TOTAL DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS Section II
The phrase, “no one can “be compelled to be a witness against himself,” is in agreement with the Supreme Court ruling in Haynes v. U.S., 390 U.S. 85, 88 S.Ct. 722, wherein the ruling was that to force anyone to register anything is communicative, and such communicative evidence is precluded by the 5th Amendment.
So with that in mind, all fiat governmental administrators, police and all associated by interlocking directorates have been given knowledge! You “know, or should have known.”
Under USC Title 42 §1986: Action for neglect to prevent…, it states: Every person who, having knowledge that any wrongs conspired or to be done… and having power to prevent or aid in preventing… Neglects or refuses so to do â€¦ shall be liable to the party injured… and;
The means of “knowledge”, especially where it consists of public record, is deemed in law to be “knowledge of the facts” that makes the offending, trespassing, pirating “Officer” and all supporting interlocking directorates subsequently liable for all damage and injury. THE WORLD has now been given “knowledge of the facts” as it pertains to this conspiracy to commit a fraud against me.
AT LEAST THIRTEEN (13) TIMES I noticed all Capturing and Offending Parties that I reserved ALL my Rights at all times. I did not, do not, and never have voluntarily agreed to play any game of â€˜letâ€™s pretendâ€™ with any Legal Fictional Entity or other governmental agency. I stopped trusting big boys with real guns in 1968 with my Honorable Discharge for US Army. I reiterate, I reserved all my Rights at all times, compromising none, even though that increased my degree of torture within their confines.
“[W]aivers of fundamental Rights must be knowing, intentional, and voluntary acts, done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences. U.S. v. Brady, 397 U.S. 742 at 748 (1970); U.S.v. O’Dell, 160 F.2d 304 (6th Cir. 1947)” .
Fraud, deceit, coercion, willful intent to injure another, malicious acts, RICO activity and conspiracy were instrumented against Claimant by said Capturing and Offending Pirates Unconscionable “contract “One which no sensible man not under delusion, or duress, or in distress would make, and such as no honest and fair man would accept. ; Franklin Fire Ins. Co. v. Noll, 115 Ind. App. 289, 58 N.E.2d 947, 949, 950. And;
Under USC Title 42 §1982, §1983 and/or §1441. Property rights of citizens â€¦, further evidences the above position that the City or State cannot take property because they DO NOT have Jurisdiction. It states that federal or state governmental agencies MUST have a monetary or proprietary interest in my private property in order to have jurisdiction over it (my property has no government grant/funding and is not a subsidized government project).
The State cannot diminish the rights of the people. Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516.
“To say that one may not defend his own property is usurpation of power by the legislature.” O’Connell v. Judnich (1925), 71 C.A.386, 235 P. 664.
“The phrase ‘common law’ found in this clause, is used in contradistinction to equity, and admiralty, and maritime jurisprudence.” Parsons v. Bedford, et al, 3 Pet 433, 478-9 “If the common law can try the cause, and give full redress, that alone takes away the admiralty jurisdiction.” Ramsey v. Allegrie, supra, p. 411.Inferior Courts – The term may denote any court subordinate to the chief tribunal in the particular judicial system; but it is commonly used as the designation of a court of special, limited, or statutory jurisdiction, whose record must show the existence and attaching of jurisdiction in any given case, in order to give presumptive validity to its judgment. In re Heardâ€™s Guardianship, 174 Miss. 37, 163, So. 685
The high Courts have further decreed that Want of Jurisdiction makes â€œ…all acts of judges, magistrates, U.S. Marshals, sheriffs, local police, all void and not just voidable.â€ Nestor v. Hershey, 425 F2d 504.
Void Judgment -One which has no legal force or effect, invalidity of which may be asserted by any person whose rights are affected at any time and at any place directly or collaterally. Reynolds v. Volunteer State Life Ins. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 80 S.W.2d 1087, 1092.
“Whenever a law deprives the owner of the beneficial use and enjoyment of his property, or imposes restraints upon such use and enjoyment that materially affect its value, without legal process or compensation, it deprives him of his property within the meaning of the constitution. … It is not necessary, in order to render the statute obnoxious to the restraints of the constitution, that it must in terms or effect authorize the actual physical taking of the property or the thing itself, so long as it affects its free use and enjoyment, or the power of disposition at the will of the owner.” Forster v. Scott,136 N. Y. 577, [18 L. R. A. 543, 32 N. E. 976]; Monongahela Nav. Co. v. United States, 148 U. S. 312, 336, [37 L. Ed. 463, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 622].
Mr. Lewis in his work on Eminent Domain, third edition, section 11, says: ‘A law which authorizes the taking of private property without compensation, … cannot be considered as due process of law in a free government.’ (Chicago etc, R. R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U. S. 226, [41 L. Ed. 979, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 581].” Associated etc., Co. v. Railroad Commission (1917) 176 Cal. 518, 528-530.
An unconstitutional law is not a law, it confers no rights, imposes no duties, and affords no protection. Norton vs. Shelby County, 118 US 425.
Primacy of position in our state constitution is accorded the Declaration of Rights; thus emphasizing the importance of those basic and inalienable rights of personal liberty and private property which are thereby reserved and guaranteed to the people and protected from arbitrary invasion or impairment from any governmental quarter. The Declaration of Rights constitutes a limitation upon the powers of every department of the state government. State ex rel. Davis v. Stuart. 64 A.L.R. 1307, 97 Fla. 69, 120 So. 335.
“The rights of the individual are not derived from governmental agencies, municipal, state, or federal, or even from the Constitution. They exist inherently in every man, by endowment of the Creator, and are merely reaffirmed in the Constitution, and restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies of government. The people’s rights are not derived from the government, but the government’s authority comes from the people. The Constitution but states again these rights already existing, and when legislative encroachment by the nation, state, or municipality invade these original and permanent rights, it is the duty of the courts to so declare, and to afford the necessary relief. City of Dallas, et al. v. Mitchell, 245 S. W. 944, 945-46 (1922).
A constitution is designated as a supreme enactment, a fundamental act of legislation by the people of the state. A constitution is legislation direct from the people acting in their sovereign capacity, while a statute is legislation from their representatives, subject to limitations prescribed by the superior authority. Ellingham v. Dye, 178 Ind. 336; NE 1; 231 U.S. 250; 58 L. Ed. 206; 34 S. Ct. 92; Sage v. New York, 154 NY 61; 47 NE 1096.
“Owner has constitutional right to use and enjoyment of his property.” Simpson v. Los Angeles (1935), 4 C.2d 60, 47 P.2d 474
“We find it intolerable that one constitutional right should have to be surrendered in order to assert another”. SIMMONS v US,
“When rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.
“The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.” Miller v. U.S. 230 F 2d 486, 489. History is clear that the first ten amendments to the Constitution were adopted to secure certain common law rights of the people, against invasion by the Federal Government.” Bell v. Hood, 71 F.Supp., 813, 816 (1947) U.S.D.C. — So. Dist. CA.
Economic necessity cannot justify a disregard of cardinal constitutional guarantee. Riley v. Certer, 165 Okal. 262; 25 P.2d 666; 79 ALR 1018. When any court violates the clean and unambiguous language of the Constitution, a fraud is perpetrated and no one is bound to obey it. (See 16 Ma. Jur. 2d 177, 178) State v. Sutton, 63 Minn. 147, 65 NW 262, 30 L.R.A. 630 Am. 459.
“The ‘liberty’ guaranteed by the constitution must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiar and known to the framers of the constitution. This liberty denotes the right of the individual to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to locomotion, and generally enjoy those rights long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” Myer v. Nebraska, 262 U .S. 390, 399; United States v. Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 654.
“An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” Norton vs. Shelby County, 118 US 425 p. 442
“The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.
“No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.” 16 Am Jur 2nd, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256
All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void. Chief Justice Marshall, Marbury vs Madison, 5, U.S. (Cranch) 137, 174, 176 (1803).
“Right of protecting property, declared inalienable by constitution, is not mere right to protect it by individual force, but right to protect it by law of land, and force of body politic.” Billings v. Hall (1857), 7 C. 1.
