Nonconforming Uses, aka; Grandfathered Use in Zoning

nonconforming use is generally defined as a land use or structure that was legal when established but does not conform to the standards of the current zoning ordinance. The term“nonconforming use” actually covers several situations, including nonconforming uses, lots and structures.

Pre-existing land uses that do not conform to current zoning are not favored. The ultimate goal of zoning is to achieve uniformity of property uses within each zoning district. At the same time, landowners have made investments in their businesses and buildings, and it would be unfair — not to mention illegal in some states — to require immediate termination or removal. Rather than require the immediate elimination of these preexisting uses, the zoning ordinance will outline a set of conditions for the continued existence of nonconforming uses.

Although state courts apply different interpretations to local zoning codes regarding nonconforming uses, the expansion, enlargement or intensification of a nonconforming use in almost all cases can be regulated or prohibited.

Resumption of a nonconforming use or structure after it has been destroyed may be prohibited in some states. In other states the right to re-establish the nonconforming use exists. Zoning ordinances traditionally have set a specific threshold– for example, a percentage of assessed value — for defining what constitutes destruction, and courts generally defer to the stated threshold. Again, the principle is to allow landowners to continue to reap the benefits of investments made in their properties. If those investments have been destroyed, however, the community may or may not have an obligation to allow a landowner to reinvest in a use prohibited by current zoning.

To prevent nonconforming uses from becoming blighted properties, zoning codes generally do allow for routine maintenance and repair, so long as such activities do not constitute expansion or enlargement.

Once a nonconforming use has been abandoned, its resumption can be prohibited. Most ordinances state a time period, usually six months to a year, that creates a presumption of abandonment if the property is not used for that period. Some states do not allow just a passage of time to establish abandonment. The issue of what constitutes abandonment is one that is generally the subject of much state court case-law, with some courts requiring that an “intent to abandon” be shown before the nonconforming use is considered to be terminated. The intent to abandon may be something like a list of criteria, in the zoning ordinance, from which “abandoned” is established from a preponderance of facts about the particular situation.

Gary D. Taylor,

Iowa State University

6-1-2002 original property layout (397x204) (397x204).jpg

Original layout of Dinwiddie and Conlee properties. Conlee structures are one small double wide trailer home. One two story single car garage. The driveway of both properties exit onto 5th street.

 

cropped-4_7_2012-aerial-shot-after-conlee-redevelopment-e1506199371160.jpg

After illegal property redevelopment. How many changes can you find on the 6 half lots that run parallel with the city alley?

 

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

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

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

THE DUTIES OF SHERIFF INCLUDE:

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

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

 

 

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

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

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

March 3, 2005                                                                                        PAGE 196

MONTROSE COUNCIL MEETING PUBLIC HEARING & REGULAR MEETING

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evidence based on hearsay, “Mark Conlee says”

WITNESSES on my behalf

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May-5-2005      MONTROSE COUNCIL MEETING

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

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

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

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

OCTOBER 6, 2005                                                                                                              MONTROSE COUNCIL MEETING                                            

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

c.The sign was on my property

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Authors note:

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

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

 

 

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

Executive Summary

PROTECTING CIVIL RIGHTS:

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

BACKGROUND

Protecting Civil Rights: A Leadership Imperative 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FBI holds pursuing public corruption a high priority . Thank you US attorneys and the FBI.

Oh my this would be similar to the criminal offenses committed by City of Montrose, Ia clerk Celeste Cirinna. City of Montrose. Ia clerk Celeste Cirinna
Norfolk City Treasurer Anthony Burfoot sentenced to six years behind bars
 “When elected officials engage in corruption it erodes public confidence in our democratic system of government,” said Dana J. Boente, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.  “Burfoot’s well-publicized criminal exploits have eroded public confidence in how their tax dollars are used and managed, and his selfish actions feed the worst perceptions about public employees, of whom the vast majority perform their duties selflessly and admirably. I want to thank the Assistant United States Attorneys and the FBI for their diligence and dedication in pursuing this important case.”

