Tag Archives: conflict of interest

Witnesses on Boatner’s behalf

Witnesses on Boatner’s behalf

These individuals were intended to be witnesses in a case that should have been titled Boatner vs. City of Montrose, Ia, that is what Steve Swan was hired to do, that complaint was never filed. Steve Swan assured me that he filed the complaint against the city several times,it was he that advised me that we would sue both parties, the city and Mark Conlee. I was well aware that the liability was that of the city, Steve Swan was aware of that also. I met with him the first time so I could question his knowledge of the law pertaining to property redevelopment, legally nonconforming properties and the duty a city must provide for the residents. He was overpaid according to his own documented statements of evidence.  Steve Swan was intentionally negligent, no attorney could pass the bar showing the skills he showed throughout this untimely process. Lee County Attorney Michael Short sent a deputy to investigate a complaint made by Mark Conlee against me, claiming he was concerned  that there may be a conflict of interest. My witnesses were never interviewed by the City of Montrose Police Dept or Lee County Sheriff’s Dept. Mark Conlee make multiple false police reports against Boatner. Conlee was never concerned of being held accountable by the City of Montrose or Lee County Attorney Michael Short for his many criminal offenses including contempt of court. They fully participated in every action he requested, legal or illegal, nobody showed any concern for the law that they were violating by participating.

Documented evidence proves Lee County Attorney Michael Short advised Boatner that he would need and independent investigation. I am not certain what County Attorney Short meant by “an independent investigation”. Due to the fact that none of my witnesses were ever interviewed in what would be considered a typical investigation. I stated that I wanted an investigation I am still today  patiently waiting to hear from Lee County Attorney Short as the the results of his independent investigation.

My witnesses took the stand to testify on my behalf in a civil suit Mark Conlee filed against me. Conlee vs Boatner EQEQ 004043 cause of action, loss of enjoyment to his property. They were not question by Steve Swan. My first witness was a former tenant of the Conlee property, well aware of the existing berm and the fact that when it rained the berm held back the stormwater from my property causing the front yard of Conlee property to retain a small pond. Swan never asked him any questions. I asked him why he didn’t question that witness about the berm. Steve Swan advised me that the judge uses his own common sense. In the previous criminal cases against me I never had to speak a word as the evidence was undeniable. Had Steve Swan submitted the written affidavits and photo evidence that supported my allegations. Unfortunately Steve Swan was to incompetent to file a complaint against the liable party, the City of Montrose, question the witnesses who should have been viewed as experts in their field, notify me in a timely manner that a decision had been made.

Oath of Office – Deprivation of Rights – Color of Law – Treason – YouTube

Oath of Office – Deprivation of Rights – Color of Law – Treason – YouTube.

NO ADVERSE IMPACT FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT AND THE COURTS

My initial complaint was in regard to this issue. To end up being poisoned by chemicals illegally applied to my property because the City and County officials had a conflict of interest with this illegally nonconforming owner/builder/redeveloper who was issued illegal building permits is unprecedented. It was the chemicals that nearly cost me my life. I could control the stormwater within my rights to defend my property. This man was angry that the officials could not control what I did legally on my own property. I could not control the chemicals, the fact that this man was allowed to do this knowing it was causing me physical harm and the officials dismissing the act as he had the right. That makes this a Federal Constitutional Rights case. The perps are the CIty and County officials who had the duty to protect my Right to enjoy my own property and my Right to Equal Protection of the Law.

via No adverse impact floodplain management and the courts

Iowa Code 729

29.5 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 techniques or means in furtherance of the

conspiracy, is on conviction, guilty of a class “D” felony.

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.

  1. This section does not make unlawful the teaching of any

technique in self-defense.

  1. 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.

via Iowa Code 729.

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.  

        

1-6-2005 min nuisance abatement discussion,

PAGE 185

MONTROSE COUNCIL MEETING

REGULAR MEETING

January 6, 2005

The Montrose City Council met for Regular Meeting at 7:00 p.m. on the 6 th day of January 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, Roberts and Slater. PAGE 186

MONTROSE COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 6, 2005, PAGE 2

He also says there is a boat parked on the corner of Cedar and 1st St, Di Anna Chamberlin’shome. He says there was nearly a wreck. First Reading of Ordinance No. 191 regarding nuisance and junk vehicles. Cirinna is waiting to hear from the City Attorney regarding “Notice to Abate”. No action taken at this time. Tabled to February 3, 2005 meeting. Ralph St. Clair wanted to know what rules the City was using; State, County or City. Did Bob Conlee have to pass the pre Academy physical? Dinwiddie says State rules. He says Bob Conlee knew he had to be certified within one year. John Farmer was certified in Missouri, so he didn’t have to go to the Academy. 