People are supreme, not the state. Waring vs. the Mayor of Savannah, 60 Georgia at 93
“The Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity is one of the Common-Law immunities and defenses that are available to the Sovereign…” Citizen of Minnesota. Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, (1988) 491 U.S. 58, 105 L.Ed. 2d. 45, 109 S.Ct. 2304.
“The people of the state, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the king by his own prerogative.” Lansing v. Smith, (1829) 4 Wendell 9, (NY).
“In Land v. Dollar, 338 US 731 (1947), the court noted, that when the government entered into a commercial field of activity, it left immunity behind.â€ Brady v. Roosevelt, 317 US 575 (1943); FHA v. Burr, 309 US 242 (1940); Kiefer v. RFC, 306 US 381 (1939
“Ignorance of the law does not excuse misconduct in anyone, least of all in a sworn officer of the law.” In re McCowan (1917), 177 C. 93, 170 P. 1100.
“All are presumed to know the law.” San Francisco Gas Co. v. Brickwedel (1882), 62 C. 641; Dore v. Southern Pacific Co. (1912), 163 C. 182, 124 P. 817; People v. Flanagan (1924), 65 C.A. 268, 223 P. 1014; Lincoln v. Superior Court (1928), 95 C.A. 35, 271 P. 1107; San Francisco Realty Co. v. Linnard (1929), 98 C.A. 33, 276 P. 368.
“It is one of the fundamental maxims of the common law that ignorance of the law excuses no one.” Daniels v. Dean (1905), 2 C.A. 421, 84 P. 332.
NOTICE OF CLAIMANTS INTENT
I’VE THROWN MORE LAW INTO THIS DOCUMENT than the offending Libellee(s) have probably read in their lifetime. Forcing a Living Man to “pretend” he’s a corporation, a trust, a legal entity, or some other “device” is contrary to common sense and True Law. A benefit, no matter how benevolent, cannot be forced upon any Living Man against his will. I exercise my will to inform the entire world that I am not a partaker in the/this/any Babylonian Empirical enterprise that â€˜buys and sells men’s souls’ as a common commodity. My plain statement of intent revolves around the fact that one man’s protest won’t help my fellow man, unless I demand “Enforceability.” [Pr 29:19 “A servant will not be corrected by words: for though he understands he will not answer.”] And, [Jeremiah 13:22-26. I will discover thy skirts upon thy face, that thy shame may appear] I am openly showing you and the entire world the filth of the “Whore of Babylon” I am lifting her skirt above her head that all can see the filth of the murders, slavery, torture, extortion and, yes, even PIRATING done by her. There are no â€˜innocent by-standersâ€™ in this theatre of Legal Fictional Entities (actors). You are either part of the solution or you are part of the problem. I am exercising one of my greatest Rights, the Right of being left alone, the Right of Privacy, the Right of Peace, which all Libellee(s) have greatly disturbed.
The ninth (9th) Maxim of Commercial Law states that credibility is measured by the degree of risk one takes. You won’ find much greater risk than I have taken to bring Truth and clarity to this very ugly scenario.
WHAT IS THE TRUE PURPOSE FOR POLICE ACTION/REVENUE GENERATORS?
My limited education has informed me that anyone having my signature can use it as they see fit. So, they create new money by sending a “bill,” an instrument which has no charge to it. The bill is like an invoice, which if not rebutted will run like any invoice … 30, 60, 90 days, then it becomes a security which can be levied against. The new money created is MY money which I can prove by either 1099OID or 1099A.
All vendors, retailers, etc., have the liability (ability to lie) to collect the interest on the national debt, which in essence is what they are doing … but they are not sending that along to the US Treasury and are in reality “pirates” operating on letters of marque and reprisal against the “enemies” of the US, you, me, and the 14th Amendment citizen under TWEA (trading with the enemy act) … BUT THEY ARE NOT PAYING THE TAX MEANING THAT THE MONEY CREATED IS “UNREPORTED INCOME” …hence the OID or A and resulting 1040 claim on interest back to principal â€“ ME.
When you do a full AFV (Acceptance For Value by a Private Bank/Banker) and state on the AFV “bill” to Deposit to the US Treasury and Charge the same to your corporate, Legal Fictional Entity (strawman), or to the vendor itself, it is a chargeback to the collector of the national debt, the US Treasury (you could do a chargeback to any other source … like to the Republic … if you so choose). The newly created money then is taken from the pirate for failure to ‘state a claim upon which relief can be granted (Rule 12 b 6)’ and either charged back for the use of the Republic or charged back where ever you send it. [Read: EXHIBIT THERE IS NO MONEY] The client (vendor/presenter/seller/clerks/police â€œticketâ€ ) account(s) is/are not entitled to the funds because of failure to pay the tax. The new bill is always ‘new’ money (which increases the National Debt with every issue) as they got paid when we put our signature on the original application for “credit”. The presenter (police/ticket) is always trying to avoid liability on the return of the tax to US Treasury by doing a ‘pass over’ from the application/ Bill directly to the bond of the strawman and getting you/me to become liable (30,60,90 days) … so now the presenter is trying to pirate from the US Treasury and make you liable for the payment of the tax bill — which we do when we take the Bill and AFV and deposit to the US Treasury and charge it back to either the presenter or our strawman (they are actually the same entity … all corporations o the US).
The Treasury can’t ‘cut them a check’, but actually ‘charge’ them for the money on the presentment which is essence should have been forwarded to Treasury on the national debt!!! THEY ARE IN DISHONOR AND WILL BE LIQUIDATED UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHAPTER 11 BANKRUPTCY OF THE US! Vendors or presenters already have the benefit privilege of discharge when issued a TIN, and trying an end run with a ‘bill’ is thievery under public policy. They are not entitled to “new” money as this is a felony called unjust enrichment. One easy way to prove the felony is the 1099A, and under 18 USC 4 — misprision of felony, the IRS has to prosecute. The presenter has no rights in the matter for failure to state a claim and pay the tax … it is all NEW MONEY!!! And, every action performed raises the National Debt by that much. These are Dark Matters.
My local government officials assisted one of their own in applying glyphosate to my side of our 300′ common boundary. This behavior continued for over five years. I verbally requested this neighbor to stop because I felt it was causing a rash on my shins. He refused to stop. I requested the City police chief to file a trespassing complaint against this neighbor. He refused advising that he did not want to make this neighbor mad. I requested the County Attorney to file a trespassing complaint against this neighbor he advised that he did not file neighbor against neighbor complaints. His double standard is indisputable because I was criminally charged multiple time by the State based on fabricated laws. I was criminally charged by the city multiple time by the city based on fabricated ordinances. While I was trying to defend my person and my property the “rash” had progressed into a full body severe skin condition. I hired an attorney to sue the City for my damages. The city is liable because they issued fraudulent building permits to this neighbor. The building administrator refused his duty to address my complaints in regard to the nuisance drainage causing adverse effects to my property and significant loss of value. The fact that the Mayor sold this legally nonconforming lot to this neighbor provides an existing conflict of interest. The building administrator refusing to address my concerns was replaced by the Lee County Detective and brother of this neighbor. He had no jurisdiction or authority to act as a building administrator. A field investigation was done by the proper authority. The investigator advised me when he saw my skin condition that he knew what was causing it. I did not inquire because I had already use the process of elimination and determine the glyphosate had to be the cause of my condition. My attorney failed to file the complaint against the city, he failed to inform me that he did not file the complaint. This neighbor filed a frivolous complaint against me alleging “loss of enjoyment to his property”, he had no concern that he had been applying chemicals to my property knowing it was causing me health problems. The judge in the civil case cited my right to use my property as I wished. That order was violated without hesitation. The County Attorney and the Detective had a special relationship for 17 years working hand in hand creating a conflict of interest. I contacted US Senator Charles Grassley, he advised me that he would request and inquiry of my case to the FBI. Grassley advised me that the FBI would contact me. I waited for five years. No FBI contacted me. By this time my condition had progress to the degree that I felt my life was in danger. I contacted Senator Grassley again and he requested a second inquiry into my case, he advised me again that the FBI would contact me. He advised me to be patient, it takes time. I felt that ten years of waiting for intervention, suffering severely everyday was not acceptable. I had no protection of the law, this neighbor had a motive to eliminate me from my property and a County Deputy that have ultimate respect for stop at my house advising me that this neighbor had no intention of stopping with the chemicals until he acquired my property. I have followed all the standard procedures to remedy this situation. The government has not, they have fully partnered with this neighbor/council member in violation my rights. I am requesting a legitimate review of the evidence I have collected throughout this taking of my private property by using chemicals as a weapon to cause my person and my property harm.