 

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

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

Conflict of Interest existing between named Government officials

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

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

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

                                             Co-workers                                                                     

Council Member Jeff Junkins               Council Member Mark Conlee             Linda Conlee

              Family Members

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

Council Member Mark Holland                              Siblings                   Member Judy Brisby

Lee County FEMA Officer Steve Cirinna                 spouses              City Clerk Celeste Cirinna

       City of Montrose and Lee County, Iowa Law Enforcement\

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

Attorney fails to file complaint, lies to client claiming he did. Client gets sued by illegal property redeveloper for frivolous complaint. Is it typical for a person to sue you and offer 2 out of court settlements? Judge dismisses case, Police chief assists in violating court ruling, contempt is a criminal law.

Official letter of intent to sue

I hired Steve Swan to sue the City of Montrose in July 2005. This is not typical for a neighbor to have to do, the building authority has the duty to address residents concerns regarding nuisance drainage issues caused by new property redevelopment. He sent this letter to Conlee that afternoon. He lied by continuing to claim he filed a complaint against the City of Montrose. He stated that we would sue both parties, the City is where the money is at. Based on the fact that the building permits are illegal, the redevelopment of the legally non conforming property is illegal I knew full well who the liable party was. So what does his failure to represent my best interests fall in the justice system. An investigation would be required to find that evidence. The evidence supports the least of his immoral, unethical behavior is legal malpractice. This could be due to his physical disabilities, This man is morbidly obese. For him to actually get to the courthouse to file a complaint on behalf of a client has to be extremely difficult for him. He had to set on four chairs in the courtroom. I filed a complaint but of course the sided with Swan, We agreed to barter services for this case, after which he sent me a bill for $4000.00. I never was billed after I filed the complaint. Is it not the his responsibility to present evidence and question witnesses? He never did that either. I believe the evidence supports his actions are within that of a co-conspirator.

 

Petition in Equity

Petition in Equity. Mark and Linda Conlee sue me for LOSS OF ENJOYMENT OF HIS PROPERTY. I was well within my legal rights to install a privacy curtain on my own property? There was nothing illegal about this. I am a law abiding citizen. I know the law before I take an action.

 

 

6-5-2006 Conlee offer to settle out of court

6-5-2006 Conlee’s first out of court offer, had Boatner’s attorney Steve Swan submitted this evidence to the court the judge may have recognized it as admission to the nuisance drainage issue Conlee’s illegal redevelopment caused to Boatners property.

6-22-2006 2nd offer by Conlee admitting liability for drainage

6-22-2006 2nd offer by Conlee admitting liability for drainage. This was also suppress from the court by Boatner’s attorney Steve Swan Esq. This is no less than Conlee admitting he is responsible for the nuisance drainage problem his illegal redevelopment caused Boatner’s property. What is wrong with this guy, seriously?

5-24-2008

5-23-2008 Mark Conlee  in contempt of court, altered the railroad ties I have on my property to divert stormwater from Conlees new illegal property redevelopment, staubs holding railroad ties in place are broken off and bent over, plastic edging pull up & laying on top of the ground. Evidence Mark Conlee has no respect for the court, no respect for the law, no respect for his neighbor or the police chief Brent Shipman who he bullied into assisting him in violating the court ruling. This behavior indicates he has a severe personality disorder believing he is above the law and he has the right to control others. You can see on the left part of the retaining wall that is holding Mark Conlee’s fill dirt in position.

 

Good old boy network from hell

Good old boy network from hell

Evidence that was withheld or suppressed by City officials and Lee County attorney that proves ethical and criminal offenses have been committed against me.Evidence that was withheld or suppressed by City officials and Lee County attorney that proves ethical and criminal offenses have been committed against me. Evidence that was withheld or suppressed by City officials and Lee County attorney that proves ethical and criminal offenses have been committed against me.

