is no person who has not tried as hard as I have to use the justice system to remedy a situation. It just isn’t going to happen for me.

You have the connections to the connection of the person who can take this case under such special circumstances, I am sure of that. You may not know who, but someone you know does, I bet on that. I am sorry you have not been able to assist me, I am thankful for your ear and respect you have shown me.

  •  The remedy to my situation is simply to have an unbiased investigation and a US attorney who has not worked with the County Sheriff for “years” to review my evidence.
  • For an FBI agent not to recognize that private property rights are Federally protected is completely unacceptable.
  • For the AUSA to advise me that no matter what my evidence proves he will use attorney discretion and not prosecute people who have use torture tactics to eliminate me from my private property is unacceptable.
  • For the FBI agent to give me three different versions of how he submitted my complaint to the AUSA and me not to recognize red flags is an insult to my intelligence regarding his credibility.
  • For the FBI agent to refuse to review my evidence and request me to verbally tell him my story brings his professional ability to be questioned.

Who in the FBI or any law enforcement agency would use hearsay over the documented evidence. A a competent investigation into my allegations of these two Federal officials actions of their willful misconduct and intentional negligence, collusion is what is needed for proper justice being served. The evidence is written and sent to me by them.

A legitimate and competent investigation is what the government needs to provide in the best interest of all citizens. Corruption is thicker than the thieves who stole my private property and health from me. This is in everyone’s best interest, these people are why the citizens have no respect for law enforcement. These people are the cause of mass shooting tragedies. The evidence will prove these two Federal authorities conspired to violate my Federally protected rights.

To find an honest unbiased investigator, is that even possible? I have advised that I would travel to have my evidence reviewed. But I am not going to pretend to be ignorant of what my Federal rights are. If an investigator does not know private property rights are Federally protected he shouldn’t be representing the Federal government. He damn sure shouldn’t be lying to my face as this one did. Had the article not been published in the newspaper recently associating the AUSA with working with the Sheriff for “years” I would have no proof of their relationship. Now I do. My State and Federal rights not being held above the protection of corrupt local government officials is unacceptable.

Where was homeland security when I needed protection from terrorists assaulting me with chemical weapons? Oh that’s right! They were the participating in the ongoing assault. There is no immunity from justice given to any of these domestic terrorists by me. https://poisonedbymyneighborfromhell.com

Five Reasons Why There is no Such Thing as a “Good” Cop. — Flyover-Press.com

By Dr Jimmy T (Gunny) LaBaume at FlyoverPress.com There are lots of “good ol’ boys” who are cops. But, there is no such thing as a “good” cop. Why? There are several specific reasons. But first let’s take a quick look at how the current “justice” system really works. Suppose someone breaks into your house […]

via Five Reasons Why There is no Such Thing as a “Good” Cop. — Flyover-Press.com

11-20-2019 Evidence supporting US Attorney Kevin VanderSchel has conflict of interest with Lee County Sheriff Stacy Weber. You do not have the authority to violate State and Federal rights of citizens. Your duty is to serve me!

 

DAVENPORT, Ia (WGEM) – UPDATE: The Department of Justice announced Wednesday afternoon that a ninth individual has been arrested as a result of at multi-year joint federal and state investigation of a large drug trafficking organization.

First Assistant United States Attorney Kevin VanderSchel stated that Alphonso Edmond, Jr was arrested in Burlington, Iowa Wednesday morning, bringing the total number of arrests in the investigation to nine.

Earlier on Wednesday, the DOJ reported that eight people were facing federal criminal charges as part of a multi-year joint federal and state investigation of a large drug trafficking organization that operated out of Burlington, Iowa.

VanderSchel stated that five of the individuals were arrested Tuesday. Those arrested will make their initial appearance in federal court at the United States Courthouse, in Davenport, on Wednesday.

The charges were announced by Marc Krickbaum, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Iowa; Kristi Johnson, Special Agent-in-Charge of the Omaha Field Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; Lisa Schaefer, Des Moines County, Iowa, Attorney; Dennis Kramer, Chief of Police of the Burlington, Iowa, Police Department; and Robert Copley, Chief of Police of the Quincy, Illinois, Police Department.

VanderSchel stated that the charges stem from a long-term investigation conducted by numerous federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies including the Federal Bureau of Investigation; Southeast Iowa Narcotics Task force; Burlington, Iowa, Police Department; Des Moines County, Iowa, Sheriff’s Office; West Central Illinois Task force; Quincy, Illinois, Police Department; Drug Enforcement Administration; Iowa Division of Narcotics Enforcement; Henry County, Iowa, Sheriff’s Office; Mt. Pleasant, Iowa, Police Department; West Burlington, Iowa, Police Department; Keokuk, Iowa, Police Department; Ft. Madison, Iowa, Police Department; Lee County, Iowa, Sheriff’s Office; Iowa City, Iowa, Police Department; Johnson County, Iowa, Sheriff’s Office; North Liberty, Iowa, Police Department; Coralville, Iowa, Police Department; Muscatine County, Iowa, Sheriff’s Office; Louisa County, Iowa, Sheriff’s Office; Washington County, Iowa, Sheriff’s Office; Bettendorf, Iowa, Police Department; Illinois State Police; Monmouth, Illinois, Police Department; Macomb, Illinois, Police Department; Galesburg, Illinois, Police Department; Adams County, Illinois, Sheriff’s Office; and Fulton County, Illinois, Sheriff’s Office.

VanderSchel reported that eight individuals were charged by complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, stemming from a years-long investigation of this drug trafficking organization.

Those arrested include Kendrick Page, Breon Raquon Armstrong, Lamar Harris, Tristan Davis, and James Lewis Miles, Jr.

The identities of those who have not yet been arrested remain sealed at this time. Additionally, search warrants were executed at multiple locations in the Southern District of Iowa, Northern District of Illinois, and Northern District of Texas. Others involved in this drug trafficking organization have previously been arrested in both the Southern District of Iowa and the Central District of Illinois.

VanderSchel reported that the charges carry maximum penalties of between 40 years and life imprisonment. If convicted, the Court must impose reasonable sentences under federal sentencing statutes and the advisory U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. There is no parole in the federal court system.

The public is reminded that charges contain only accusations and are not evidence of guilt. The defendants are presumed innocent and entitled to a fair trial at which the government has the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. These cases are part of Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN), a program bringing together all levels of law enforcement and the communities they serve to reduce violent crime and make our neighborhoods safer for everyone. The Department of Justice reinvigorated PSN in 2017 as part of the Department’s renewed focus on targeting violent criminals, directing all U.S. Attorney’s Offices to work in partnership with federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement and the local community to develop effective, locally-based strategies to reduce violent crime.

 

Law Enforcement Misconduct

Intentional Negligence by refusing to review the evidence falls within these guidelines I would assume. AUSA Kevin VanderSchel, FBI SA Thomas Reinwart. My evidence proves this and more!

The federal criminal statute that enforces Constitutional limits on conduct by law enforcement officers is 18 U.S.C. § 242. Section 242 provides in relevant part:

“Whoever, under color of any law, …willfully subjects any person…to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States [shall be guilty of a crime].”

Section 242 is intended to “protect all persons in the United States in their civil rights, and furnish the means of their vindication.” Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 98 (1945) (quoting legislative history).

To prove a violation of § 242, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) that the defendant deprived a victim of a right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, (2) that the defendant acted willfully, and (3) that the defendant was acting under color of law. A violation of § 242 is a felony if one of the following conditions is met: the defendant used, attempted to use, or threatened to use a dangerous weapon, explosive or fire; the victim suffered bodily injury; the defendant’s actions included attempted murder, kidnapping or attempted kidnapping, aggravated sexual abuse or attempted aggravated sexual abuse, or the crime resulted in death. Otherwise, the violation is a misdemeanor.

Establishing the intent behind a Constitutional violation requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the law enforcement officer knew what he/she was doing was wrong and against the law and decided to do it anyway. Therefore, even if the government can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an individual’s Constitutional right was violated, § 242 requires that the government prove that the law enforcement officer intended to engage in the unlawful conduct and that he/she did so knowing that it was wrong or unlawful. See Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 101-107 (1945). Mistake, fear, misperception, or even poor judgment does not constitute willful conduct prosecutable under the statute.