A legitimate investigation would have determined it was not the city that applied the chemicals to the city easement. It was in fact my neighbor/city council member who took it upon himself to act as a city street department employee. This report was done after three years of the chemical being applied to my 300′ common boundary with this “above the law” neighbor/ council member. The city is liable because they issued fraudulent building permits. But the personal financial gain of the Mayor from selling this otherwise worthless non conforming property was more important that protecting the rights of this resident.
How does the FBI protect the civil rights of people in the United States?
The FBI investigates violations of federal civil rights statutes and supports the investigations of state and local authorities in certain cases. Federal civil rights violations fall into several categories: hate crimes motivated by bias against such characteristics as race, religion, national origin, and sexual orientation; color of law crimes involving law enforcement and related criminal justice professionals’ misuse of their right to discretion, such as use of excessive force or police misconduct; involuntary servitude or slavery; violations of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act; the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act; the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act; and violations of human trafficking statutes included as part or the Trafficking Victims Protection Rights Act. The FBI’s civil rights investigations are separate from Equal Employment Opportunity Commission investigations, although EEOC regulations are enforced within the agency.
Until my evidence is competently reviewed you and your government agency have no right to disregard me or my complaint. I am a natural born citizen of the US deserving of all the rights guaranteed to all citizens.
Using chemical weapons against civilians is a war crime, a crime against humanity. The law does not differentiate between one victim or an entire race. Those are universal international laws.
PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT – EQUAL RIGHTS
First Time Passed H.J.R. 13
A JOINT RESOLUTION proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Iowa
relating to the equality of rights of men and women under the law.
Be It Resolved by the General Assembly of the State of Iowa:
Section 1. The following amendment to the Constitution of the State of Iowa is proposed.
Section 1 of Article I of the Constitution of the State of Iowa, is amended to read as
RIGHTS OF PERSONS. Section 1. All men and women are, by nature, free and equal,
and have certain inalienable rights – among which are those of enjoying and defending
life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining
safety and happiness.
Sec. 2. The foregoing amendment to the Constitution of the State of Iowa is referred to
the General Assembly to be chosen at the next general election for members of the General Assembly and the Secretary of State is directed to cause the same to be published for
three consecutive months previous to the date of that election as provided by law.
Just to be clear, Senator Grassley is only able to work with government agencies to solve a person’s issue. So in your case, you talked about how people were trying to destroy your property. We can look into that issue. What we can’t do is be involved in court matters or personal issues that you are having with local officials. It is unlawful for us to inject ourselves into those matters.
I understand how concerned you are with the alleged attempts to harm your property so if you could provide a clear statement on the facts you have with this issue, I would advise that.
I hope that this explanation helps.
Constituent Services Specialist
U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley
201 W. 2nd Street, Suite 720
Davenport, IA 52801
I need some assistance in writing this complaint. I have researched and The FBI gets hundreds of Public Corruption complaints and one a handful get investigated. I have been victimized by my local government officials in an unprecedented manner. Unprecedented meaning I have no documents to use as an example or reference to use as an example document. I have found suggestions of how to write a complaint all over the internet. Some say include every detail, some say write a brief summary. I can tell you that it is not possible to write a “brief” summary as my case is ongoing for over 5 years. There were unprecedented turn over in the Mayor, City Council and law enforcement during this time. For example there were 4 different Mayors in 5 years. The initial instigators Mayor Dinwiddie, Lee County Detective Bob Conlee, and the man who physically carried out the terrorist attack on me, Mark Conlee defamed my character to all colleagues and the general public stating that I was “crazy” and kept me oppressed from speaking at the council meetings the officials that followed behind them just followed up with the same behavior. I was never given the opportunity to present evidence that supports what I claim. I contacted Lee County Attorney multiple times in reference to the unlawful application of toxic chemicals to my property after Mark Conlee violated the civil court order. Mr. Short told me sarcastically to take him to contempt court. I am well aware the County Attorney is the only authority to file criminal charges against a citizen. I was denied my right to file a trespassing complaint against Mark Conlee for continuing to ally toxic chemicals to my property. Mr. Short told me I was having an allergic reaction. Can you tell me what that has to do with the criminal act trespassing? I contacted Mr. Short and presented him with the undeniable evidence that City of Montrose clerk Celeste Cirinna had committed multiple counts of document fraud. In response he stated “I (he) will decide who gets prosecuted in Lee County. I then received a summons to court State vs. Boatner the citation stated as follows, Mark Conlee says Melody Boatner drive by his house real slow and gave him the finger. Mr. Kaufmann it is not against the law to give someone the finger. A week later a second complaint was filed against me. This complaint was worded exactly the same with the addition of Mark is tired of Boatner continuously giving him the finger. This complaint was for harassment, hence the added term “continuously”. The second complaint was investigated by Lee County Deputy Dave Hunold. Mr. Short requested Officer Hunold due to a possible “conflict of interest”. When Officer Hunold arrived at my home he came in and we sat down and I took the opportunity to present the Civil Court ruling citing “Boatner has the right to enjoy her own property”. Officer Hunold stood to leave and I told him I wanted to file a trespassing complaint against Mark Conlee for continuing to apply toxic chemicals to my property. Officer Hunold’s response was Round-up is not dangerous and the Civil Court Ruling did not specify Mark Conlee not to unlawfully apply chemicals to my property, only that I had the Right to Enjoy my Property. His final statement was that he was only at my house to investigate me giving Mark Conlee the finger.
Mr. Kaufmann I suffer every minute of every day from the brutal attack against me. I lost my home my business and my life that I worked so hard to pay off and enjoy. I cannot let this go. I was physically unable to defend myself. I went blind do to this and only got my vision restored with surgery in 2012. There is no doubt in my mind that this man was intent on getting my property at the cost of my life and the public officials were going to allow it to happen. If you have a doubt about my allegations now, let me assure you, reviewing the evidence I documented over the years to date you will have no doubt. I believe these are special circumstances and I am requesting assistance in filing a complaint that is unprecedented.
On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 10:33 AM, Kaufmann, John (Grassley) <John_Kaufmann@grassley.senate.gov> wrote:
I am following up from your message sent regarding the violation of your rights. What is a good time/day to call you?
Constituent Services Specialist
U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley
201 W. 2nd Street, Suite 720
Davenport, IA 52801
From: songboat [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 4:24 PM
To: Kaufmann, John (Grassley)
Subject: Re: Follow Up
You mentioned that you had my emails from 8 years ago. Do you happen to have the documents I sent to Penny at that time? I sent her much of the information then as well as the authorization to release personal information. Can I scan and email you the release you sent me in the mail? It will be some time before I can get all this info in the style of a complaint. As I mentioned earlier this is documentation for over 7 years. Any referrals to where I might get some assistance in drafting a complaint? I assume you do want it in that format, as I do not imagine you want to mess with anything other than passing it on to the proper authorities. Can you use the evidence I have already put online? if so I will go ahead and send you back the authorization to release.
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Kaufmann, John (Grassley) <John_Kaufmann@grassley.senate.gov> wrote:
I don’t have the documents. After a period of time, (I think it is 2 years but don’t hold me to it) the files leave this office and are sent to the records center. This is a secure place, just for your information. Getting them back is extremely difficult so if you could send me what you think is important, that would be great.
Constituent Services Specialist
U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley
201 W. 2nd Street, Suite 720
Davenport, IA 52801
sure no problem, just making sure. Can I use email or you use the online documents for your submission?