Suppressed and previously withheld from the civil case Conlee vs Boatner EQEQ

5-13-2005 Letter from Lee County Extension Agent including Professional Opinion on Nuisance Drainage Issue

Due to the fact that after multiple requests from Boatner for the building administrator Mark Holland to come to the location and address her concerns, he refused.  A witness was prepared to testify that she asked Holland if he was going to go to the location and address Boatner’s concerns. He replied that he had no intention of going to Boatner’s to address her concerns.  Knowing that the expert on this situation would be the local FEMA director Steve Cirinna. Knowing that a conflict of interest exists due to the fact the he is the husband of the city clerk Celeste Cirinna his opinion was not an option. Through a referral from the internet source Boatner contacted Lee County Extension Agent Robert Dodds for an opinion regarding the nuisance drainage issue. Mr. Dodds did come to the location as a professional courtesy.  Mr Dodds noticed some discrepancies that I had not, I only noticed that the building permit was not signed by the builder as required by State of Iowa law. The following letter was written to me advising me of his opinion to some questions I had asked him. A copy was also sent to Mayor Dinwiddie along with a copy of the State drainage laws. This letter was never discussed privately with Boatner or at a public council meeting. This letter was not submitted as ongoing business to the next elected administration of Mayor Tony Sciumbato . This expert’s opinion was ignored in this case, yet there are numerous instances unrelated to Conlee-Boatner nuisance drainage issue in which public record shows Mr. Dodds opinion was requested and respected. At this point any reasonable person would recognize a conspiracy to deprive me of my Federal Constitutional Right to Equal Protection of the Law and my Right to Enjoy my own Property at the least of the issues in this case.
5-13-2005 Bob Dodds letter to Mayor Dinwiddie

5-13-2005 Lee County, Ia extension agent Bob Dodds letter answering questions Boatner has asked, identifying errors or violations of drainage laws to Boatner and  Mayor Dinwiddie. He included a copy of the Iowa storm water management regulations.

3-23-2005 Lee County Detective Bob Conlee misrepresents authority to be that of a city building administrator

About Lee County Detective Bob Conlee

Conspiracy Deprivation of Rights under Color of Law.

It has already been established that building official Mark Holland refused his duty to address Boatners concerns, Boatner witnessed Lee County Detective Bob Conlee (brother of Mark Conlee) assisting Mark with a tape measure on 3-22-2005. Bob Conlee has no authority to act as an official of any kind in Montrose, he has no jurisdiction and there is an obvious conflict of interest.

In regards to Mark Conlee stating that he would be at the next Council meeting to request a ditch be dug, it has already been established that Boatner hand dug the City ditches in 1995 when she purchased the property.


3-19-2005 letter of intent Boatner to Conlee


3-18-2005 Boatner informal notice of drainage problem to Mark Conlee

Boatner also left copies of this letter on Mayor Dinwiddie and building official Holland’s door. NOTE THE WORD DITCH IS WHAT I REFERRED TO AS WHAT WE NEEDED


3-3-2005 Dinwiddie claiming the City doesn’t have an inspector because of liability issue

PAGE 196

MONTROSE COUNCIL MEETING

PUBLIC HEARING & REGULAR MEETING

March 3, 2005

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        

3-10-2005 Foreseeable adverse effects to Boatner property have occurred crawlspace and back yard.


This is the damage to my foundation due to the illegal removal of the existing berm by Mark Conlee. I requested multiple times for the building official to come to the location and address my concerns. Conlee’s will claim that the damage was caused by storm water runoff coming from the street. However it has already been established that Boatner hand dug the ditches bordering her property upon purchase in 1995. Prior to repairing all damage caused by the lack of maintenance by the city of many years. This photo is from the basement of  Boatner’s home. Shot toward the right front corner, The front of the house facing 5th St is dry, easy to distinguish by the light color. The left side of this photo is the side of the home that faces Conlee’s property. Easy to distinguish this soil is saturated by storm water caused by illegal removal of existing berm by Mark Conlee along with the regrading of his entire lot due to him changing the frontage ¹ of his new home to be toward the alley. He regraded the entire lot downward to drain onto Boatner’s property.

