Link

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

About AUSA Kevin VanderSchel First Assistant Attorney for the Southern District of Iowa.

This guy takes the cake. Like if its not on this website it there must not be evidence, pretty assumptive of the AUSA for the Southern District of Iowa. Chemical warfare has nearly cost me my life and he thinks its a good idea to put all my evidence out here for the public to view, even the deranged people who used chemical warfare to eliminate me from my property. What is it that he is calling assumptive? All the evidence I have posted is hard copy original documents. If he cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that chemical weapons were used to eliminate me from my private property when even a civil court order or no law enforcement would stop him from applying chemicals to MY property, he should really find a new job. This case is cut and dry. Any reasonable person who would read the evidence I have posted has no doubt this was an intentional act. This evidence is based on facts, SA Reinwart wanted to used hearsay evidence, when the hard copy evidence is right in front of him. He wasted tax payer money to travel clear to the tip of Iowa to refuse to review hard copy evidence and ask for hearsay. When a person knows he is causing another person physical harm and doesn’t stop what he is doing to cause it, its pretty obvious why he is doing it. There is nothing that I have posted that does not have hard copy evidence to support. Reinwart did not follow procedure for investigation and you have not followed procedure for prosecuting criminals. VanderSchel you are assuming that reasonable people do not know it is illegal to do anything to another person property, not to mention unheard of act of chemical warfare as stated by the EPA field investigator. That is a F(&99+ fact. And I have to mention that you advised me that you would not be the person prosecuting this case anyway so why do you think you have any input about this case at all? You are assuming you have some kind of authority over a case that you are not the prosecutor of. That show a defect in your personality any reasonable person can determine that to be a fact also. An attorney of minimum experience could win this case. The evidence is solid as a rock. Not the hearsay, the hard copy evidence. Hearsay does not stand up in court, don’t you know that?

10-3-2018 pg 2 Kevin VanderSchel

10-3-2018 pg 2 Kevin VanderSchel

About Kevin VanderSchel AUSA for the Southern District of Iowa.

Here is an example of how well FBI SA and the AUSA reviewed my evidence. In this letter the AUSA claims that most of the activity occurred 2003-2005. It is well documented that 2003-2005 is when the City allowed for the non compliant to State building code structures built on Mark Conlee’s nonconforming lot to be built. If they would have actually reviewed my evidence, instead of asking that I tell them this complex story they would have discovered the chemical warfare started in 2005-2010, during that time I was unable to get any protection of the law, there was a civil trial that the court ruled in my favor, however Conlee would not comply with that court order and the chemical attack continued on a weekly basis. There is nothing in this letter that is based on the facts the evidence supports. VanderSchel has advised that he has reviewed my website. He could not have mistaken the timeline if he actually had reviewed it. VanderSchel the chemical poisoning began in 2005. Are you being intentionally negligent? I also advised you that when I was forced to flee from my property because I could get no law enforcement to stop this man from applying the toxic chemicals to my property, the full body skin condition was so severe it was unbearable to wear clothes, I was blind, and I was homeless for the following 4 years. So that takes us up to 2014 before I was able to make contact with anyone who has the duty to protect my Constitutional Rights. SA Reinwart does not know that private property rights are Federally protected rights. He does not seem to know about any Federal laws except hate crimes. He did not review my evidence, He did not interview any of my witnesses, he did not interview my Drs., he did not interview the perps or he could have easily charged them with lying to the Feds. You tell me Mr. VanderSchel just what did SA Reinwart do to investigate my allegation. You claim that the statute of limitations had expired between 2013 and 2016, am I responsible to make Reinwart investigate in a timely fashion? I couldn’t even get him to review the hard copy evidence which was the purpose for him to come to my home 16 months after I contacted him. I had previously contacted a female agent from the Hiawatha division and was waiting some time for her to respond as she advised she would, finally I telephoned the number I had previously contacted her with, Reinwart answered and advise that she had been transferred. Is it my responsibility to call and check if an agent has been transferred? I have not read that as a standard procedure for complainants. Not to mention my emails to the Omaha division, and telephone calls to the Washington DC headquarters. I have gone above and beyond reasonable efforts to contact an FBI agent. Senator Grassley advised me in 2009 that an agent would be contacting me. I waited 10 years then I got impatient. Its not as if I have physically recovered from the chemicals illegally applied to my property without any protection of the law and my private property rights for those significant 5 long years.