I just don’t have printer ink and such
My local government officials used glyphosate unlawfully applied to my private property ongoing for over 5 years routinely. Their purpose was to eliminate me from my private property so one of their own could acquire my private property. This special protected citizen needed my private property or a court would have ordered him to remove the noncompliant structures from his new illegal property redevelopment. He purchased the non conforming lot from the mayor. The building administer issued fraudulent building permits for the illegal structures. After five years the affects the chemicals had on my skin were chronic severe skin condition. It was unbearable to wear clothes, I was blind and homeless for the following four years. My property was my largest investment as most other citizens. I traveled to Washington DC to change the laws allowing me to get out of poverty to acquire ownership of my property. This property not only contained my home but my business and my pursuit of happiness. I was denied any protection of the law. I made a complaint about the nuisance drainage issue caused by the illegal redevelopment and the building administrator refused his duty to address my concerns, he continued to issue fraudulent permits to this special resident. The structures were the size that would legally fit on an acre of ground. He tried to squeeze them onto a 70′ W X 300’L nonconforming lot. A civil court order citing my right to used my property as I wished I thought would stop the illegal exposure to glyphosate. It did nothing by make this neighbor and the government officials more aggressive in eliminating me from my private property. Senator Grassley requested two inquires into my case. The FBI would contact me he advised. After five years I contacted Grassley again and he put in another request, five more years pass and I am advised by Grassley to be patient. The FBI never contacted me as they are required to do. I reached out after ten years of severe suffering, my life forever changed from my plan for my own destiny, to the local FBI. This agent was so incompetent that it took 14 months for him to come to my now rental home. His purpose was specifically to review the hard copy evidence that proves without a doubt Federal law has been violated. He arrived advising me that he had no intention of reviewing my evidence. I could just tell him the story and he would take notes. He gave me 2 1/2 hours of his time to tell a story that was ongoing for well over ten years in violation of Federal law. He had three notes written on his pad when he left. Two hours after he left my home I receive in the mail a letter from Assistant Deputy Director JC Hacker a letter stating that the agent had determined no violation of Federal law had occurred. It is not possible for this incompetent agent to accomplish an investigation and have a decision in the mail from Washington DC two hours after he left my home. He never investigated financial records to discover a bribe had been taken. He never interviewed any witnesses on my behalf. He never followed standard procedure to assure my allegations were valid. This in itself is an act to deprive me of my rights under color of law. This is not acceptable by any government standard. My allegations are completely supported by the hard copy evidence. For anyone to claim that the statute of limitations has expired is ludacris. Any negligence has been intentional of the part of government officials who have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution and have the duty to hold corrupt government accountable for their violations of Federal law. I am one mad single middle aged female. Discrimination against housing has been committed by all levels of government and I am demanding that a full independent investigation be done. The evidence used was not based on facts. It was based on hearsay. I want compensated for the damages that have intentionally been done to me. This is not a joke. My father did not spend his military service in the South Pacific on a ship taking on bombs and kamikaze pilots for me or anyone else to be denied their freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. Drain the Swamp. Here are the facts https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/18mtF3_4WB2u3mEe1OoSb2QpwlgvI25ulAS5BheCPq4Q/edit?usp=sharing
My local government officials used glyphosate unlawfully applied to my private property ongoing for over 5 years routinely. Their purpose was to eliminate me from my private property so one of their own could acquire my private property. This special protected citizen needed my private property or a court would have ordered him to remove the noncompliant structures from his new illegal property redevelopment. He purchased the non conforming lot from the mayor. The building administer issued fraudulent building permits for the illegal structures. After five years the affects the chemicals had on my skin were chronic severe skin condition. It was unbearable to wear clothes, I was blind and homeless for the following four years. My property was my largest investment as most other citizens. I traveled to Washington DC to change the laws allowing me to get out of poverty to acquire ownership of my property. This property not only contained my home but my business and my pursuit of happiness. I was denied any protection of the law. I made a complaint about the nuisance drainage issue caused by the illegal redevelopment and the building administrator refused his duty to address my concerns, he continued to issue fraudulent permits to this special resident. The structures were the size that would legally fit on an acre of ground. He tried to squeeze them onto a 70′ W X 300’L nonconforming lot. A civil court order citing my right to used my property as I wished I thought would stop the illegal exposure to glyphosate. It did nothing by make this neighbor and the government officials more aggressive in eliminating me from my private property. Senator Grassley requested two inquires into my case. The FBI would contact me he advised. After five years I contacted Grassley again and he put in another request, five more years pass and I am advised by Grassley to be patient. The FBI never contacted as they are required to do. I reached out after ten years of severe suffering, my life forever change from my plan for my own destiny to the local FBI. This agent was so incompetent that it took 14 months for him to come to my now rental home. His purpose was specifically to review the hard copy evidence that proves without a doubt Federal law has been violated. He arrived advising me that he had no intention of reviewing my evidence. I could just tell him the story and he would take notes. He gave me 2 1/2 hours of his time to tell a story that was ongoing for well over ten years in violation of Federal law. He had three notes written on his pad when he left. Two hours after he left my home I receive in the mail a letter from Assistant Deputy Director JC Hacker a letter stating that the agent had determined no violation of Federal law had occurred. It is not possible for this incompetent agent to accomplish an investigation and have a decision in the mail from Washington DC two hours after he left my home. He never investigated financial records to discover a bribe had been taken. He never interviewed any witnesses on my behalf. He never followed standard procedure to assure my allegations were valid. This in itself is an act to deprive me of my rights under color of law. This is not acceptable by any government standard. My allegations are completely supported by the hard copy evidence. For anyone to claim that the statute of limitations has expired is ludacris. Any negligence has been intentional of the part of government officials who have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution and have the duty to hold corrupt government accountable for their violations of Federal law. I am one mad single middle aged female. Discrimination against housing has been committed by all levels of government and I am demanding that a full independent investigation be done. The evidence used to determine was not based on facts. It was based on hearsay. I want compensated for the damages that have intentionally been done to me. This is not a joke. My father did not spend his military service in the South Pacific on a ship taking on bombs and kamikaze pilots for me or anyone else to be denied their freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. Drain the Swamp. https://poisonedbymyneighborfromhell.com
My responses claim the statute of limitations has expired. I am requesting you go back through our previous correspondences and review what you have advised me of this entire time. You advised me to be patient that the FBI would contact me. I waited patiently as you advised for 5 years. I contacted you again and you graciously submitted another request for an inquiry, advising me throughout the next 5 years to be patient, you said “it takes time”. The FBI never contacted me now for ten years. The FBI was negligent. The FBI had the responsibility to contact me. When finally I contacted the local FBI myself, he him hawed around taking 14 months to come to my home specifically to review the hard copy evidence. Upon arrival he advised me that he was not going to review any documented evidence. He instead determined no federal law has been violated based on hearsay from the sheriff to a third party. I have evidence to prove the sheriff knowingly made false statements about what took place. I have evidence that proves the sheriff has a conflict of interest with the opposing party. That is why I asked for an independent investigation. I am not responsible for the statute of limitations expiring, in fact the statute has not expired considering the government’s negligence and fraudulent actions against me in the taking of my property without just compensation. I see no where the violation of the Federal bill of rights has an expiration date, in fact the 5th amendment states that private property is never to be taken without just compensation. Senator Grassley needs to demand an investigation into the negligence of the FBI in this case, I have never slacked off what I know to be the Federal government’s duty to prosecute corrupt public officials. Has a bribe been paid, no doubt. SA Thomas Reinwart refused to look into the financial record, interview witnesses or provide any type of competent investigation. Hearsay is not evidence, point blank. They say the lowest scoring agents of a graduating class are place in the areas of the lowest criminal events. I can only speculate that SA Reinwart was of the lowest scoring graduates. He knew when he arrived at my home the decision he was going to make based on hearsay as the sheriff had already given his false information to the third party.
Two hours after SA Reinwart left my home I received a letter in the mail from Wash DC headquarters that Reinwart had determined no violation of Federal law had occurred. It is not possible for him to come to my home, submit a report to Washington and had the determination sent back to my from Washington DC two hours after he left my home. This is a blatant violation of the public’s trust and only encourages local government that they can get away with crimes against humanity or any other violation guarantees of individual rights. It is not acceptable.
Senator Grassley would not approve of this type of behaviour from a Federal agent. My Constitutional Rights are just a relevant as those who violated those rights by the forceful taking of my private property using chemicals as a weapon. Please step up and demand the law to actively competently investigate the evidence and defend my individual rights as if they were your own. This is not an option, Constitutional rights are mandatory to be upheld. The criminal offenses committed against me ar serious. From the issuing of the fraudulent building permits to the use of glyphosate that resulted in life long health effects I will suffer. Senator Grassley and Congressman Dave Loebsack please represent you constituents.