PAGE 187        MONTROSE COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 6, 2005,             PAGE 3

Consider hiring process for Chief of Police. Dinwiddie says he will speak with Sheriff Buck Jones about working something out with the Sheriff’s Office. It is proposed that the City pay the Sheriff’s Office a certain amount (to be determined) and our present police officers will take care of the day to day business. This way, City ordinances will be enforced. Brisby says we need to look at everything. Roberts says the local police can keep a problem small. Jason Dinwiddie says presently, a deputy can do everything but bookingThe Mayor, Holland and deputies will speak with Jones. Brisby asked how the officers are currently paid; are they paid for on call? While home? On the job? She says they should be paid only if called. Dinwiddie says they are being paid for on call. Dinwiddie says from now on, they will be paid one half their hourly wage for on call time and full hourly rate if called out.Hiring Reserve Police Officers. No action taken at this time.

PAGE 188       MONTROSE COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 6, 2005, PAGE 3

Employee Comments. Cirinna, Junkins and Hoenig had no comments. Dale Sanders says he has called Don Smith at Huffman’s about rust on the sign, but has not heard back from him. Dinwiddie says he will contact Smith. Holland wants to know where Kent Brisby stands at being on duty. Can he be a backup? Jason Dinwiddie says it doesn’t hurt to have someone to help out. Holland says we don’t want to have burn out, such as when Jason was working alone while Rubey and Smith were out sick. Mayor Dinwiddie says Brisby has an application in for Reserve. Brisby says he has to certify with a gun at the Sheriff’s Office. Dinwiddie says he has to be rehired. Holland says Council would have to go through other applications. He wants the matter on the February 2, 2005 Agenda. Holland also wanted to know if the Police Dept. had bought Stop Sticks yet. Dinwiddie says no; they will use the money received from the Lee County Narcotics Task Force for this purchase. Holland and Judy Brisby say Kent Rubey needs to be at the Council meetings. He needs to come to the budget workshop if the Police Dept. needs something budgeted. Roberts says she asked the State if they would please approve the signage coming into Montrose so drivers can better see it and was told they have their own standards and the signs won’t be changed.

Adjournment. Moved by Holland, seconded by Slater to adjourn at 8:55 p.m. All ayes. Motion declared carried.

Respectfully Submitted,

Ronald L. Dinwiddie, Mayor

Attest:

Celeste L. Cirinna

Clerk/Treasurer

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

Adult Bullies — Psychopath Resistance

Stonewalling is a tactic commonly used by bullies wanting to control, humiliate, and frustrate a target who attempts to resolve a conflict through reasonable discussion or negotiation. Accusations of mental deficiency, harassment, and even bullying, are other typical methods of asserting dominance, intimidating the target, and discouraging objections to the abuse from both victim and bystanders. To the insightful […]

via Adult Bullies — Psychopath Resistance

Code of Ethics | icma.org

Code of Ethics

Adopted in 1924, the ICMA Code of Ethics defined the principles that today serve as the foundation for the local government management profession and set the standard for excellence. Leadership in a management structure committed to equity, transparency, integrity, stewardship of public resources, political neutrality, and respect for the rights and responsibility of elected officials and residents strengthens democratic local governance.

ICMA members pledge to uphold these principles in their conduct and decisions in order to merit the trust of the public, elected officials, and staff they serve. As a condition of membership, ICMA members agree to submit to a peer-to-peer review under established enforcement procedures should there be an allegation of unethical conduct.  Members who are working for a local government in any capacity are required to follow all 12 Tenets of the Code. Members who are students, elected officials, fully retired, working for a state or federal agency, or in the private sector are required to follow Tenets 1 and 3.