Letter from Kevin VanderSchel claiming statute of limitations has expired.

FBI SA investigation was incompetent

According to the FBI website SA’s work 24/7. That is not the case with the agent that happened to answer the phone when I called. Initially I had contacted a female agent. She seemed interested in what I was telling her happened at the hands of my local government officials. She requested that I email her my evidence, she would contact me after she had the opportunity to review my case. I waited a month or so and she never got back with me. I telephoned the number that I had previously reached her. A man answered the phone this time. He explained that the agent I was trying to reach had been transferred. That turned out to be my misfortune. So apparently whoever answers the telephone automatically get the case. This SA does not work 24/7. Determined that someone was going to review the hard copy evidence that I had been documenting for the past 10 years, I took the initiative of traveling to his location. I had been advised by my US Senator that an FBI authority would contact me. I repeatedly contacted the Senator asking for a ballpark timeline of how long this would take/ The response was be patient it takes a while. Ten years is unreasonable in my opinion. I also want to state that all this time I would send the Senator my evidence and was told he in turn was forwarding the documents to the FBI Washington division. I drove the the local division headquarters. I called the number from their parking lot. This agent advised me that it would not be possible to speak to anyone on that day because it was 2:30 p.m. I advised that I would get a room and be there first thing the next morning. With that he advised me that it would not be possible to meet with an agent the following day because it happened to be a Federal holiday, Columbus Day. So just so the public knows, the statement that the FBI works 24/7 is false.

Feeling defeated I returned home, pretty disappointed in being deceived by the information posted on the FBI website. I continued to correspond with this particular agent. Eventually (16 months) we set a date for him to come to my home specifically to review my evidence. My evidence has to date never been reviewed by any State or Federal authority. When he arrived he informed me that he did not intend to review anything. Relevant to this case is the fact that the County Sheriff had taken it upon himself to contact a FBI friend of his. I do not know what information the Sheriff gave him. I requested that information be shared with me to give me the opportunity to prove the hearsay was false. I was denied access to that information. There is clearly a conflict of interest between the Sheriff and the opposing party. I emailed a newspaper article supporting the conflict of interest and he seemed to take a little more interest in what I was telling him.

The agent sitting on my sofa refused to review the hard copy evidence requested that I verbally tell him the story. I advised him that I could not verbally tell this story to anyone. This story is too complex to be comprehended verbally. He was not willing to accept anything else. I skipped around on different issues in this case. After 21/2 hours he advised me that he was not going to submit my case to the US Attorney because he claims there was no Federal law violated. I completely disagree. Private property rights are Federally protected rights. I also allege conspiracy against right, deprivation of rights under color of law, and torture.  He advised me of three different versions of how he got this case to the AUSA. I think it was the third and final version was how he did it. He submitted my case orally to a third party who in turn verbally told the story to the AUSA. Now knowing that this agent did not have the information needed to submit a complete complaint to anyone, how can this be considered competent? Also my allegation of conspiracy against rights, I had done all the leg work in this case. I did not have the authority to look into financial records for any transaction that could be found indicating a payment (bribe) had been paid. He had that authority and never bothered to use his authority to investigate that. I allege deprivation of rights under color of law. This is easy to recognize from the hard copy evidence I have. This neighbor was attacking me with chemicals used as a weapon for over 5 years as routinely as he mows his yard. Once a week would be an accurate claim. He did it as if it were part of his yard maintenance. Again private property rights are Federally protected rights. This agent would never acknowledge this is a fact, I assume he is ignorant about Federal law. His expertise is in hate crimes. He recognized right away that this was not a hate crime. My case is not alleging hate crime so perhaps he should not have been the investigator. My case requires the knowledge of Federal rights, as described in public corruption guidelines. The FBI website claims they hold a high priority in exposing public corruption. That is a false statement. There could be no stronger case with evidence so solid in supporting public corruption in my local government officials.  The violation of civil rights, civil liberties, and Constitutional rights cannot be denied. My right to equal protection of the law, assault with chemical weapons resulting in torture is undeniable by the evidence I have. The intent of my local government officials was to eliminate me from my property using chemicals as weapons. The fact that local law enforcement did not want to make this neighbor says plenty about how this brutal attack occurred. It says much more about the character of this neighbor. There is nothing he would not do to achieve his goal to acquire my property for the purpose of making his illegal property redevelopment recordable on the county plat map without having to remove the noncompliant structures from his small non conforming lot. The environmental factors putting my health in serious harm is also a Federal environmental violation. 