A Powerful Tool to Address Discrimination and Advance Environmental Justice
“Title VI’s breadth of coverage is extensive and it can address a huge array of injustices: from environmental racism…to disparities in basic health care and basic services to inequities in transportation, housing, and education.”
August 19, 2010 Memorandum from the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights to the Federal Funding Agency Civil Rights Directors.
Environmental justice and Title VI are both rooted in the same basic principle that no person should bear an unfair share of harm on account of their race, color or national origin. At its core, Title VI requires recipients of federal funding to ensure that their programs operate in a nondiscriminatory manner. Indeed, the central tenet of environmental justice – that programs benefiting a community as a whole not disproportionately allocate their adverse environmental and health burdens – flows directly from this underlying principle of Title VI.
Where federally funded programs – like transportation agencies, state agencies responsible for environmental permitting, hospitals and health clinics, and countless others – affect human health or the environment, Title VI enforcement may resolve problems that other laws cannot.
Discriminatory Effects under Title VI. Most federal agencies have regulations implementing Title VI, which prohibit funding recipients from “utilizing criteria or methods of administration which have the effect of subjecting individuals to discrimination because of their race, color, or national origin….” See, e.g., 28 C.F.R. 42.104(b)(2) (DOJ regulations). This prohibition on unjustified discriminatory effects was first established nearly 50 years ago, just after passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964. Individuals must turn to the administrative complaint process to secure the protections afforded by these regulations. Federal funding agencies play a vital enforcement role because individuals must turn to the administrative complaint process to secure the protections offered by these regulations. The Attorney General has directed federal agencies to fully utilize these provisions and the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights has emphasized the need for their vigorous enforcement. Federal agencies must recognize their crucial role in addressing discriminatory effects and work to further environmental justice though Title VI enforcement.
Intersection of Title VI and Environmental Justice. Many types of Title VI cases involve environmental justice issues and could be resolved through the administrative complaint process. Some factors to consider in determining whether specific situations raise environmental justice concerns include whether individuals, certain neighborhoods, or tribes:
- Suffer disproportionately adverse health or environmental effects from pollution or other environmental hazards;
- Suffer disproportionate risks or exposure to environmental hazards, or suffer disproportionately from the effects of past under-enforcement of state or federal health or environmental laws;
- Have been denied an equal opportunity for meaningful involvement, as provided by law, in governmental decision making relating to the distribution of environmental benefits or burdens. (Example: permit processing and compliance activities)
Where a federally funded program may be responsible for these harms, a Title VI investigation may help determine whether the harms have a discriminatory effect on persons identifiable by race, color, or national origin.
Federal Coordination of Title VI and Environmental Justice
The Department of Justice is charged by Executive Order 12250 with ensuring the government-wide consistent and effective enforcement of Title VI, which includes nondiscrimination in programs and activities that affect the environment and human health:
- The Title VI Committee of the Federal Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice (EJ IWG), which is chaired by DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, acts as a resource to help agencies connect their civil rights enforcement responsibilities with their efforts to achieve environmental justice. In 2014, the EJ IWG launched its Title VI webpage with the goal of ensuring consistent enforcement of Title VI across the federal family and encouraging the use of this critical enforcement tool to address environmental justice issues. go.usa.gov/3BYf5
- The Civil Rights Division’s Federal Coordination and Compliance Section runs a robust program of technical assistance and legal counsel to civil rights offices across the government. A significant part of the Division’s environmental justice work is providing targeted technical assistance to federal agencies that receive complaints alleging Title VI violations in programs that effect the environment and human health. The Division helps many agencies in addressing matters involving intentional discrimination as well as discriminatory effects in matters involving environmental permitting and enforcement, transit equity, municipal services, emergency management, access to federal benefits, and more. Read more about our Title VI Coordination Initiative here: go.usa.gov/3BYfV).
- The newly launched Title VI training program for federal civil rights staff includes a segment on environmental justice. This training component emphasizes the ability of agencies that fund activities that affect human health and the environment to use their Title VI compliance efforts to achieve the environmental justice goals of Executive Order 12898.
- The revised Title VI manual will be issued in 2015. The update will provide detailed guidance to agencies analyzing, among other issues, discriminatory treatment and discriminatory effects under Title VI. Over time, the manual will address the application of Title VI in a range of areas, including environmental justice, transportation equity, and school discipline.
- DOJ’s public outreach on environmental justice issues has included moderating a panel on federal Title VI enforcement during the annual Environmental Justice Conference and Training Program held in Washington, D.C. as well as holding listening sessions to learn about various civil rights issues of concern from stakeholders.
Highlights of Agency Efforts to Advance Environmental Justice through Title VI Enforcement
Approximately 30 federal agencies investigate Title VI administrative complaints alleging discrimination in federally funded programs affecting human health or the environment. Additionally, many of those agencies publish annual environmental justice progress reports. Below we highlight several agencies’ Title VI enforcement activities involving environmental justice issues.
Department of Transportation. DOT has a well-established set of environmental justice (EJ) and Title VI policies, including the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) two companion circulars that help recipients understand and comply with environmental justice principles through both Title VI compliance and the environmental justice executive order. Notably, the Title VI circular requires, among other things, that certain recipients conduct an equity analysis of the impact on minorities of certain actions and decisions. Both circulars and related materials are available here.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) also directs recipients to address environmental justice issues in their federally funded activities. It is currently developing a number of resources, including the EJ Reference Guide, which is intended to be a resource for staff to ensure compliance with EJ requirements, and the EJ Booklet highlighting recent policy changes and initiatives. The Guide will aid staff and stakeholders in identifying and addressing disproportionately high and adverse effects of agency programs, policies and activities on minority populations and low-income populations. The Reference Guide clarifies existing requirements and is available to the public on the FHWA EJ website, and can be accessed under “Recent Updates” or “References.” The FHWA has also formed an EJ Workgroup, which includes other DOT modes, and collaborates with the National Highway Institute. The workgroup is developing an EJ Analysis Course as part of the EJ Reference Guide. In order to register for the webinar, participants external to US DOT will first need to request an account here, then register here. FHWA’s civil rights office has conducted a national Title VI Program webinar that includes a component on EJ requirements for state transportation agencies and monitoring responsibilities of FHWA Division offices.
DOT components also address environmental justice issues through investigation and resolution of Title VI complaints. For example, in one case, FTA found two cities in south Florida non-compliant with Title VI requirements when the cities failed to assess the potential adverse disparate impacts stemming from relocation of a trolley maintenance facility to a historically Black neighborhood. As a direct result of FTA’s involvement in the matter, city officials agreed to keep the facility near its current location. Read more here. Similarly, in another Title VI investigation, FHWA found that an Ohio city’s denial of expanded bus service to a large medical center, as well as other essential services, caused disproportionate harm to African Americans. The case ultimately resulted in the construction of three new bus stops. Read more here.
Environmental Protection Agency. In accordance with Title VI, EPA’s office of Civil Rights (OCR) maintains a program to ensure that recipients of Federal financial assistance from EPA do not operate their programs or activities in a way that discriminates on the basis of race, color, or national origin, including on the basis of limited-English proficiency. Consistent with EPA’s ongoing efforts to strengthen its external civil rights compliance program, earlier this week OCR released a report that outlines its progress on specific deliverables related to Title VI compliance efforts, as a supplement to Plan EJ 2014. Read the full report for more information about EPA’s accomplishments regarding specific Title VI deliverables over the past four fiscal years, including: OCR’s renewed commitment to (1) strategic management of its Title VI complaint docket; (2) successful resolution of complaints; and (3) settlement of significant Title VI matters.
In addition, this week OCR released a policy paper entitled “Issue Paper on the Role of Complainants and Recipients in the Civil Rights Complaints and Resolution Process.” The purpose of this paper is to promote greater participation by complainants and recipients in the civil rights complaint and resolution process, including Title VI complaints, by clarifying existing practices and identifying opportunities for greater participation within that framework.