ICMA’s Code of Ethics, most recently amended by the membership in April 2015 to reflect changes in the profession, includes Guidelines to assist members in applying the principles outlined in the Code. The Guidelines were adopted by the ICMA Executive Board in 1972 and most recently revised in June 2015.

The mission of ICMA is to create excellence in local governance by developing and fostering professional local government management worldwide. To further this mission, certain principles, as enforced by the Rules of Procedure, shall govern the conduct of every member of ICMA, who shall:

Tenet 1

Be dedicated to the concepts of effective and democratic local government by responsible elected officials and believe that professional general management is essential to the achievement of this objective.

Tenet 2

Affirm the dignity and worth of the services rendered by government and maintain a constructive, creative, and practical attitude toward local government affairs and a deep sense of social responsibility as a trusted public servant

Tenet 3

Be dedicated to the highest ideals of honor and integrity in all public and personal relationships in order that the member may merit the respect and confidence of the elected officials, of other officials and employees, and of the public.

Tenet 4

Recognize that the chief function of local government at all times is to serve the best interests of all people.

Tenet 5

Submit policy proposals to elected officials; provide them with facts and advice on matters of policy as a basis for making decisions and setting community goals; and uphold and implement local government policies adopted by elected officials.

Tenet 6

Recognize that elected representatives of the people are entitled to the credit for the establishment of local government policies; responsibility for policy execution rests with the members.

Tenet 7

Refrain from all political activities which undermine public confidence in professional administrators.  Refrain from participation in the election of the members of the employing legislative body.

Tenet 8

Make it a duty continually to improve the member’s professional ability and to develop the competence of associates in the use of management techniques.

Tenet 9

Keep the community informed on local government affairs; encourage communication between the citizens and all local government officers; emphasize friendly and courteous service to the public; and seek to improve the quality and image of public service.

Tenet 10

Resist any encroachment on professional responsibilities, believing the member should be free to carry out official policies without interference, and handle each problem without discrimination on the basis of principle and justice.

Tenet 11

Handle all matters of personnel on the basis of merit so that fairness and impartiality govern a member’s decisions, pertaining to appointments, pay adjustments, promotions, and discipline.

Tenet 12

Public office is a public trust. A member shall not leverage his or her position for personal gain or benefit

Conflicts of Interest in Land Use Decision-Making – eXtension

Conflicts of Interest in Land Use Decision-Making

Elected and appointed officials involved in land-use decision making must not be tainted with prejudice regarding on matters that come before them. Such prejudice exists when the individual finds herself with a conflict of interest. A conflict of interest arises when a public servant is in the position of deciding between public duty and private interests. The three most common conflict of interest situations are (1) when the member is in a position to gain financially from the decision being rendered, (2) when the member is a relative of an interested party, or (3) the member is near, or next to, the property at issue.

The most obvious example of a financial conflict is when a land-use decision-maker has an ownership interest in the property that is the subject of the requested action. A review of court cases from around the country reveals numerous other possible conflict situations:

  • The decision-maker is in a business relationship with the applicant.
  • The decision-maker is employed by a company that stands to gain from approval of the development proposal.
  • The decision-maker owns property near the property in question.
  • The member owns a business that would directly compete with the applicant’s business.

The tangle of familial relationships that can potentially give rise to conflict of interest questions is equally broad:

  • The decision-maker’s spouse is the Realtor working with the landowner.
  • The decision-maker’s close relative lives near the property in question.
  • The member’s nephew is an attorney with the firm representing the applicant.

 

A decision-maker who questions whether he has a conflict of interest should ask for advice from the attorney representing his city or county. If a conflict of interest does in fact exist, the decision-maker must disqualify himself from the case. If a conflict of interest does not exist, it is the decision-maker’s duty to participate and vote, even if the situation may be uncomfortable because it involves a friend or associate.

Many communities, boards or commissions have adopted bylaws or policies that govern conflict, and some state codes require specific action to be taken where conflict of interest may exist. Care should be taken to follow any applicable standards in effect locally. While the advice to confer with legal counsel is always sound, some communities require that potential conflict of interest issues be declared and discussed at an open meeting and a vote taken to determine if an actionable conflict is present. Again, local practice should be followed when applicable. In addition, many local and national planning organizations provide models and standards for resolving conflict of interest issues.

Gary D. Taylor, Iowa State University