¹Conlee committed perjury in civil court Conlee vs Boatner Eqeq 

This photo shows the soil saturated and the foundation washed out, this is the side of the house that faces Conlee’s property. According to witnesses Tonya Adkins and Stuart Westermeyer both former owners testified that the property never received storm water runoff from the Conlee property. When there was a heavy rainfall because of the berm the front yard of the Conlee property became a pond,the berm held all the water from running onto Boatner’s property. Witnesses were prepared to testify to all this and I have written affidavits stating this as true. Attorney Steve Swan failed to submit affidavits and to question witnesses on my behalf in a civil suit Conlee filed against me for loss of enjoyment to his property. Yes that is a tell tale sign of narcissistic personality disorder. I will post all the court records as the events happened.

I contacted Mayor Dinwiddie, building official Mark Holland and every other council member on this day. I requested each of them come to the location and see with their own eyes the flooding of my property caused by Mark Conlee’s illegal property redevelopment. Only one of the council members had the professional courtesy to answer my request, Cathy Roberts Farnsworth saw the adverse effects my property was having. Building official Mark Holland had the duty to act as the authority. he is the only authorized authority to represent the State building codes for the City of Montrose, Ia. He had been on notice since fall 2004 and had not preformed his duty on my behalf. That is to untimely to consider he is not conspiring with Mark Holland to violate my Federal Right to enjoy and equal protection of the law under color of law.

Here you can see it standing it the level spot that we had the pool set up. This yard has never held water in the past. I may have more knowledge than most about these issues but building administrator Holland has a manual that states the standard procedure required for redeveloping non conforming properties, his lack of concern was not due to ignorance, it was due to conspiracy intent to deprive me of my rights under color of law. Witnesses will testify that he questioned them about site layout when they were issued a building permit for their new home. He refused to answer my concerns and continued to issue Mark Conlee two more building permits. It is noted on public record that Holland did drive by, that will be posted by the date of the meeting.

About Lee County Detective Robert (Bob) Conlee

About Lee County Sheriff’s Officer Robert (Bob Conlee)

Bob Conlee has been employee by the Lee County Sheriff’s since graduating high school in early 1970’s. I recall that there was one requirement that Bob could not pass. That was the  height required for all officers to be considered for employment. The sheriff’s dept changed their policy at that time on behalf of Bob Conlee. Bob spent his entire career as a Lee County Law Enforcement Officer beginning as a deputy.

Feb. 3, 2005 Deputy Bob Conlee was promoted to Detective for Lee County Sheriffs Office .  At that time Lee County Detective Bob Conlee used his position to misrepresent his authority to become personally involved in a complaint Boatner had with his brother, Mark Conlee and the City of Montrose, Ia. Detective Bob Conlee Had no jurisdiction in the City of Montrose. If he did there was an existing conflict of interest due to Mark Conlee being his blood brother.

On March 22, 2005  Lee County Detective Bob Conlee arrived at Mark Conlees home in regard to a nuisance drainage issue complaint I had made to Mark Conlee, Mayor Ron Dinwiddie and Council Member/building administrator Mark Holland. The Following day Mark Conlee Hand delivered his response to my complaint. The authority Mark “checked with”  is his brother Lee County Detective  Bob. Lee County Detective Bob Conlee has no jurisdiction or authority in this matter or any other matter involving the City of Montrose.

Soon after I made my initial complaint to Mark Conlee in regards to the nuisance drainage issue caused by his new illegal property redevelopment Lee County Detective Bob Conlee began to defame my character . By knowingly making false statements, fabricating evidence. His intent was to associate me with a family member, who has in the past got caught with marijuana . I had heard several rumors that he had been defaming my character.  Lee County Detective Bob Conlee proved that to me when I heard him ask, over the police radio “are you sure it’s not Melody driving her (family member) truck”?  Following up with “he knew I used to drive my family members truck”.  He stated that as it was a fact.  I and a very credible witness, listed on the “compelling list of witnesses”, both heard this at the same time. Detective Conlee intention was to defame my character on his brother, Mark Conlee’s behalf, to cast an unfavorable opinion of me to the community of Montrose, Ia. 