Several agencies’ civil rights offices, such as the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Homeland Security, have committed to review environmental justice issues and allegations that arise in programs and activities they fund. To learn more about other federal agencies’ environmental justice and Title VI efforts, visit the home page of the Federal Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice here and its Title VI page here.
I have asked this question before and have gotten few responses. I can only take the silence of opinions as a “yes” private property rights are Federally protected. I have been advised to get a private attorney. I want to ask why would I need a private attorney when a violation of Federal law is to be investigated and prosecuted by the Federal authorities.
One other question I previously asked was, “does an AUSA have the authority to violate a civil court order with no type of court proceeding”? Again I have to assume that the silence of opinions would concur “no”. An AUSA does not have the right to use attorney discretion to violate a civil court order.
So I understand that the Federal authorities have knowingly made false statements to me. An investigation cannot be concluded using hearsay evidence, and private property cannot be taken without just compensation, as that is a violation of Federal law.
SA Calvin Shivers signed the letter stating that a prior investigation had determined no violation of Federal law has occurred, Shivers has not contacted me, he has avoided me. Why wouldn’t a Federal officer want the facts about any case before he would sign a letter based on hearsay. Have some dignity to you position officers. You are employeed to represent the citizens, not the blue wall of silence. Seems like a bunch of cowards if confronted individually. I have some facts that need to be reviewed and until I am confident the facts have been reviewed I will continue to defend my right to be protected from harm. There are many violations of Federal law that have occurred at the hands of my local government officials. The fact that hearsay was taken as evidence and that hearsay was given no less than from a law enforcement imposter is more reason to question the honesty of this law enforcement officer, I have already submitted clear evidence that this cop has a conflict of interest with the party that used chemical weapons to force me from my property. They have taken everything I owned. My home, business, property and health. They have taken any quality of life I had planned for my golden years. There is no doubt that Federal laws have been violated. I do not expect anyone to offer an opinion as to why the Feds would not be the proper agency to prosecute, ssshhh don’t expose public corruption, it only a pr tactic on their website. This government would not exist and thrive without a supporting group of thieves protecting self serving colleagues. https://poisonedbymyneighborfromhell.com
Well I can testify that the chronic skin condition resulting from intentional exposure to glyphosate for an extended period of time is once again seriously severe. I have never been prescribed a higher dose of methotrexate and had the condition to become increasingly severe. I am at the point now that it is unbearable to wear shoes. This pain and severe itching is 24/7. To know that an FBI agent claims to have done and investigation and has found no violation of Federal law based of hearsay stated by the County sheriff to a third party is about to piss me off more than I have ever been pissed on. SA Thomas Reinwart has proven to be incompetent and not qualified to investigate my case. He does not have the knowledge that every reasonable American takes for granted. He does not know that private property rights are Federally protected. His ignorance has proven he had no business being involved in my case that encompassed in violations of Federal laws. His ignorance and incompetence is going to have significant effects to the outcome of this case. Who to whom it may concern that has a connection be it by a third party or via any damn way, needs to extend this message to a high authority. FBI Agent Calvin Shivers signed the most recent letter stating that they have determined no violation of Federal law has occurred, he has completely avoided any contact with me. Tell him he is participating in a crime that is causing serious physical injury to an American citizen. He is knowingly refusing to protect me from harm based on fabricated information. He being the most recent signator of a letter that further violates my individual rights. Has made the choice to protect the blue wall of silence. Do not send any law enforcement to my home, inquiring as to whether I have threatened anyone. Send them to those who have repeatedly attempted to murder me using chemical weapons. It’s in everyone’s best interest. Get these maniacs that have proven to be a danger to society off the streets before they do kill an innocent human being!
I am attaching my most recent correspondence with I had with you. I received the letter from FBI JC Hacker yesterday. I searched for this individual and there is no person named JC Hacker listed as an FBI assistant director or anywhere else for that matter. Please explain, as there seems to be a conflict between the two letters.
Regarding the evidence I have sent you clearly shows that the continuing unlawful application of toxic chemicals to my property violates my Federal right to enjoy my property. The fact that the unlawful application of toxic chemicals to my property constitutes a criminal offense of trespassing. Denying my right to file a criminal complaint against this trespasser by the City of Montrose police dept, and the Lee County Attorney clearly violates my Federal right to equal protection of the law. The evidence I have sent you supports two or more people working together to violate my Federal rights to privacy and equal protection supports a conspiracy.
My request for a behavioral analysis is reasonable, who in sound mind continues a criminal act (trespassing in this case) knowing the person that owns the property the chemicals are being applied to believes the chemicals are causing severe health problems? Whose duty is it to protect those rights? Local law enforcement has the duty to protect the rights of the citizens from criminal acts perpetrated against them. In this case intentional acts perpetrated against me.
Who has the duty to assure compliance to State of Iowa building and drainage code? The appointed building administrator. In this case multiple counts of fraud have been committed not only the fraudulent building permits but also the document fraud and fabricated city ordinance perpetrated by the city clerk. Fraud also falling into the criminal offense category. The FBI holds public corruption as of highest priority, including conflict of interest. In this case a conflict of interest is relevant between every actor participating in the personal attack against me and my property.
Apparently you do not agree with my allegations, please explain what it is that I am not understanding as a violation of Federal law.
Reply to me
Reinwart, Thomas J. (OM) (FBI) Thomas.Reinwart@ic.fbi.gov
There is not a conflict. Thus far, there does not appear to be any Federal criminal law violations which have occurred. Although there may be some local or state criminal and or civil law(s) which may have violated, we do not investigate those activities. As previously stated in my email with you,
“You have previously written on numerous occasions explaining you have an abundance of evidence to support your claims of the criminal violations you have researched. Please bring that information to explain and substantiate your allegations.”
Again, we will not provide any type of profiler or behavioral analysis for you. This is not going to continue to be debated via email. I am giving you the opportunity to provide any material you feel has not been provided/explained by you to us in the past to substantiate your allegations.
Date: 5/17/17 2:49 PM (GMT-06:00)
I have repeatedly attempted to get an agent to physically review the evidence I have gathered during and extended period of time in which my civil rights were violated by my local government officials. To date no agent has reached out to me in an attempt to review my evidence.
My contact with a Federal agent was on behalf of phone calls I made to my local division. One other agent who was not over the division covering my area did speak with me. This agent was referred to me by a local official who clearly has a conflict of interest with those who violated my civil rights. I am sure that his intent was to divert any serious investigation. I received two letters from Assistant Deputy Director J. C. Hacker stating the the Cedar Rapids, Iowa division found no violation of Federal law. I would like the opportunity to speak with Agent Hacker to inform him that there has never been a review of my evidence and would like an explanation as to how a decision could be made with no review of my evidence. My evidence is undeniable that Federal law has been violated. I have requested Agent Reinwart forward my emails to J. C. Hacker, however he does not seem interested in doing so. I am again requesting this email to be forwarded to Agent J.C. Hacker, recognizing the possibility that my allegation are correct and a conflict of interest caused the evidence initially given to the Agent from the Quad Cities to be tainted should be taken into consideration. I again want to stress this case is unprecedented and seemingly unbelievable, a review of the evidence will prove my allegation are justified.
I am writing this letter on behalf of the following excerpt from a FBI review which was presented to Senator Grassley.
Recognizing the FBI works closely with the local authorities with no review of my evidence justice cannot be served, the crimes committed against me were perpetrated by my local government officials. The FBI clearly has only heard one side of this case, apparently falsified, I have no clue what the agent from the Quad Cities was told. I do know what the evidence I have proves without a doubt.
Author’s note: I have repeatedly been advised by Grassley staff to be patient, the FBI would contact me. That never happened. Negligence on the part of the FBI is unacceptable. Ten years I was patient. Ten years is an unreasonable amount of time to be patient when a citizen has been assaulted with chemicals and forced from their private property by local government officials.
Eventually I did contact SA Thomas Reinwart. Not impressed with his enthusiasm. Not impressed with his investigative skills. Hearsay is what he used as evidence. He advised me that he came to my home for the purpose of reviewing the hard copy indisputable evidence. He never interviewed any of my witnesses, he never looked into financial records for bribes, he never interviewed my Drs. His opinion was based on what I verbally told him and what Sheriff Weber verbally told a third party. Had he reviewed the evidence he would have discovered whatever the Sheriff stated was false. How many cops tell the truth, 0. They are trained to lie. This sheriff was trained by a mentor that has repeatedly made false statements about me. I have requested evidence to support what he has said, but there is none.