Dear Senator Grassley

Dear Senator Grassley,

I have been corresponding with your assistant John Kaufman since 2006. He advises me that you are aware of my complaint. John has through the years advised me of several things that did not materialize as he said it would. My complaint is that my local government officials used chemicals unlawfully applied to my private property with intent to cause me serious injury or death. The chemicals were applied by a neighbor who purchased his legally nonconforming lot from the Mayor. He illegally redeveloped the property causing nuisance drainage, loss of value and structural damage to my property. My complaints to the building administrator were ignored. His duty to address my concerns were refused. Instead this neighbor’s brother, a County Detective, with an obvious conflict of interest began acting as a city building authority. This County officer had no authority or jurisdiction to act as any official in this City. The actual building administrator continued issuing this neighbor fraudulent building permits. As expected when this neighbor went to get his redevelopment recorded on the County plat map, it was rejected.

It was at this time he, along with the City officials and the County attorney determined his remedy was to eliminate me. With the addition of my property added with his he would be in compliance with State building code. 

He began applying chemicals to my side of the 300′ common boundary in spring of 2005. I developed a “rash” on my shins at this same time. I had owned my property for ten years, I have never had any type of “rash”, never so much as poison ivy. Through the advice of a dermatologist and the process of elimination it has been determined the “rash” was caused by the chemicals my neighbor had exposed me to. I requested him to stop, asking for an incident report from the police chief. The neighbor would not stop. I received an incident report 16 months after the initial exposure. By this time the “rash” had developed into a severe skin condition. It was unbearable to simple wear clothes. I was completely unable to function from what had become a full body condition of eruptions on my skin. I researched the chemical and it did have a history of being known to cause rashes on peoples skin. In this case I was exposed intentionally by this neighbor in which I had no control. I requested the City and the County attorney file a trespassing complaint against him on my behalf. They refused stating they did not believe in neighbor against neighbor complaints. A double standard as I was criminally charged by the City and the State on fabricated laws and ordinances. This was an attempt to cause me financial harm. The chemicals had already rendered me unable to work. I was an upholsterer. The eruptions constantly caused random bleeding from my hands and arms. If I could have worked I could not afford to get blood stains on clients fabric. I was living on money borrowed from friends. Prior to this chemical exposure I was ready to semi retire. I had excellent credit rating and felt financially stable enough to be more selective in the jobs I accepted. I was referred to an attorney. He was briefed on my case by the person who referred him to me. When we met we both understood that the liable party was the city. It was the city who issued the fraudulent building permits. It was the city who refused to stop the trespassing with chemicals on my private property. It was the Mayor who stated on public record that the builders signature on a building permits alleviates the cities liability. At that time I presented one of the building permits issued by the city to this neighbor with no signature. The mayor had no response. There are many similar incidents where the officials implicate themselves on public record. 

I have never needed an attorney or had any experience in a courtroom. I paid my attorney at our first meeting the amount he needed to file a complaint against the city.  He advised that we would sue both the city and the neighbor, adding that the city is where the money is. I submitted my witness list to him. He was impressed, stating that my witness list is “compelling in itself”, that they are “experts in their own right”. I was naive and actually believed an attorney would always have their clients best interest in mind. I have had a significant reality check since then. My attorney had to have gotten a better financial reward from the opposing party. He never filed the complaint but continued to assure me that he did. I get served papers from this neighbor. He is suing me for “loss of enjoyment of his property”. All along the chemicals have routinely been applied to my property. My attorney still misleading me to believe he had filed the complaint against the city advised we would counter sue the neighbor for nuisance drainage. When I advised him of the severe skin condition the chemicals were causing I assumed he would amend the complaint to include damages I suffered from the chemicals. He did not amend the complaint. At trial he did not question any of my witnesses or submit their written affidavits. He did not submit any of the photo evidence that I had been documenting this entire time. Even with my evidence suppressed the judge cited my right to use my property as I wished. He dismissed both complaints. It was on the last day of this civil trial that I asked my attorney about the case against the city. He snickered and told me that he did not want that case. I did not understand why he would deceive me in this way. I understand now that he was a co conspirator with the opposing party. I did feel a sense of relief knowing that the judge ordered my right to use my property as I wished. That was a false sense of relief. The chemicals continued to be applied to my property without pause. I had lost my eyesight by this time. I could not read or recognize people. Only by their voices could I know who was around me. The vision loss was a result of the massive amounts of steroid injections administered by the ER at the local hospital. The steroids would offer me fifteen minutes of relief, that fifteen minutes helped me want to stay alive and regain my health. During this time I contacted you though John Kaufman. First he gave me specific direction as to where to send my evidence. I recall it was the Davenport office with ATT. Penny. I submitted that large envelope of evidence and never heard another thing about it. Sometime later, in a state of dis pare I contacted you again. I signed another authorization for personal information and was advised that you requested an inquiry on my behalf from the FBI. You advised me that the FBI would contact me. I waited five years, Senator Grassley. No FBI ever contacted me. The chemicals continued in a more aggressive manner as my health deteriorated. I contacted you again. Again you advised me that you would request another inquiry on my behalf. You again advised me that the FBI would contact me. You advised me to “be patient” it “takes time”. Another five years passed and no FBI contacted me. 

One afternoon a County sheriff’s officer who was aware of the situation stopped by my home. He advised me that this neighbor had no intention to stop applying the chemicals to my property. The neighbor had to acquire my property or the court would order him to bring his structures into compliance to State building code, or remove the structures and return the lot to its existing condition. Having no protection of the law I had only two options that would eliminate the chemical exposure. One would be to commit a criminal offense myself or I could flee and seek compensation when and if I regained my health. Staying at my home was certain death. I fled homeless, blind and with a severe full body skin condition. 

I am still waiting for an investigation into my case. I contacted an agent though the County Sheriff. Against my gut knowing he had a conflict of interest with the opposing party. 

The agent took 14 months to come to my home. The purpose was specifically for him to review my evidence. He arrived announcing that he had no intention of reviewing any of my evidence. He advised me to verbally tell him my story. I protested. I attempted to point out the violations of Federal law that have been committed against me. Such as violation of my private property rights. He did not recognize that as a violation of Federal law. In fact he was not interested in what I was telling him. He seemed lethargic. He was steady checking the time on his wrist watch. He gave me 2 1/2 hours to tell him a story that took a student lawyer the better part of three days to review the evidence I have documented in this case. Two hours after this agent left my home I receive in my mailbox a letter from the Washington DC headquarters a letter signed by Deputy assistant director JC Hacker. The letter stated that the agent had determined no violation of Federal law has occurred. This investigation was a fraud. this agent did not interview any of my witnesses, he did not interview my Dr. He did not look through financial records for a payment of a bribe. It is not possible for an agent to send a report to Washington DC, and an assistant director to get a decision back to me in Iowa in a period of two hours. This agent pre determined his decisions based on false information the County Sheriff gave to a third party. Several weeks later I received a letter stating as much of the same.

You advised me to document everything. I did that Senator Grassley, the part that has not been done is a competent authority to review my documented evidence. 

 ​Attached is a heartfelt letter I sent to the FBI Omaha division. Still nobody responded, this was soon after your last request for an inquiry. These actors will not go unpunished. In a case of crimes against humanity and torture there are no Statute of Limitations.  Senator I am giving you this one last opportunity to do your job and follow through on what you have the power to do. 

If I do not get a response in a timely fashion I will accept the fact that you have given your permission to take the law into my own hands and serve justice myself using my 2nd amendment right. I hope that if this letter is intercepted by one of your staff members they personally hand it to you. You can reach me at 319-520-0253. It is unfortunate that I have not been allowed to talk directly with you. You present yourself as a supporter of Constitutional Rights and support whistle blowers. I pray that you do not force me into committing a criminal offense. I have no criminal history. I do have a paper trail of my contact with you that will be exposed after you let choose to allow a tragedy occur.  I would like copies of the FBI reports following up on your requests for the inquiries you requested on my behalf. If there are none then it is clear that no legitimate investigation has been done in this case. I will know when an investigation is being done because I have the evidence supporting my allegations in my possession. Advise the FBI there is no statute of limitation for torture. Advise the FBI that this is a case of cruel and unusual punishment. Advised the FBI that hearsay is not evidence. Advise the FBI and the US Attorney for the Southern District of Iowa that they do not have the authority to violated my Federally protected Constitutional Rights anymore that these local government officials did. Hold them accountable for the crimes against humanity they have committed. Good Day Senator.

sincerely serious,

Melody Boatner. ​​

2-12-2011 MB to FBI Omaha

My Doctor says “I am pioneer of the effects Roundup by Monsanto can cause to the human body after being intentionally exposed to the chemical for over five years on a routine basis.