I have had no interaction with my family member since 1995 and anyone who knows me and my family has that knowledge. Lee County Deputy David Hunold responded to a domestic 911 call at that time.  Lee County Detective Bob Conlee does know that the only interaction I have ever had with the Lee County Iowa drug task force is one time when I was mistaken for my family members girlfriend.  The error was reasonable,  I was mistaken for someone else because my truck is the same color as my family members truck.  However, my truck is a Ford Ranger, my family members is a  Chevy S-10.  I was quickly cleared of any involvement by then deputy Bob Conlee’s superior officers at that time.  The two senior officers were Tom Crew and Buck Jones. Neither of which I had ever met.  I did discover after the fact that they were there to serve a  warrant, issued for someone else. The person was expected to be arrive driving my family members gray truck.  It had nothing to do with Melody Boatner.

Bob Conlee knew or should have known whose name was on that search warrant . Bob Conlee could and did ID me immediately.  Bob Conlee and I had attended the same school from grades 1-12.  Bob was 3 or 4 years older than I. We were raise in the same small town of Montrose, Ia.  A town when back then everyone knew at least everyone elses name.

  I know for a fact that there is no evidence to support Bob Conlee’s allegations. I have never driven my family members truck and I wouldn’t borrow  my family members truck.  Bob Conlee repeatedly made false statements about me, defaming my character. His intent was to try to associate me with illegal drug activity.  Bob Conlee is the criminal in this case, not me!

Could it be possible that Constitutional Rights were violated by local government officials because they were stalling, until I got busted?  Based on fabricated statements made by Lee County Detective Bob Conlee?  Was the entire community misled to believe that I was going to be busted for illegal drug activity? Are they so simple minded that they do not understand our justice system is based on “innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.” Whether I was involved in illegal activity or not, my right to enjoy my own property, and right to equal protection of the law, were violated. My right to due process was violated. An independent investigation is warranted to find if my right to due process was violated.  Was I considered guilty of illegal drug activity based on fabricated evidence perpetrated by Lee County Detective Bob Conlee’s defamation of my character to the general public. Every City of Montrose and Lee County government official who voiced an opinion on Mark Conlee’s behalf by defaming my character are guilty of CONSPIRACY DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW and Terrorist acts using chemical weapons with intent to cause serious injury. Because no one with authority protected my rights. They participated in violating my rights on Mark Conlee’s behalf. 

At first it was kind of humorous that Lee County Detective Bob Conlee had me under surveillance and making false statements that I was going to be busted for dope. Simply because it was such an extreme conflicting statement to the fact that I had no interaction with my brother since 1995.  But it turned into psychopathic stalking.  He had me under surveillance constantly.  He was so desperate to follow through with his false statements he followed me on several occasions and knowingly made false statements about those incidents. He has never seen me driving my family members truck, or anything else that associates me with illegal activity of any kind.  I confided to friends at that time that I believed if he would have caught me on a gravel road he would have shot me.

It was also during this time that Lee County Sheriff’s Deputy Dave Hunold pulled over a mutual friend of ours, witness, Hunold pulled him over to warn him that the house he just left, (my house) was going to get busted.  I dismissed his allegations due to the fact that Hunold is not on the Drug Task Force, and it is not general procedure for deputy officers  to have knowledge of this type of information. If they do I know of no other case where deputies spread the word to the general public. I assumed Deputy Hunold had mistaken my house for one the next block down that had gotten busted. However Bob and Mark Conlee were spewing these lies to the general public with no regard to implicating themselves in unethical and criminal behavior, or anyone else for that matter.Lee County Detective Bob Conlee initiated these falsehoods on his brother’s behalf, I assume Bob was telling Mark not to worry about my nuisance drainage, illegal non conforming property complaint.  Probably assuring Mark that he could acquire my property through an asset forfeiture sale when I got busted. Mark was repeating Bobs lies to City of Montrose Chief of Police Brent Shipman, all other local government officials, and to the general public. The evidence  will prove Bob and Mark Conlee to be psychopathic pathological liars. 