This is not the case in Montrose, Lee County, Iowa when the corruption is committed against a single middle-aged female.
Does Iowa Attorney General have a Public Integrity Unit. No authority will respond to any of my questions.
Any officials who turns a blind eye is guilty of committing the crime themselves.
“Public safety officials who accept bribes and ignore their duties undermine safety for everyone,” said Schuette. “Detroit needs more safety, not less, and that starts with public officials doing their job instead of lining their pockets.”
The case originated from an investigation by the FBI-Led Detroit Area Public Corruption Task Force in collaboration with the Michigan Attorney General’s Public Integrity Unit.
“When public officials abuse their positions of trust for personal gain, they will be held accountable for their criminal acts,” said Paul M. Abbate, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI Detroit Field Office. “The FBI and its law enforcement partners on the Detroit Area Public Corruption Task Force are fully committed to ensuring our citizens are served by the honest government they deserve.”
“Public corruption at any level will not be tolerated. Public employees who are in charge of the community’s welfare must be held to a higher standard and when those employees jeopardize the safety of Detroiters for their own personal gain then they must suffer the consequences. The bribery convictions of the city of Detroit Inspectors should be an example that crime in the city of Detroit does not pay,” said James E. Craig, Detroit Chief of Police.
Criminal cases remain pending against five current and former Detroit Building Safety Engineering and Environmental Department inspectors Schuette charged in August 2013 for allegedly accepting bribes in exchange for ignoring their duty to enforce city building, zoning, electrical, and plumbing codes. Schuette filed felony bribery charges against current and former inspectors Eric Miller, 50, of Detroit, John Jones, 54, of Detroit, Bob Watson, 52, of Dearborn, and Kenneth Russ, 53, of Detroit, and Moreno Taylor, 53, of Livonia.
crime (krim) n. ca.1920. An unethical or immoral act against one’s fellow man.
Author’s note: There has never been a review of the evidence. Clearly the Mayor had a financial gain, there has never been an investigation into the financial records of the conspirators who clearly violated my Constitutional Rights on this maniac’s behalf. I have hard copy evidence that will prove every perp in this case has no credibility. They have all lied and knowingly made false statements, fraudulent ordinances and fabricated laws to bring frivolous criminal charges against me.
To anyone who has contact or the ability to get FBI Deputy Assistant Director Calvin Shivers a message from me to him.
Officer Calvin Shivers,
I received a letter signed by you yesterday in the mail. It was a response from an inquiry on my behalf from Congressman Dave Loebsack. This content of the letter you sent dated 3-2-2019 is irrelevant. I stressed to the Congressman that I was requesting an independent investigation, or from an unbiased Federal authority. The information you are referring to is based on hearsay evidence. That hearsay evidence was tainted from the facts regarding my complaint by Lee County Sheriff Weber. I have hard copy evidence that supports this is a fact.
Any information given to you has no evidence that supports it to be factual, if it does I have indisputable evidence to prove what you have been given is fabricated.
I have utilized several resources to attempt to reach you. I am confident that at least one of those attempts have been successful in reaching you. I am publically requesting that you contact me personally. The evidence I have supports in the least obvious incompetent investigation into my complaint. Unless hearsay is now an acceptable source of evidence, it is not submissible in a court of law. Every reasonable citizen has that knowledge. The agent investigating my case clearly does not have that knowledge. The agent investigating my case did not have the knowledge that private property rights are Federally protected rights. The agent investigating my case wasted taxpayer money for travel expenses to come to my home specifically to review the hard copy evidence I have in my possession. Upon arrival 14 months after I first contacted him, he advised me that he had no intention of reviewing the hard copy evidence that I had laid out in a manner that it could easily be reviewed. The only logical reason he would refuse to review valid evidence in my opinion is that he knew my evidence supported my allegations. By refusing to review that evidence he could stand proud behind the blue wall of silence and protect those who actions have intentionally caused me serious physical and financial damages. They have committed serious criminal offenses against me. In violation of a civil court order these corrupt officials are not going to resist being held accountable for their crimes. SA Thomas Reinwart had clearly made up his mind to support the corrupt local officials before he ever entered my home.
There is no way that I am going to drop my complaint at least until I know for a fact that a competent investigator has reviewed the hard copy documented evidence that is indisputable. I expect my rights to be recognized as every other citizen takes their rights for granted. I certainly do not expect this degree of local corruption to be hidden and supported by any Federal authority.
The FBI makes it quite difficult for any one on one conversations with a competent official. I have repeatedly tried to file a formal complaint against this particular agent and have yet to discover what the process for filing a complaint is.
Officer Shivers, I am requesting that you telephone me, email me and would prefer a meeting between the two of us. As I tried to explain to the SA this case is to complex to verbally tell the facts to anyone. That’s the option he allowed me to have. He asked that I verbally tell him what Federal violations of the law occurred in a physical attack committed against me for over 5 years. He gave me 2 1/2 hours to tell him a story that took me six years to put in chronological order filling for large 3 ring binders. The entire time I was attempting to explain what had occurred he was steady checking his watch, apparently he was to tight on a time schedule to hear anything I was trying to explain to him. When he left I believe he had three notes written on his notepad.
Now I will travel to your location if need be. I have more information to submit to you however doing so in a public setting could put my life in danger, and I don’t think anyone wants anything bad to happen to me, do you? I have given you my email and phone number though the linkedin message. I do not care when you contact me, day or night. It takes a special kind of officer to cross the blue line of silence, but somebody with honor and integrity will do it and be honored for upholding his or her oath.
Request to the general public to pass this message on to Deputy Assistant Director Calvin Shivers asking him to contact me asap. URGENT!
In regards to you email stating that my evidence is assumptive. What in this linked file do you find assumptive? You must be assuming the information given to you by SA Reinwart is evidence. He refused to review the hard copy evidence, The purpose for him to come to my home on tax payers money was to review the hard copy evidence I have in my posession. There is no other person who has this hard copy evidence.
When he arrived he advised that he did not intend to review any evidence, he asked that I just tell him the story and he would take notes. After 2 1/2 hours of him, steady checking his watch and me, trying to verbally explain a story that has nothing similar with compliance to any State or Federal laws regarding private property rights. I believe he had a total of three notes written on his notepad. The point is that you have been given assumptive information in spite of the indisputable evidence I had prepared for SA Reinwart to review. Have you ever prosecuted a case of public corruption?
I recently read that the FBI places high scoring academy graduates in areas that have the highest rates of crime, the lowest scoring graduates in the lowest crime areas around the Nation. I am curious if that is the process the DOJ uses in placing AUSA’s? Reinwart repeatedly stated that no Federal law has been violated. I advised him that private property rights are Federally protected rights. He had no change of expression. Perhaps he really does not know that private property rights are Federally protected rights. I can tell you that had he have reviewed the evidence, he or you would have determined that the following violations of Federal law have also occurred and hard copy evidence supports these allegations. The citizens know all too well about the blue wall of silence. In this case the perpetrators are not your “run of the mill” self serving government officials. These perps could have cared less whether it would cost me my life to achieved their goal of acquiring my private property. There is a “special kind of corruption” in the character of these government officials.
You stated that you have the authority to violate a civil court order, with no type of process. You need to submit evidence supporting that is a fact to me, I do not believe you are telling the truth. I believe you are abusing your authority with intent to violate my Federally protected civil rights. If you have no documented evidence supporting your statement then I would have to presume you are conspiring with SA Reinwart to deprive me of my Constitutional Rights under color of law. I do not take anyone’s word to be evidence of any fact. Not Reinwarts, not yours and certainly not Sheriff Weber’s. I know for a fact that his hands are dirty in this case. He in fact has received stolen property that belongs to me. I have no way to prove that but I do have correspondence with him in which he does implicate himself in criminal violations of the law. You suggested that since I had no information on my web page from recent dates the statute of limitations has expired. AUSA VanderSchel, I know that this group of government officials has been willing to sacrifice my life for the purpose of Mark Conlee acquiring my property. Do you really think it would be in my best interest to post evidence of the Sheriff violating State and Federal laws in acts committed against me on a public web site? Would you mind sharing with me what level of your graduating class you rated. It would be my opinion that you would have been one of the lower level graduating students. You are not considering what is in my, a citizens, best interest are you AUSA VanderSchel. I am requesting evidence from you that supports your claim that you have the legal authority to violate a civil court order. I do not believe you can use attorney discretion to violate an order made by any judge as you assured me you intended to do.