 

18 U.S. Code CHAPTER 11B—CHEMICAL WEAPONS. FBI SA THOMAS REINWART DETERMINED NO VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW HAS OCCURRED

The fact that FBI Agent Reinwart, refused to review my evidence that supports without a doubt my allegations leaves his decision irrelevant. It does not take a graduate of the academy to know that an investigation requires reviewing evidence from both sides of a case. In an email he sent me he admits that he made his decision based on what I verbally told him and what the County Sheriff told a third party. I even submitted evidence that the Sheriff had a conflict of interest with the opposing party. He made his decision based on false statements given by the sheriff. I asked Reinwart to share with me the information the Sheriff had made in his statements. Reinwart refused. Reinwart was supposed to be investigation this case on my behalf. He could not share the false information given by the Sheriff because I have hard copy evidence that would prove the Sheriff was lying. The sheriff knows no facts about this case. Any information he has is based on lies made by the Conlee’s. I can prove multiple counts of perjury made by Conlee in the civil case. AUSA Kevin VanderSchel was lying when he advised me that he had the authority to violate a civil court order. When we have Federal authorities who have no regard to the oath they took to uphold the Constitution its time for the citizens to unite and remove them from their positions. Dirty Rotten Bastards. I have a purpose to speak to the Inspector General. To expose one corrupt government official is small potatoes. I have an entire group of self serving government impostors that need removed from their positions. Hearsay is not evidence. Dirty Rotten Bastards. Private property is never to be taken without just compensation. Reinwart did not possess the knowledge of  any Federal law, who is responsible for putting this incompetent individual in his position? He has shown me that he is not qualified to investigate any case regarding Federal law!

18 U.S. Code § 229.Prohibited activities

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

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

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

(b)Exempted Agencies and .—

(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 non 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;

(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.

18 U.S. Code § 229A. Penalties

(a)Criminal Penalties.—

(1)In general.—

Any person who violates section 229 of this title shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years, or both.

(2)Death penalty.—

Any person who violates section 229 of this title and by whose action the death of another person is the result shall be punished by death or imprisoned for life.

(b)Civil Penalties.—

(1)In general.—

The Attorney General may bring a civil action in the appropriate United States district court against any person who violates section 229 of this title and, upon proof of such violation by a preponderance of the evidence, such person shall be subject to pay a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed $100,000 for each such violation.

(2)Relation to other proceedings.—

The imposition of a civil penalty under this subsection does not preclude any other criminal or civil statutory, common law, or administrative remedy, which is available by law to the United States or any other person.

(c)Reimbursement of Costs.—

The court shall order any person convicted of an offense under subsection (a) to reimburse the United States for any expenses incurred by the United States incident to the seizure, storage, handling, transportation, and destruction or other disposition of any property that was seized in connection with an investigation of the commission of the offense by that person. A person ordered to reimburse the United States for expenses under this subsection shall be jointly and severally liable for such expenses with each other person, if any, who is ordered under this subsection to reimburse the United States for the same expenses.

18 U.S. Code § 229B. Criminal forfeitures; destruction of weapons

(a)Property Subject to Criminal Forfeiture.—Any person convicted under section 229A (a) shall forfeit to the United States irrespective of any provision of State law—

(1)any property, real or personal, owned, possessed, or used by a person involved in the offense;

(2)any property constituting, or derived from, and proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, as the result of such violation; and

(3)any of the property used in any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission of, such violation.

The court, in imposing sentence on such person, shall order, in addition to any other sentence imposed pursuant to section 229A (a), that the person forfeit to the United States all property described in this subsection. In lieu of a fine otherwise authorized by section 229A (a), a defendant who derived profits or other proceeds from an offense may be fined not more than twice the gross profits or other proceeds.

(b)Procedures.—

(1)General.—Property subject to forfeiture under this section, any seizure and disposition thereof, and any administrative or judicial proceeding in relation thereto, shall be governed by subsections (b) through (p) of section 413 of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 853), except that any reference under those subsections to—

(A)this subchapter or subchapter II” shall be deemed to be a reference to section 229A (a); and

(B)subsection (a)” shall be deemed to be a reference to subsection (a) of this section.

(2)Temporary restraining orders.—

(A)In general.—

For the purposes of forfeiture proceedings under this section, a temporary restraining order may be entered upon application of the United States without notice or opportunity for a hearing when an information or indictment has not yet been filed with respect to the property, if, in addition to the circumstances described in section 413(e)(2) of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 853(e)(2)), the United States demonstrates that there is probable cause to believe that the property with respect to which the order is sought would, in the event of conviction, be subject to forfeiture under this section and exigent circumstances exist that place the life or health of any person in danger.

(B)Warrant of seizure.—

If the court enters a temporary restraining order under this paragraph, it shall also issue a warrant authorizing the seizure of such property.

(C)Applicable procedures.—

The procedures and time limits applicable to temporary restraining orders under section 413(e)(2) and (3) of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 853(e)(2) and (3)) shall apply to temporary restraining orders under this paragraph.

(c)Affirmative Defense.—It is an affirmative defense against a forfeiture under subsection (b) that the property—

(1)is for a purpose not prohibited under the Chemical Weapons Convention; and

(2)is of a type and quantity that under the circumstances is consistent with that purpose.

(d)Destruction or Other Disposition.—

The Attorney General shall provide for the destruction or other appropriate disposition of any chemical weapon seized and forfeited pursuant to this section.

(e)Assistance.—

The Attorney General may request the head of any agency of the United States to assist in the handling, storage, transportation, or destruction of property seized under this section.

(f)Owner Liability.—

The owner or possessor of any property seized under this section shall be liable to the United States for any expenses incurred incident to the seizure, including any expenses relating to the handling, storage, transportation, and destruction or other disposition of the seized property.

18 U.S. Code § 229C. Individual self-defense devices

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prohibit any individual self-defense device, including those using a pepper spray or chemical mace.

18 U.S. Code § 229D. Injunctions

The United States may obtain in a civil action an injunction against—

(1)the conduct prohibited under section 229 or 229C of this title; or

(2)the preparation or solicitation to engage in conduct prohibited under section 229 or 229D[1] of this title.

18 U.S. Code § 229E. Requests for military assistance to enforce prohibition in certain emergencies

The Attorney General may request the Secretary of Defense to provide assistance under section 382 of title 10[1]in support of Department of Justice activities relating to the enforcement of section 229 of this title in an emergency situation involving a chemical weapon. The authority to make such a request may be exercised by another official of the Department of Justice in accordance with section 382(f)(2) of title 10.[1] 

18 U.S. Code § 229F. Definitions

In this chapter:

(1)Chemical weapon.—The term “chemical weapon” means the following, together or separately:

(A)A toxic chemical and its precursors, except where intended for a purpose not prohibited under this chapter as long as the type and quantity is consistent with such a purpose.

(B)A munition or device, specifically designed to cause death or other harm through toxic properties of those toxic chemicals specified in subparagraph (A), which would be released as a result of the employment of such munition or device.

(C)Any equipment specifically designed for use directly in connection with the employment of munitions or devices specified in subparagraph (B).

(2)Chemical weapons ; convention.—

The terms “Chemical Weapons Convention” and “Convention” mean the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction, opened for signature on January 13, 1993.

(3)Key component of a binary or multicomponent chemical system.—

The term “key component of a binary or multicomponent chemical system” means the precursor which plays the most important role in determining the toxic properties of the final product and reacts rapidly with other chemicals in the binary or multicomponent system.

(4)National of the united states.—

The term “national of the United States” has the same meaning given such term in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22)).

(5)Person.—

The term “person”, except as otherwise provided, means any individual, corporation, partnership, firm, association, trust, estate, public or private institution, any State or any political subdivision thereof, or any political entity within a State, any foreign government or nation or any agency, instrumentality or political subdivision of any such government or nation, or other entity located in the United States.

(6)Precursor.—

(A)In general.—

The term “precursor” means any chemical reactant which takes part at any stage in the production by whatever method of a toxic chemical. The term includes any key component of a binary or multicomponent chemical system.

(B)List of precursors.—

Precursors which have been identified for the application of verification measures under Article VI of the Convention are listed in schedules contained in the Annex on Chemicals of the Chemical Weapons Convention.