Lee County Detective Bob Conlee was obsessed with proving his falsehoods to be true. He had me under surveillance 24-7 the entire time he  had the position titled Lee County Criminal Investigator.  There were very few occasions I left my house. One of those times I needed to modify a metal chair frame I was working on. I took the frame to a friends shop to use his chop saw. My friend was at his desk doing paper work, he walked back to where I was and asked what my street address was. I told him. He responded that he had just heard my address mentioned on the police scanner. A few minutes later Bob Conlee came full throttle through the door, he walked back to where I was working, turned around and walked back out the door. He never spoke a word. Apparently he thought he caught me in the middle of some type of illegal activity. When he got back in his unmarked vehicle he again knowingly made a false statement over the police scanner. He stated that my truck was parked in a hidden position between 2 vehicles. The fact is that I had parked next to the owner of the business another individual arrived after I had and parked on the other side of my truck. My truck was between two vehicles but only because the vehicles were parked according to time of arrival taking the next available parking spot. Lee County Detective Bob Conlee knowingly made a false statement that I was hiding my truck. His intent was to defame my character had become criminal harassment by this time. But Lee County Attorney Mike Short has been working side by side with him 18 years, conflict of interest allows for no  accountability for any of the many criminal offenses committed against me. Detective Bob Conlee has proven himself to be a pathological liar. Bob Conlee has proven himself to be a pathological stalker. The effect the chemicals Mark Conlee unlawfully applied to my property to my skin were severe. Within a year I was physically unable to wear clothes. I lost my eyesight. I had no quality of life and was completely unable to function.

Another sequence of events that I find suspicious that Bob attempted to “set me up in a drug bust”. I had been living at my property for 15 years. The next block down Rick Hardman had been living for as long as I had been there. I think. We had never had a conversation of any kind, I don’t recall ever speaking to each other. One afternoon I was at the stop sign in front of his house and Rick approached me. He asked me if I wanted to smoke a joint, I politely told him that I did not smoke weed, He proceeded to tell me who was selling dope in town, bla,bla,bla. I went on about my business. Some time later, out of the blue. Rick Hardman knocked on my door. Rick told me that he had some important information that he wanted to give my family member. Rick presented me with an affidavit from the Thomas Greer case. The affidavit was signed by a person unknown to me and was dated years earlier. The content implicated Lee County Attorney being involved with illegal drug activity. The affidavit stated that the signer had worked, delivering cocaine for Lee County Attorney Michael Short. It claimed Michael Short had promised that if the signer ever got caught by law enforcement, Short would step up and use his influence to get any charges dismissed and he would protect this guy from being prosecuted. I told Mr. Hardman that my family member and I had not communicated for years but I would go so far as dial the phone for him if he wanted to talk to my family member. I dialed the number and handed the phone to Rick. I overheard the conversation,  Rick confirmed that he would meet my brother and Linger-Longer rest area, for the purpose of  giving my family member the information for whatever reason . To my knowledge the meeting did occur. Rick left me a copy of the affidavit, which I still have.

It is reasonable that Bob Conlee was behind Rick Hardman contacting me on these two occasions. There is no other reason after 15 years of being nearby neighbors Rick Hardman would seek me out in regards to illegal drugs. Bob was desperate to make me into the person he had falsely claimed I was, Bob’s commitment to his brother is honorable, his tactics were completely illegal, immoral and violated my US Constitutional Rights, including my right to due process.