In speaking with Reinwart about public corruption, he advised that a bribe is taken in a case of public corruption. I argue that the law does not specify that has to be a factor. I also question how can Reinwart assume a bribe has not been taken in this case since he has not reviewed any financial records. There most likely has been favors at least given and taken in this case. There is no question that Mayor Dinwiddie did receive a financial gain being the seller of the property to Conlee. So right there is without a doubt a conflict of interest. That is a fact. That fact supports a public corruption complaint.
Reinwart told me three different versions of how he submitted my complaint to you. Three different versions causes me question his credibility. I have advised you that the information he has given you is based on hearsay. You should be questioning his credibility at this point, don’t you think?
Here are more but not limited to violations of Federal law that has been committed by these corrupt public officials.
Public corruption and civil rights
In general terms, corruption cases arise when a local, state, or federal public official receives things of value in exchange for performing, or failing to perform, official acts contemplated by the authority of their position. The public grants authority to officials and, in return, is entitled to receive honest services from all who serve in the government. The prosecutors and professional staff in PCCRS prosecute officials – such as politicians, law enforcement officers, government executives, and correctional officers — who violate the public trust for the sake of self-enrichment.
PCCRS also prosecutes individuals, whether they be private citizens or public officials, who criminally violate the constitutional rights of individuals. The use of excessive force by law enforcement under the color of law is an example of how public officials can violate an individual’s civil rights. Private individuals who commit violent crimes motivated by bias – commonly known as hate crimes — also violate federal civil rights laws. Hate crime laws recognize and defend the rights of all individuals, regardless of their race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.
18 U.S.C. § 229 – U.S. Code – Unannotated Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 229. Prohibited activities
Unlawful conduct. (a) –Except as provided in subsection (b), it shall be unlawful for any person knowingly–
(1) to develop, produce, otherwise acquire, transfer directly or indirectly, receive, stockpile, retain, own, possess, or use, or threaten to use, any chemical weapon; or (2) to assist or induce, in any way, any person to violate paragraph (1), or to attempt or conspire to violate paragraph (1).
Exempted agencies and persons. (b) —
In general. (1) –Subsection (a) does not apply to the retention, ownership, possession, transfer, or receipt of a chemical weapon by a department, agency, or other entity of the United States, or by a person described in paragraph (2), pending destruction of the weapon.
Exempted persons. (2) –A person referred to in paragraph (1) is–
(A) any person, including a member of the Armed Forces of the United States, who is authorized by law or by an appropriate officer of the United States to retain, own, possess, transfer, or receive the chemical weapon; or
(B) in an emergency situation, any otherwise non-culpable person if the person is attempting to destroy or seize the weapon.
Jurisdiction. (c) –Conduct prohibited by subsection (a) is within the jurisdiction of the United States if the prohibited conduct–
(1) takes place in the United States;
(2) takes place outside of the United States and is committed by a national of the United States;
(3) is committed against a national of the United States while the national is outside the United States; or
(4) is committed against any property that is owned, leased, or used by the United States or by any department or agency of the United States, whether the property is within or outside the United States.
This crime is punishable by any term of years in prison. If the crime results in death, the punishment is death or life imprisonment. Property owned or used by the person is subject to forfeiture. Any property derived from and proceeds obtained from the offense and property used to commit or facilitate the offense is also subject to forfeiture. The statute also imposes an additional fine of up to twice the gross profit or proceeds from the offense (18 U.S.C. 229, et seq.).
A chemical weapon is:
- a toxic chemical and its precursors (chemical reactants that take part in producing a toxic chemical) unless intended for a purpose that is not prohibited and the type and quantity is consistent with that purpose,
- a munition or device designed to cause death or harm through toxic chemicals that would be released by the device, or
- equipment designed for use directly in connection with using such a munition or device.
A toxic chemical is a chemical that can cause death, temporary incapacitation, or permanent harm to people or animals.
The law specifies that it does not apply to self-defense devices such as pepper spray or chemical mace. It also does not prevent uses related to (1) industrial, agricultural, research, medical, or pharmaceutical activity; (2) protection against chemical weapons; (3) unrelated military purposes; and (4) law enforcement purposes such as riot control and imposing the death penalty.
Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 – Conspiracy Against Rights This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).
It further makes it unlawful for two or more persons to go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another with the intent to prevent or hinder his/her free exercise or enjoyment of any rights so secured.
Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to ten years, or both; and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years, or for life, or may be sentenced to death.
Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 – Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.
This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.
Acts under “color of any law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under “color of any law,” the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.
Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
Title 42, U.S.C., Section 3631 – Criminal Interference with Right to Fair Housing
This statute makes it unlawful for any individual(s), by the use of force or threatened use of force, to injure, intimidate, or interfere with (or attempt to injure, intimidate, or interfere with), any person’s housing rights because of that person’s race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin. Among those housing rights enumerated in the statute are:
- The sale, purchase, or renting of a dwelling;
- the occupation of a dwelling;
- the financing of a dwelling;
contracting or negotiating for any of the rights enumerated above;
applying for or participating in any service, organization, or facility relating to the sale or rental of dwellings.
This statute also makes it unlawful by the use of force or threatened use of force, to injure, intimidate, or interfere with any person who is assisting an individual or class of persons in the exercise of their housing rights.
Punishment varies from a fine of up to $1,000 or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results, shall be fined up to $10,000 or imprisoned up to ten years, or both, and if death results, shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life.
“Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The reasonable enjoyment of one’s real estate is certainly a vested right, which cannot be interfered with or limited arbitrarily. The constitutional guaranty of protection for all private property extends equally to the enjoyment and the possession of lands. An arbitrary interference by the government, or by its authority, with the reasonable enjoyment of private lands is a taking of private  property without due process of law, which is inhibited by the constitutions. But it is not every use which comes within this constitutional protection. One has a vested right to only a reasonable use of one’s lands. It is not difficult to find the rule which determines the limitations upon the lawful ways or manner of using lands. It is the rule, which furnishes the solution of every problem in the law of police power, and which is comprehended in the legal maxim, sic utere tuo, ut alienum non lædas. One can lawfully make use of his property only in such a manner as that he will not injure another. Any use of one’s lands to the hurt or annoyance of another is a nuisance, and may be prohibited. At common law that is a nuisance, which causes personal discomfort or injury to health to an unusual degree. As it has been expressed in a preceding section,1 the right of personal security against acts, which will cause injury to health or great bodily discomfort, cannot be made absolute in organized society. It must yield to the reasonable demands of trade, commerce and other great interests of society. While the State cannot arbitrarily violate the right of personal security to health by the unlimited authorization of acts which do harm to health, or render one’s residence less comfortable, there is involved in this matter the consideration of what constitutes a reasonable use of one’s property. At common law this is strictly a judicial question of fact, the answer to which varies according to the circumstances of each case. One is expected to endure a reasonable amount of discomfort and annoyance for the public good, which is furthered by the permission of trades and manufactures, the prosecution of which necessarily involves a certain amount of annoyance or injury to the inhabitants of the neighborhood. In all such cases, it is a question of equity, on whom is it reasonable to impose the burden of the inevitable loss, resulting from this clashing  of interests; and independently of statute it is strictly a judicial question, and all the circumstances of the case must be taken into consideration.
For those of you that suggest the statute of limitations has expired in regards to my case.
– Protection of Rights to Life, Liberty, and Property
No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.
I see no reference to a statute of limitations in private property taken without just compensation. In fact it is NEVER to be taken without just compensation. Any untimeliness in my case is due to the negligence of the government officials who have been involved in my case. That is aside from the time in which I was blind and unable to defend myself. The entire amendment had been violated in my case. No justice, no accountability to date. I will not be the only victim in this case, I promise these rights do and will apply to me as they do to every other citizen. https://poisonedbymyneighborfromhell.com