(7)Purposes not prohibited by this chapter.—The term “purposes not prohibited by this chapter” means the following:

(A)Peaceful purposes.—

Any peaceful purpose related to an industrial, agricultural, research, medical, or pharmaceutical activity or other activity.

(B)Protective purposes.—

Any purpose directly related to protection against toxic chemicals and to protection against chemical weapons.

(C)Unrelated military purposes.—

Any military purpose of the United States that is not connected with the use of a chemical weapon or that is not dependent on the use of the toxic or poisonous properties of the chemical weapon to cause death or other harm.

(D)Law enforcement purposes.—

Any law enforcement purpose, including any domestic riot control purpose and including imposition of capital punishment.

(8)Toxic chemical.—

(A)In general.—

The term “toxic chemical” means any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals. The term includes all such chemicals, regardless of their origin or of their method of production, and regardless of whether they are produced in facilities, in munitions or elsewhere.

(B)List of toxic chemicals.—

Toxic chemicals which have been identified for the application of verification measures under Article VI of the Convention are listed in schedules contained in the Annex on Chemicals of the Chemical Weapons Convention.

(9)United states.—The term “United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States and includes all places under the jurisdiction or control of the United States, including—

(A)any of the places within the provisions of paragraph (41) [1] of section 40102 of title 49, United States Code;

(B)any civil aircraft of the United States or public aircraft, as such terms are defined in paragraphs (17) and (37),1 respectively, of section 40102 of title 49, United States Code; and

(C)any vessel of the United States, as such term is defined in section 70502(b) of title 46, United States Code.

 

Federal Prosecution of State and Local Corruption: From Sea to Shining Sea

There’s actually a constitutional basis to argue that the federal government should pursue these cases. The Guarantee Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article 4, Section 4, provides that the “United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government.” If “republican form of government” is understood to mean a representative democracy with power derived from the consent of the governed, then federal prosecution of state corruption may fulfill this mandate by removing corrupt state officials who either rose to power illegitimately or are using their powers to the detriment of their citizens. The normal political and legal structures within a state may be fine for handling most crimes, but when it comes to political corruption those structures themselves may be impaired. When that’s the case, there may be a role for the federal government.

When Should the Feds Step In?

One reason federal intervention in a state corruption case might be appropriate and even welcome is the presence of a real or perceived conflict of interest among state officials. If corruption exists at a high level in the state government, those who would be charged with investigating and prosecuting it – the state attorney general, for example – may be political allies and close friends of the potential targets. If a city or state is run by a well-entrenched corrupt political “machine” (I’m lookin’ at you, Chicago) it may be unrealistic to expect the local authorities to tackle the corruption among their friends and colleagues. Indeed, the prosecuting authorities in the state may themselves be involved in the corruption.

Another factor in favor of federal prosecution can be the resources available to the federal government. A large-scale public corruption investigation demands a great deal of prosecutorial and investigative time and money. Many state prosecutor’s offices could quickly be overwhelmed by the demands of such a case, particularly considering all of the other state matters they are tasked with handling. Federal prosecutors, with the vast investigative and prosecutorial power of the federal government behind them, are simply better equipped to tackle such a large-scale investigation than their state counterparts.

Prosecutorial resources and expertise are also an issue. Many state and local prosecutors accustomed to dealing with street crimes may have never handled a major public corruption case. Such cases raise complex legal and factual issues concerning things like proof of corrupt intent, not found in more typical state criminal law fare. The U.S. Department of Justice recognized the special nature of political corruption investigations by establishing the Public Integrity Section in 1976, with a staff of attorneys who specialize in such cases and travel the country assisting other federal prosecutors who are handling them. DOJ can bring a degree of prosecutorial firepower and experience to such investigations that is beyond the reach of most states.

The Laws Used to Prosecute State and Local Corruption

Somewhat surprisingly, there are not a lot of federal laws aimed directly at state and local corruption. The principal federal statute covering bribery and gratuities, 18 U.S.C. § 201, applies only to federal public officials. But federal prosecutors have been creative when it comes to putting other federal statutes to work in these cases.

Honest services fraud – perhaps the most popular theory used to prosecute state and local corruption is honest services mail and wire fraud. The mail and wire fraud statutes (18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1343) apply to use of the mail, phone lines, or wireless transmissions in furtherance of any “scheme or artifice to defraud.” The statutes are routinely applied to the more typical schemes to defraud victims of money or property, such as a Ponzi scheme. But prosecutors also use mail and wire fraud to prosecute state and local officials for corruption, on the theory that the corrupt acts defrauded the public of its intangible right to the fair and honest services of their public officials.

Honest services fraud has been used to prosecute many state and local officials over the past few decades. At times it has been applied to schemes that appeared more politically sleazy or unethical than criminally corrupt, which led to controversy about the potential breadth of the theory. But in 2010 in Skilling v. United States the Supreme Court limited the statute, ruling that it only applies to conduct that amounts to bribery or kickbacks. Even with this limitation, though, it remains an important weapon for federal prosecutors attacking state or local corruption. Honest services fraud was one of the primary statutes used in the McDonnell prosecution, as well as in the prosecutions of New York state legislators.

Hobbs Act Extortion – another common theory is extortion under color of official right under the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951. As I have discussed elsewhere, extortion “under color of official right” has been interpreted by the Supreme Court essentially to be the equivalent of bribery. In the absence of a general federal bribery statute that applies to state and local officials, Hobbs Act extortion is a favorite of federal prosecutors looking at state and local corruption. Along with honest services fraud, Hobbs Act extortion formed the core of the indictment against the McDonnell’s in Virginia, and the same two statutes also were used in the recent indictment of former New York state Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver.

Federal Program Bribery – a less commonly used but very powerful law is the federal program bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 666. It prohibits theft or bribery by an agent of any organization or state or local government in connection with programs or agencies receiving federal funds. There are certain (and quite modest) minimum dollar requirements involved, but once those are met this statute is a potent anti-bribery tool that can apply not only to state or local government officials but to private individuals as well.

RICO – the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1964, is a statutory behemoth primarily aimed at organized crime. Given the breadth of the statute, however, it is possible to apply it to entities such as a governor’s office, charging that state officials or others conducted the affairs of that office through a “pattern of racketeering activity.” Racketeering activity is defined to include a number of state law crimes, including bribery and extortion. Accordingly, a state law bribery scheme affecting a state or local government, while not violating the federal bribery statute, may be brought as a federal prosecution through the vehicle of RICO.

Debate over federal prosecution of state and local officials reflects fundamental tensions about the proper balance of state and federal power that have existed since the founding of the nation. There will always be some, such as Governor McDonnell’s defenders in Virginia, who will argue that the federal government should butt out and allow the states to handle their own affairs. But as discussed above, there are many reasons why federal intervention may be necessary and appropriate — and if recent developments are any indication, federal prosecutors are not hesitating to jump in.

Montrose and Lee County, Iowa unprecedented case of #public corruption, #nepotism and #kleptocracy  Using Chemical weapons against civilians for the purpose of eliminating them from their private property.

Montrose and Lee County, Iowa unprecedented case of #public corruption, #nepotism and #kleptocracy

Montrose and Lee County, Ia. unprecedented case of public corruption, nepotism and kleptocracy.

US Assistant Kevin VanderSchel and FBI Agent Thomas Reinwart, incompetent Federal authorities violating Federal law.

Assistant US Attorney Kevin VanderSchel and FBI SA Thomas Reinwart,
The both of you have shown incompetence in you job duties. Kevin VanderSchel had to
resort to my website in order to obtain any evidence about my case. In what he did
comprehend from my website, he had the fact completely ass backwards.
SA Thomas Reinwart had no evidence to submit to VanderSchel because as I have always
stated, Reinwart never reviewed my evidence.
I want to know the names and contact information for your supervisors.
I requested this information from Reinwart previously and got no answers.
Senator Grassley has a duty to oversee that procedures of Federal authorities are met
with high regard. In this case their has been no regard shown to a citizens Federally
protected rights.
I have the evidence to support these allegations. Do you job Senator Grassley.
Private property taken by unlawful use of chemicals against a civilian.
Use of chemicals as a weapon is defined as terrorist acts.
Not on my watch

My Comment Submitted on Regulations.gov (ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0361-2340). The use of chemicals applied to another person’s property is a fucking criminal offense! Who wants to prove otherwise? You who know and ignore are as guilty of this as those who participated!