Bob Conlee retired from the Lee County Sheriff’s Dept. in the spring of 2007. I suspect Bob was given an option. He could choose to retire or be terminated due to his corrupt, criminal, and unethical actions against me personally. Bob Conlee conspired with Mark Conlee to deprive me of my U.S. Constitutional Right to enjoy my own property. It is unreasonable to believe that Bob Conlee chose to retire in spring of 2007,   after only 2 years getting promoted to Criminal Investigator. I recall an article in the local newspaper in which Bob stated that he did not need the insurance due to his wife’s coverage. Bob’s age at retirement was, I believe, in his early 50’s. With 17 years of service, Bob Conlee’s salary was $39,949.00 when he retired in 2007. I was told he took a job changing tires at a business in Donnellson soon after he retired, I do not know if this is true. Bob took a full time job as bus driver for Central Lee Community School District, to my knowledge he is still employed at that job. The average pay for a school bus driver in Iowa is $26,000. That in itself doesn’t seem reasonable. Does a reasonable person retire early, than take a full time job that pays significantly less money than his previous job. Not to mention the notoriety and influential power behind holding the top law enforcement position in Lee County, Ia. I researched some interesting financial information that is public record. On September 23, 2009 Robert Conlee’s property was repossessed. A FORECLOSURE AGAINST Bob Conlee FOR $88,063.39, PLUS INT AT 7.68% PER ANNAM ON PRINCIPAL OF $85,619.06 FROM 8/2/2012 PLUS COSTS, ATTORNEY FEES, ABSTRACTING FEES IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,801.00 was settled on August 3, 2012. A reasonable person does not retire from his career early, only to have his property repossessed. I am not buying that story for a minute. I find it much more reasonable to believe that Lee County Investigator Robert (Bob) Conlee chose to take a forced resignation rather than be terminated from his job as Lee County Investigator. A Federal investigation is warranted to uncover the truth and hold those who conspired to cover his behavior accountable for conspiracy deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law.

He knowingly made false statements, defamation of character. He violated my Constitutional Right to enjoy my property under color of law. Bob Conlee misrepresented himself as having the authority of City of Montrose Building administrator when he had no jurisdiction to act as any type of authority in the City of Montrose. Had he had any authority he still would have been in violation of rules of ethics due to conflict of interest as Mark Conlee is his blood brother. Bob Conlees criminal acts against me were malicious with intent to harass, cause me financial and emotional harm. Bob Conlees behavior is not that of a reasonable person in a high ranking position of law enforcement would do. Bob Conlee conspired to deprive me of my US and State Constitutional Right to enjoy my own property and equal protection of the law.

Daily Gate City           Sep 18, 2013                                                                                                                 ■ Approved the contracts of Robert Conlee, transportation associate, $14.80 per hour;

Daily Democrat Feb 22, 2016 – Approved the resignation of Bob Conlee – Transportation Associate effective 6/30/2016.

A Federal investigation is warranted into these allegations of Conspiracy Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law.

Summary:

TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242

  • Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
  • For the purpose of Section 242, acts under “color of law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official’s lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.
  • The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.

About Celeste Cirinna, City of Montrose Clerk

About Celeste Cirinna, Clerk for City of Montrose, Ia

I know of no other case in which a City clerk has admitted to committing document fraud, fabricated city ordinances, knowingly make false statement and demanded payment on a past due account MUST be paid directly from the pocket of the resident the past due account is in. This is enough evidence to support conspiracy with intent to cause me financial harm. The fraud was made known to the Lee County attorney and his response was that “he” would decide who gets prosecuted in Lee County. This supports my allegations that Lee County Attorney conspired with City of Montrose officials in allowing Mark Conlee force me from my property. Not to mention the conflict of interest existing between Lee County Michael Short and Lee County Detective Bob Conlee’s career long relationship.

It is worth noting that there is a conflict of interest existing between city clerk Celeste Cirinna and the Lee County FEMA officer, Steve Cirinna is the husband of clerk Cirinna. Steve Cirinna would have been the expert for me to contact. It is FEMA that puts out a handbook in which the following page is directly from. There is a copy of this manual at Montrose City Hall. Homeland Security also handles terrorism, so that was not an option for me either. 

Strom water regulations FEMA

Strom water regulations FEMA