This SA who had done nothing to investigate my allegations advised me that he had make his determination not to further investigate based on what I had told him compared to what the Sheriff had told his colleague. This means that the Sheriff’s word was found to be more credible than my word. I have evidence that proves the Sheriff acted unethical, has made false statements to me and has received stolen property that belongs to me. The statistics support any law enforcement officer will knowingly make false statements or turn a blind eye to the officers serving under him in unethical behavior. There is no evidence that I have misled or made false statements about any of my allegations. This SA is incompetent and I am requesting new investigation based on the allegations stated in this letter. Having no contact information for a higher FBI authority this is my formal request. I am requesting a tolling of the statute of limitation due to the incompetence that has occured throughout this case. I don’t care who you are, nobody has the right to do anything to another person’s property.

regards,

Melody Boatner

Exposing public corrupt personnel at all levels.

Well this may be against my best interest but at this point what do I have to lose. I am publishing the email of the FBI SA who refused to review my hard copy evidence. Did not look into the financial record of the accused to see if perhaps a bribe has been paid. He accepted hearsay to be evidence. My case did not even get issued a case number. He did not recognize that private property rights are Federally protected rights. He continued to claim that no Federal law has been broken when anyone who has taken the time to review the evidence agrees with me that Federal laws have been violated on more than one occasion. tjreinwart@fbi.gov. He goes by the first name of Thomas.

The AUSA immediately advised me that he would not prosecute giving me three different reasons at three different times. The first three reasons I submitted evidence that he was incorrect as to what the evidence proved he was basing his decision on. Knowing he has been given false information or information based on hearsay by the above named FBI agent. The most recent decision not to prosecute was because he has the authority. I sent him guidelines suggested by the Attorney General but to no avail. The letter states that I am not supposed to contact this AUSA again. They will not put any more resources into my insignificant case. I explained that a civil court order early on in my favor was violated by the local government officials and he callously does not care. Kevin.VanderSchel@doj.gov. he of course goes by the name of Kevin.

There is no record of any citizen being forced to flee from their private property due to unlawful application of toxic chemicals being applied, ongoing for over 5 years. NONE. It seems to me that anyone who would continue an act that he knows is causing anyone else physical harm has some mental health issues. I know I would not do anything to anyone else’s property because it is illegal and immoral. It seems the Federal authorities feel that they can join in this figurative gang rape. I feel they need to be held accountable as well as the locals. There is nothing I have posted that is based on hearsay or based on fabricated information. There is much evidence that I have not posted. If these individuals are satisfied that they have upheld their duty and the oath they took to uphold the Constitution of the United States then they should be proud of their job performance in my unnumbered case. They never showed any real intent to defend my rights given by Federal law. They should be proud of their actions in this case that has multiple violations of Federal law. Anyone who reads my information and feels my Federally protected rights have been violated I urge you to email these individuals and let them know that private property rights are Federally protected rights and any other opinions you may have that Federal law has in fact been violated. Terrorism is not a violation of Federal law I have been told. Only supporters of terrorism are violating Federal law, so clearly the local officials who would not stop this neighbor from applying the chemicals to my property are supporters of terrorism. Yes herbicides and pesticides are considered chemical weapons. I have done all the research to know that violations of Federal law have occured.

If something happens to me it is well documented as to who may be involved. Just saying. Glyphosate is harmful to human beings when not applied as directed on the label. This is what is wrong with our Government today. Covering up and supporting corruption is not what the FBI has the duty to do. I want to know why I am exempt from the same rights that every other citizen takes for granted, as I did when I fled from my home, business and property. There is no justifiable reason any US citizen should have to suffer what I have suffered.