My local government officials assisted one of their own in applying glyphosate to my side of our 300′ common boundary. This behavior continued for over five years. I verbally requested this neighbor to stop because I felt it was causing a rash on my shins. He refused to stop. I requested the City police chief to file a trespassing complaint against this neighbor. He refused advising that he did not want to make this neighbor mad. I requested the County Attorney to file a trespassing complaint against this neighbor he advised that he did not file neighbor against neighbor complaints. His double standard is indisputable because I was criminally charged multiple time by the State based on fabricated laws. I was criminally charged by the city multiple time by the city based on fabricated ordinances. While I was trying to defend my person and my property the “rash” had progressed into a full body severe skin condition. I hired an attorney to sue the City for my damages. The city is liable because they issued fraudulent building permits to this neighbor. The building administrator refused his duty to address my complaints in regard to the nuisance drainage causing adverse effects to my property and significant loss of value. The fact that the Mayor sold this legally nonconforming lot to this neighbor provides an existing conflict of interest. The building administrator refusing to address my concerns was replaced by the Lee County Detective and brother of this neighbor. He had no jurisdiction or authority to act as a building administrator. A field investigation was done by the proper authority. The investigator advised me when he saw my skin condition that he knew what was causing it. I did not inquire because I had already use the process of elimination and determine the glyphosate had to be the cause of my condition. My attorney failed to file the complaint against the city, he failed to inform me that he did not file the complaint. This neighbor filed a frivolous complaint against me alleging “loss of enjoyment to his property”, he had no concern that he had been applying chemicals to my property knowing it was causing me health problems. The judge in the civil case cited my right to use my property as I wished. That order was violated without hesitation. The County Attorney and the Detective had a special relationship for 17 years working hand in hand creating a conflict of interest. I contacted US Senator Charles Grassley, he advised me that he would request and inquiry of my case to the FBI. Grassley advised me that the FBI would contact me. I waited for five years. No FBI contacted me. By this time my condition had progress to the degree that I felt my life was in danger. I contacted Senator Grassley again and he requested a second inquiry into my case, he advised me again that the FBI would contact me. He advised me to be patient, it takes time. I felt that ten years of waiting for intervention, suffering severely everyday was not acceptable. I had no protection of the law, this neighbor had a motive to eliminate me from my property and a County Deputy that have ultimate respect for stop at my house advising me that this neighbor had no intention of stopping with the chemicals until he acquired my property. I have followed all the standard procedures to remedy this situation. The government has not, they have fully partnered with this neighbor/council member in violation my rights. I am requesting a legitimate review of the evidence I have collected throughout this taking of my private property by using chemicals as a weapon to cause my person and my property harm.

A legitimate investigation would have determined it was not the city that applied the chemicals to the city easement. It was in fact my neighbor/city council member who took it upon himself to act as a city street department employee. This report was done after three years of the chemical being applied to my 300′ common boundary with this “above the law” neighbor/ council member. The city is liable because they issued fraudulent building permits. But the personal financial gain of the Mayor from selling this otherwise worthless non conforming property was more important that protecting the rights of this resident.

warning to City poison

warning to City poison

Montrose and Lee County, Iowa unprecedented case of corrupt local government officials. Taking private property for personal gain.

Correspondence with Charles Grassley’s assistant. Why did the FBI not contact me eight years ago when I first submitted the evidence, with special instruction to send the evidence to “Penny”. The FBI did not follow procedure for an inquiry from a US Senator. The issue still stands and needs to be addressed. I am not the negligent party. This was the second authorization to release information!

Melody,

Just to be clear, Senator Grassley is only able to work with government agencies to solve a person’s issue. So in your case, you talked about how people were trying to destroy your property. We can look into that issue. What we can’t do is be involved in court matters or personal issues that you are having with local officials. It is unlawful for us to inject ourselves into those matters.

I understand how concerned you are with the alleged attempts to harm your property so if you could provide a clear statement on the facts you have with this issue, I would advise that.

I hope that this explanation helps.

Thank you,

John Kaufmann

Constituent Services Specialist

U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley

201 W. 2nd Street, Suite 720

Davenport, IA 52801

563.322.4331

563.322.8552(fax)

john_kaufmann@grassley.senate.gov

From: songboat [mailto:songboat@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 3:43 PM
To: Kaufmann, John (Grassley) <John_Kaufmann@grassley.senate.gov>
Subject: Re: Public Corruption

I need some assistance in writing this complaint. I have researched and The FBI gets hundreds of Public Corruption complaints and one a handful get investigated. I have been victimized by my local government officials in an unprecedented manner. Unprecedented meaning I have no documents to use as an example or reference to use as an example document. I have found suggestions of how to write a complaint all over the internet. Some say include every detail, some say write a brief summary. I can tell you that it is not possible to write a “brief” summary as my case is ongoing for over 5 years. There were unprecedented turn over in the Mayor, City Council and law enforcement during this time. For example there were 4 different Mayors in 5 years.  The initial instigators Mayor Dinwiddie, Lee County Detective Bob Conlee, and the man who physically carried out the terrorist attack on me, Mark Conlee defamed my character to all colleagues and the general public stating that I was “crazy” and kept me oppressed from speaking at the council meetings the officials that followed behind them just followed up with the same behavior. I was never given the opportunity to present evidence that supports what I claim.  I contacted Lee County Attorney multiple times in reference to the unlawful application of toxic chemicals to my property after Mark Conlee violated the civil court order. Mr. Short told me sarcastically to take him to contempt court. I am well aware the County Attorney is the only authority to file criminal charges against a citizen. I was denied my right to file a trespassing complaint against Mark Conlee for continuing to ally toxic chemicals to my property. Mr. Short told me I was having an allergic reaction. Can you tell me what that has to do with the criminal act trespassing? I contacted Mr. Short and presented him with the undeniable evidence that City of Montrose clerk Celeste Cirinna had committed multiple counts of document fraud. In response he stated “I (he) will decide who gets prosecuted in Lee County. I then received a summons to court State vs. Boatner the citation stated as follows, Mark Conlee says Melody Boatner drive by his house real slow and gave him the finger. Mr. Kaufmann it is not against the law to give someone the finger. A week later a second complaint was filed against me. This complaint was worded exactly the same with the addition of Mark is tired of Boatner continuously giving him the finger. This complaint was for harassment, hence the added term  “continuously”. The second complaint was investigated by Lee County Deputy Dave Hunold. Mr. Short requested Officer Hunold due to a possible “conflict of interest”. When Officer Hunold arrived at my home he came in and we sat down and I took the opportunity to present the Civil Court ruling  citing “Boatner has the right to enjoy her own property”. Officer Hunold stood to leave and I told him I wanted to file a trespassing complaint against Mark Conlee for continuing to apply toxic chemicals to my property. Officer Hunold’s response was Round-up is not dangerous and the Civil Court Ruling did not specify Mark Conlee not to unlawfully apply chemicals to my property, only that I had the Right to Enjoy my Property. His final statement was that he was only at my house to investigate me giving Mark Conlee the finger.

Mr. Kaufmann I suffer every minute of every day from the brutal attack against me. I lost my home my business and my life that I worked so hard to pay off and enjoy. I cannot let this go. I was physically unable to defend myself. I went blind do to this and only got my vision restored with surgery in 2012. There is no doubt in my mind that this man was intent on getting my property at the cost of my life and the public officials were going to allow it to happen. If you have a doubt about my allegations now, let me assure you, reviewing the evidence I documented over the years to date you will have no doubt. I believe these are special circumstances and I am requesting assistance in filing a complaint that is unprecedented.

sincerely,

On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 10:33 AM, Kaufmann, John (Grassley) <John_Kaufmann@grassley.senate.gov> wrote:

Hi Melody,

I am following up from your message sent regarding the violation of your rights. What is a good time/day to call you?

Thank you,

John Kaufmann

Constituent Services Specialist

U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley

201 W. 2nd Street, Suite 720

Davenport, IA 52801

563.322.4331

563.322.8552(fax)

john_kaufmann@grassley.senate.gov

From: songboat [mailto:songboat@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 4:24 PM
To: Kaufmann, John (Grassley)
Subject: Re: Follow Up

John,

You mentioned that you had my emails from 8 years ago. Do you happen to have the documents I sent to Penny at that time? I sent her much of the information then as well as the authorization to release personal information. Can I scan and email you the release you sent me in the mail? It will be some time before I can get all this info in the style of a complaint. As I mentioned earlier this is documentation for over 7 years. Any referrals to where I might get some assistance in drafting a complaint? I assume you do want it in that format, as I do not imagine you want to mess with anything other than passing it on to the proper authorities. Can you use the evidence I have already put online? if so I will go ahead and send you back the authorization to release.

sincerely,

Melody Boatner

Keokuk, Ia

On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Kaufmann, John (Grassley) <John_Kaufmann@grassley.senate.gov> wrote:

Melody,

I don’t have the documents. After a period of time, (I think it is 2 years but don’t hold me to it) the files leave this office and are sent to the records center. This is a secure place, just for your information. Getting them back is extremely difficult so if you could send me what you think is important, that would be great.

Thanks,

John Kaufmann

Constituent Services Specialist

U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley

201 W. 2nd Street, Suite 720

Davenport, IA 52801

563.322.4331

563.322.8552(fax)

john_kaufmann@grassley.senate.gov

From: songboat [mailto:songboat@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 4:37 PM
To: Kaufmann, John (Grassley) <John_Kaufmann@grassley.senate.gov>
Subject: Re: Follow Up

sure no problem, just making sure. Can I use email or you use the online documents for your submission?

I just don’t have printer ink and such

 

Public Corruption and Private Property Rights in Violation of Federal Law.

I have always been searching for a private attorney, clearly I do not have a retainer. My assets were unlawfully seized. Prior to this I could have gotten anything I desired on my excellent credit rating.  That being said this is why I believe the Feds have the duty to protect my Constitutional right to private property.

The Fourth Amendment protects Americans from “unreasonable searches and seizures” by the government. But the Supreme Court’s interpretation of “unreasonable” has varied over time. Some searches require warrants, but others do not. In general, the Fourth Amendment protects a person and their property from searches by the government wherever there is a “reasonable expectation of privacy.” For instance, trash that is still inside a person’s home is protected; trash sitting beside the street curb for pickup is not. In the age of the Internet, where so much personal information is shared over social media such as Facebook and Twitter, some people argue that privacy has become a myth. After the 9-11 attacks, Congress passed laws making it easier for the government to use such information when investigating terrorism. The Fifth Amendment protects the right to private property in two ways. First, it states that a person may not be deprived of property by the government without “due process of law,” or fair procedures. In addition, it sets limits on the traditional practice of eminent domain, such as when the government takes private property to build a public road. Under the Fifth Amendment, such takings must be for a “public use” and require “just compensation” at market value for the property seized. But in Kelo v. City of New London (2005), the Supreme Court interpreted public use broadly to include a “public purpose” of economic development that might directly benefit private parties. In response, many state legislatures passed laws limiting the scope of eminent domain for public use.

Rights content written by Linda R. Monk, Constitutional scholar

My property was illegally seized by local government officials. Any control of use of my private property was violated by my neighbor and the local government officials. Unlawfully assaulting me with chemical weapons with the intent of eliminating me from my property is an act of terrorism resulting in torture, that I can testify to and the evidence supports. There is no other side to this story, I am fully disclosing the evidence that supports my allegations are factual.

Public corruption involves a breach of public trust and/or abuse of position by federal, state, or local officials and their private sector accomplices. By broad definition, a government official, whether elected, appointed or hired, violates federal law when he/she asks, demands, solicits, accepts, or agrees to receive anything of value in return for being influenced in the performance of their official duties. One of the most high-profile forms of public corruption is bribery of a public official. Title 18 of the U.S. Code, Section 201 provides the statutory framework for bribery prosecutions. Federal legislators are continuing to work on legislation that increases penalties for public corruption and that attempts to close loopholes created by previous legislation. Ethics violations occur at all levels of government (local, state, and federal) and includes allegations of judicial, legislative, regulatory, contract, and law enforcement corruption. Law enforcement corruption accounts for more than one-third of the current corruption investigations. These cases typically involve law enforcement officers accepting money to protect (or facilitate) drug-trafficking and organized criminal activity. Breaches of the public trust can impact everything, from how well our borders are secured and our neighborhoods protected, to verdicts handed down in courts of law, to the quality of our roads and schools. Public corruption is one of the FBI’s top investigative priorities—behind only terrorism, espionage, and cyber crimes. Federal cases of public corruption are prosecuted by the Department of Justice. Individual states also prosecute cases of public corruption, including charges of bribery, receiving unlawful gratuities, and misuse of confidential information. Private criminal defense lawyers often specialize in either state or federal cases. State court penalties for public corruption range from six months in prison and a $1,000 for misdemeanor misuse of confidential information to a prison term of 8 years and up to a $250,000 fine for felony bribery. A federal offense can likewise garner serious penalties, which may include thousands of dollars and/or time in federal prison.                                                                         

Private criminal defense attorneys are hired by those who are accused of crimes regarding public corruption, not the victims of public corruption. In this case the State attorney for Lee County, Iowa discriminated against me, he had an existing conflict of interest. He refused to prosecute this neighbor for criminal trespassing (in violation of a civil court order) He criminally charged me multiple times with fabricated laws. Laws that do not exist. The city clerk also altered city ordinances specifically for my in the best interest of this neighbor/council member. She committed document fraud multiple times. She never even got reprimanded. Fraud is a criminal offense. This clerk actually got a title of higher authority for the crimes she committed against me. I don’t know if you have viewed my website but here are some links that provide the relevant information and the hard copy evidence.                                            https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/12-U-5aB6PuRmxZX4B8uy-hTpaQ2_Qs34lmVYmGo5tic/edit?usp=sharing   

 https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1OQYEN-sOBooq62NUHwyFObWHlLCwUbLGb3tpmyXON00/edit?usp=sharing

 https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1XkyMRhjC-_8toaLl2pfLSt4YWF_9dts69nIWfTaSfts/edit?usp=sharing               

My site is https://poisonedbymyneighborfromhell.com                     

This is an unprecedented case. There is no other case in which chemicals have been used to eliminate a citizen from their own private property.  https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/10o7BgegCaQc5BVIqEabn4KD_9fBbjaf2Xb6TP6F7iX4/edit?usp=sharing

An example of criminal acts investigated by the FBI. There has been no investigation into my allegations. They can’t because my evidence is indisputable.

This is not the case in Montrose, Lee County, Iowa when the corruption is committed against a single middle-aged female.

Does Iowa Attorney General have a Public Integrity Unit. No authority will respond to any of my questions.

Any officials who turns a blind eye is guilty of committing the crime themselves.

“Public safety officials who accept bribes and ignore their duties undermine safety for everyone,” said Schuette.  “Detroit needs more safety, not less, and that starts with public officials doing their job instead of lining their pockets.”

The case originated from an investigation by the FBI-Led Detroit Area Public Corruption Task Force in collaboration with the Michigan Attorney General’s Public Integrity Unit.

“When public officials abuse their positions of trust for personal gain, they will be held accountable for their criminal acts,” said Paul M. Abbate, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI Detroit Field Office. “The FBI and its law enforcement partners on the Detroit Area Public Corruption Task Force are fully committed to ensuring our citizens are served by the honest government they deserve.”

“Public corruption at any level will not be tolerated.  Public employees who are in charge of the community’s welfare must be held to a higher standard and when those employees jeopardize the safety of Detroiters for their own personal gain then they must suffer the consequences.  The bribery convictions of the city of Detroit Inspectors should be an example that crime in the city of Detroit does not pay,” said James E. Craig, Detroit Chief of Police.

Criminal cases remain pending against five current and former Detroit Building Safety Engineering and Environmental Department inspectors Schuette charged in August 2013 for allegedly accepting bribes in exchange for ignoring their duty to enforce city building, zoning, electrical, and plumbing codes. Schuette filed felony bribery charges against current and former inspectors Eric Miller, 50, of Detroit, John Jones, 54, of Detroit, Bob Watson, 52, of Dearborn, and Kenneth Russ, 53, of Detroit, and Moreno Taylor, 53, of Livonia.

crime (krim) n. ca.1920. An unethical or immoral act against one’s fellow man.

Author’s note:  There has never been a review of the evidence. Clearly the Mayor had a financial gain, there has never been an investigation into the financial records of the conspirators who clearly violated my Constitutional Rights on this maniac’s behalf. I have hard copy evidence that will prove every perp in this case has no credibility. They have all lied and knowingly made false statements, fraudulent ordinances and fabricated laws to bring frivolous criminal charges against me.  

In response to AUSA VanderSchel’s opinion that my evidence is assumptive.

AUSA VanderSchel,

In regards to you email stating that my evidence is assumptive. What in this linked file do you find assumptive? You must be assuming the information given to you by SA Reinwart is evidence. He refused to review the hard copy evidence, The purpose for him to come to my home on tax payers money was to review the hard copy evidence I have in my posession. There is no other person who has this hard copy evidence.

 When he arrived he advised that he did not intend to review any evidence, he asked that I just tell him the story and he would take notes. After 2 1/2 hours of him, steady checking his watch and me, trying to verbally explain a story that has nothing similar with compliance to any State or Federal laws regarding private property rights. I believe he had a total of three notes written on his notepad.  The point is that you have been given assumptive information in spite of the indisputable evidence I had prepared for SA Reinwart to review. Have you ever prosecuted a case of public corruption?

 I recently read that the FBI places high scoring academy graduates in areas that have the highest rates of crime, the lowest scoring graduates in the lowest crime areas around the Nation. I am curious if that is the process the DOJ uses in placing AUSA’s? Reinwart repeatedly stated that no Federal law has been violated. I advised him that private property rights are Federally protected rights. He had no change of expression. Perhaps he really does not know that private property rights are Federally protected rights. I can tell you that had he have reviewed the evidence, he or you would have determined that the following violations of Federal law have also occurred and hard copy evidence supports these allegations. The citizens know all too well about the blue wall of silence. In this case the perpetrators are not your “run of the mill” self serving government officials. These perps could have cared less whether it would cost me my life to achieved their goal of acquiring my private property. There is a “special kind of corruption” in the character of these government officials.

You stated that you have the authority to violate a civil court order, with no type of process. You need to submit evidence supporting that is a fact to me, I do not believe you are telling the truth. I believe you are abusing your authority with intent to violate my Federally protected civil rights. If you have no documented evidence supporting your statement then I would have to presume you are conspiring with SA Reinwart to deprive me of my Constitutional Rights under color of law. I do not take anyone’s word to be evidence of any fact. Not Reinwarts, not yours and certainly not Sheriff Weber’s. I know for a fact that his hands are dirty in this case. He in fact has received stolen property that belongs to me. I have no way to prove that but I do have correspondence with him in which he does implicate himself in criminal violations of the law. You suggested that since I had no information on my web page from recent dates the statute of limitations has expired. AUSA VanderSchel, I know that this group of government officials has been willing to sacrifice my life for the purpose of Mark Conlee acquiring my property. Do you really think it would be in my best interest to post evidence of the Sheriff violating State and Federal laws in acts committed against me on a public web site?  Would you mind sharing with me what level of your graduating class you rated. It would be my opinion that you would have been one of the lower level graduating students. You are not considering what is in my, a citizens, best interest are you AUSA VanderSchel. I am requesting evidence from you that supports your claim that you have the legal authority to violate a civil court order.  I do not believe you can use attorney discretion to violate an order made by any judge as you assured me you intended to do.

In speaking with Reinwart about public corruption, he advised that a bribe is taken in a case of public corruption. I argue that the law does not specify that has to be a factor. I also question how can Reinwart assume a bribe has not been taken in this case since he has not reviewed any financial records. There most likely has been favors at least given and taken in this case. There is no question that Mayor Dinwiddie did receive a financial gain being the seller of the property to Conlee. So right there is without a doubt a conflict of interest. That is a fact. That fact supports a public corruption complaint.

Reinwart told me three different versions of how he submitted my complaint to you. Three different versions causes me question his credibility. I have advised you that the information he has given you is based on hearsay. You should be questioning his credibility at this point, don’t you think?

Here are more but not limited to violations of Federal law that has been committed by these corrupt public officials.

Public corruption and civil rights

Corruption

In general terms, corruption cases arise when a local, state, or federal public official receives things of value in exchange for performing, or failing to perform, official acts contemplated by the authority of their position. The public grants authority to officials and, in return, is entitled to receive honest services from all who serve in the government. The prosecutors and professional staff in PCCRS prosecute officials – such as politicians, law enforcement officers, government executives, and correctional officers — who violate the public trust for the sake of self-enrichment.

Civil Rights

PCCRS also prosecutes individuals, whether they be private citizens or public officials, who criminally violate the constitutional rights of individuals. The use of excessive force by law enforcement under the color of law is an example of how public officials can violate an individual’s civil rights. Private individuals who commit violent crimes motivated by bias – commonly known as hate crimes — also violate federal civil rights laws. Hate crime laws recognize and defend the rights of all individuals, regardless of their race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.

18 U.S.C. § 229 – U.S. Code – Unannotated Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 229. Prohibited activities

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

(1) to develop, produce, otherwise acquire, transfer directly or indirectly, receive, stockpile, retain, own, possess, or use, or threaten to use, any chemical weapon;  or (2) to assist or induce, in any way, any person to violate paragraph (1), or to attempt or conspire to violate paragraph (1).

Exempted agencies and persons. (b) 

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

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

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

(B) in an emergency situation, any otherwise non-culpable person if the person is attempting to destroy or seize the weapon.

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

(1) takes place in the United States;

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

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

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

Chemical Weapons

This crime is punishable by any term of years in prison. If the crime results in death, the punishment is death or life imprisonment. Property owned or used by the person is subject to forfeiture. Any property derived from and proceeds obtained from the offense and property used to commit or facilitate the offense is also subject to forfeiture. The statute also imposes an additional fine of up to twice the gross profit or proceeds from the offense (18 U.S.C. 229, et seq.).

A chemical weapon is:

  1. a toxic chemical and its precursors (chemical reactants that take part in producing a toxic chemical) unless intended for a purpose that is not prohibited and the type and quantity is consistent with that purpose,
  2. a munition or device designed to cause death or harm through toxic chemicals that would be released by the device, or
  3. equipment designed for use directly in connection with using such a munition or device.

A toxic chemical is a chemical that can cause death, temporary incapacitation, or permanent harm to people or animals.

The law specifies that it does not apply to self-defense devices such as pepper spray or chemical mace. It also does not prevent uses related to (1) industrial, agricultural, research, medical, or pharmaceutical activity; (2) protection against chemical weapons; (3) unrelated military purposes; and (4) law enforcement purposes such as riot control and imposing the death penalty.

 

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 – Conspiracy Against Rights This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).

It further makes it unlawful for two or more persons to go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another with the intent to prevent or hinder his/her free exercise or enjoyment of any rights so secured.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to ten years, or both; and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years, or for life, or may be sentenced to death.

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 – Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law

This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.

This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.

Acts under “color of any law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under “color of any law,” the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Title 42, U.S.C., Section 3631 – Criminal Interference with Right to Fair Housing

This statute makes it unlawful for any individual(s), by the use of force or threatened use of force, to injure, intimidate, or interfere with (or attempt to injure, intimidate, or interfere with), any person’s housing rights because of that person’s race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin. Among those housing rights enumerated in the statute are:

  • The sale, purchase, or renting of a dwelling;
  • the occupation of a dwelling;
  • the financing of a dwelling;

contracting or negotiating for any of the rights enumerated above;

applying for or participating in any service, organization, or facility relating to the sale or rental of dwellings.

This statute also makes it unlawful by the use of force or threatened use of force, to injure, intimidate, or interfere with any person who is assisting an individual or class of persons in the exercise of their housing rights.

Punishment varies from a fine of up to $1,000 or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results, shall be fined up to $10,000 or imprisoned up to ten years, or both, and if death results, shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life.

 ARTICLE XIV.

“Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The reasonable enjoyment of one’s real estate is certainly a vested right, which cannot be interfered with or limited arbitrarily. The constitutional guaranty of protection for all private property extends equally to the enjoyment and the possession of lands. An arbitrary interference by the government, or by its authority, with the reasonable enjoyment of private lands is a taking of private [728] property without due process of law, which is inhibited by the constitutions. But it is not every use which comes within this constitutional protection. One has a vested right to only a reasonable use of one’s lands. It is not difficult to find the rule which determines the limitations upon the lawful ways or manner of using lands. It is the rule, which furnishes the solution of every problem in the law of police power, and which is comprehended in the legal maxim, sic utere tuo, ut alienum non lædas. One can lawfully make use of his property only in such a manner as that he will not injure another. Any use of one’s lands to the hurt or annoyance of another is a nuisance, and may be prohibited. At common law that is a nuisance, which causes personal discomfort or injury to health to an unusual degree. As it has been expressed in a preceding section,1 the right of personal security against acts, which will cause injury to health or great bodily discomfort, cannot be made absolute in organized society. It must yield to the reasonable demands of trade, commerce and other great interests of society. While the State cannot arbitrarily violate the right of personal security to health by the unlimited authorization of acts which do harm to health, or render one’s residence less comfortable, there is involved in this matter the consideration of what constitutes a reasonable use of one’s property. At common law this is strictly a judicial question of fact, the answer to which varies according to the circumstances of each case. One is expected to endure a reasonable amount of discomfort and annoyance for the public good, which is furthered by the permission of trades and manufactures, the prosecution of which necessarily involves a certain amount of annoyance or injury to the inhabitants of the neighborhood. In all such cases, it is a question of equity, on whom is it reasonable to impose the burden of the inevitable loss, resulting from this clashing [729] of interests; and independently of statute it is strictly a judicial question, and all the circumstances of the case must be taken into consideration.

respectfully,

Melody Boatner

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B1Pxuwsos4l_U2J6YU1RSDdobVE

Statute of Limitations

For those of you that suggest the statute of limitations has expired in regards to my case.

Amendment 5
– Protection of Rights to Life, Liberty, and Property

No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

I see no reference to a statute of limitations in private property taken without just compensation. In fact it is NEVER to be taken without just compensation. Any untimeliness in my case is due to the negligence of the government officials who have been involved in my case. That is aside from the time in which I was blind and unable to defend myself. The entire amendment had been violated in my case. No justice, no accountability to date. I will not be the only victim in this case, I promise these rights do and will apply to me as they do to every other citizen. https://poisonedbymyneighborfromhell.com

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

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

10-3-2018 Kevin VanderSchel pg 2

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

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

18 U.S.C. § 229 – U.S. Code – Unannotated Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 229. Prohibited activities

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

(1) to develop, produce, otherwise acquire, transfer directly or indirectly, receive, stockpile, retain, own, possess, or use, or threaten to use, any chemical weapon;  or (2) to assist or induce, in any way, any person to violate paragraph (1), or to attempt or conspire to violate paragraph (1). 

Exempted agencies and persons. (b) 

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

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

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

(B) in an emergency situation, any otherwise nonculpable person if the person is attempting to destroy or seize the weapon. 

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

(1) takes place in the United States; 

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

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

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

Chemical Weapons

This crime is punishable by any term of years in prison. If the crime results in death, the punishment is death or life imprisonment. Property owned or used by the person is subject to forfeiture. Any property derived from and proceeds obtained from the offense and property used to commit or facilitate the offense is also subject to forfeiture. The statute also imposes an additional fine of up to twice the gross profit or proceeds from the offense (18 U.S.C. 229, et seq.).

A chemical weapon is:

1. a toxic chemical and its precursors (chemical reactants that take part in producing a toxic chemical) unless intended for a purpose that is not prohibited and the type and quantity is consistent with that purpose,

2. a munition or device designed to cause death or harm through toxic chemicals that would be released by the device, or

3. equipment designed for use directly in connection with using such a munition or device.

A toxic chemical is a chemical that can cause death, temporary incapacitation, or permanent harm to people or animals.

The law specifies that it does not apply to self-defense devices such as pepper spray or chemical mace. It also does not prevent uses related to (1) industrial, agricultural, research, medical, or pharmaceutical activity; (2) protection against chemical weapons; (3) unrelated military purposes; and (4) law enforcement purposes such as riot control and imposing the death penalty.

18 U.S.C. § 229 – U.S. Code: the violation of Federal law that should ensure justice is finally served

Letter sent to the City of Montrose by the State of Iowa agency in charge of Environmental violations. The City followed no laws that are in place to protect all living things from toxic chemicals. This letter was sent to the Street Dept Director at the time. There had never been any chemicals applied anywhere in town except the cemetery by city employees. These chemicals were applied precisely on the city’s easement on my property. Not an inch past my boundary or an inch short of my boundary.  Only after Mark Conlee was elected to city council were chemicals applied to the easement.

warning to City of Montrose unlawful application of toxic chemicals


warning to City poison

warning to City poison


Conlee had applied chemicals to my side of our 300′ common boundary the year prior to this. He continued to apply chemicals to my side of the boundary this year and for three years after that. Five years straight I was intentionally exposed to chemicals. I complained to the city. I complained to County attorney Mike Short. Short advised me that Mark  Conlee “said”, “he only applied it to the bottom of his side of the fence. Both the city and county attorney had the same reason not to file a criminal complaint against Conlee. They didn’t believe neighbors filing complaints against neighbors was a good thing to do. I was criminally charged by the City and the State on complaints based on “Mark Conlee said” all charges against me were dismissed.  Doesn’t the county attorney know that hearsay is not evidence? Mark Conlee “said” many false statements throughout this attack against my person and my property.

Intentional glyphosate poisoning

chemicals applied to my side of the 300′ common boundary

18 U.S.C. § 229 – U.S. Code – Unannotated Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 229. Prohibited activities 

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

(1) to develop, produce, otherwise acquire, transfer directly or indirectly, receive, stockpile, retain, own, possess, or use, or threaten to use, any chemical weapon;  or (2) to assist or induce, in any way, any person to violate paragraph (1), or to attempt or conspire to violate paragraph (1).

Exempted agencies and persons. (b) —

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

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

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

(B) in an emergency situation, any otherwise non-culpable person if the person is attempting to destroy or seize the weapon.

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

(1) takes place in the United States;

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

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

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

Chemical Weapons

This crime is punishable by any term of years in prison. If the crime results in death, the punishment is death or life imprisonment. Property owned or used by the person is subject to forfeiture. Any property derived from and proceeds obtained from the offense and property used to commit or facilitate the offense is also subject to forfeiture. The statute also imposes an additional fine of up to twice the gross profit or proceeds from the offense (18 U.S.C. 229, et seq.).

A chemical weapon is:

  1. a toxic chemical and its precursors (chemical reactants that take part in producing a toxic chemical) unless intended for a purpose that is not prohibited and the type and quantity is consistent with that purpose,
  2. a munition or device designed to cause death or harm through toxic chemicals that would be released by the device, or
  3. equipment designed for use directly in connection with using such a munition or device.

A toxic chemical is a chemical that can cause death, temporary incapacitation, or permanent harm to people or animals.

The law specifies that it does not apply to self-defense devices such as pepper spray or chemical mace. It also does not prevent uses related to (1) industrial, agricultural, research, medical, or pharmaceutical activity; (2) protection against chemical weapons; (3) unrelated military purposes; and (4) law enforcement purposes such as riot control and imposing the death penalty.

Iowa Code Sec. 237. Section 729.5, Code 2013, is amended to read as follows: 729.5 Violation of individual rights — penalty. 1. A person, who acts alone, or who conspires with another person or persons, to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate or interfere with any citizen in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to that person by the constitution or laws of the state of Iowa or by the constitution or laws of the United States, and assembles with one or more persons for the purpose of teaching or being instructed in any technique or means capable of causing property damage, bodily injury or death when the person or persons intend to employ those Fri Nov 08 16:03:04 2013 59/65 CH. 90 60 techniques or means in furtherance of the conspiracy, is on conviction, guilty of a class “D” felony. 2. A person intimidates or interferes with another person if the act of the person results in any of the following: a. Physical injury to the other person. b. Physical damage to or destruction of the other person’s property. c. Communication in a manner, or action in a manner, intended to result in either of the following: (1) To place the other person in fear of physical contact which will be injurious, insulting, or offensive, coupled with the apparent ability to execute the act. (2) To place the other person in fear of harm to the other person’s property, or harm to the person or property of a third person. 2. 3. This section does not make unlawful the teaching of any technique in self-defense. 3. 4. This section does not make unlawful any activity of any of the following officials or persons: a. Law enforcement officials of this or any other jurisdiction while engaged in the lawful performance of their official duties. b. Federal officials required to carry firearms while engaged in the lawful performance of their official duties. c. Members of the armed forces of the United States or the national guard while engaged in the lawful performance of their official duties. d. Any conservation commission, law enforcement agency, or any agency licensed to provide security services, or any hunting club, gun club, shooting range, or other organization or entity whose primary purpose is to teach the safe handling or use of firearms, archery equipment, or other weapons or techniques employed in connection with lawful sporting or other lawful activity

The Power of a Federal Prosecutor

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

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

You can Sue for Civil rights violations!

Federal or State violations of civil rights or constitutional rights