Are private property right Federally protected rights?

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

Ignorance of the Law is no excuse. Intentional serious injury at the hands of my government officials. What is your intent?

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!

Dead End

This Agent does not recognize that using chemicals as a weapon unlawfully applied to my property is in violation of my Federally protected private property rights.

From: songboat [mailto:songboat@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2017 1:14 PM
To: Reinwart, Thomas J. (OM) (FBI) <Thomas.Reinwart@ic.fbi.gov>
Subject: Letter from J.C.Hacker

Thomas

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.

Regards,

Melody Boatner

 

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.

In Regards to Congressional inquiries into my case by Senator Charles Grassley

Date: 5/17/17 2:49 PM (GMT-06:00)

To: “Reinwart, Thomas J. (OM) (FBI)” <Thomas.Reinwart@ic.fbi.gov>, “Kaufmann, John (Grassley)” <John_Kaufmann@grassley.senate.gov>, National Crime Victim Law Institute <NCVLI@lclark.edu>, founders@equaljusticeunderlaw.org, investigative reporters and editors <mhorvit@ire.org>,and a few more.
Subject: In regards to two Congressional inquiries by Senator Grassley

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.

sincerely,

Melody Boatner  

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is a personal request for Calvin Shivers, FBI Deputy Assistant Director, criminal investigations division

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

AUSA VanderSchel,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public corruption and civil rights

Corruption

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

Civil Rights

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

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

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

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

Exempted agencies and persons. (b) 

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

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

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

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

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

(1) takes place in the United States;

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

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

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

Chemical Weapons

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

A chemical weapon is:

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

contracting or negotiating for any of the rights enumerated above;

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

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

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

 ARTICLE XIV.

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

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

respectfully,

Melody Boatner

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

Statute of Limitations

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

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

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

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

Does an AUSA have the authority to use attorney discretion to violate a civil court ruling made by a Judge?

Nobody has contacted me from the FBI yet. I called the Washington DC headquarters and every time they hang up on me. I don’t even get to voice my issue. Federal official requested two inquiries, advised me that the FBI would contact me. Ten years later they still hadn’t contacted me. I reached out to the local division, but not before the Local official had contact an agent buddy of his, Local official has a direct conflict of interest with the opposing party. Whatever the local official did tell his friend was false, I know that is a fact because he knows no facts about this case. I asked the agent that was pretending to be investigating my complaint to share the information the third party was told by local official. The agent refused. He advised me that based on the hearsay local official  had given the third party and what I had told him. He made his decision not to investigate. I have the hard copy evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt my allegations cannot be denied. My point is TEN years after Federal official requested an inquiry. I don’t have ten more years to wait for these criminal actors to have justice served on them. You understand the seriousness of the degree of the crimes committed against me don’t you? I am serious. The only thing a honest law enforcement officer has to do is to actually take the time to review my hard copy evidence. It’s not that much to ask. These locals had no regard for my life, had I not have fled I would have been murdered by the intentional poisoning. Give me that name and contact information for an agent not associated with this locals who have been biased do to false statements made by the local official. I am not going to be the only victim of this brutal chemical attack. I am telling you, the evidence clearly shows what I have been claiming for the past ten years. Being patient as advised by Federal official never did a thing for me. I do not know the process of requesting an inquiry, but I am sure you submit the Federal official’s request to someone who has a name. Is that right? I want that person’s name. If you do not submit the request for an inquiry you need to change up the standard procedure for this case with special circumstances and direct it to the highest authority. The EPA has law enforcement officers of their own. I want to talk to a specific person. For me to call the Washington DC division without an extension to a specific person makes me feel discriminated against. Federal official told me years ago that the Federal official had a contact in the FBI, now the assistant tells me Federal official can’t contact anyone in the FBI because its against the law. What has happened to me is against the Federal law, what the hell? He has been talking out both sides of him mouth representing Federal official. He will not allow me to speak with Federal official, so I really don’t know if Federal official knows anything about what I have been advised he has been doing on my behalf. One of the Local officials wrote a letter on my behalf to this incompetent FBI agent. The Local official told me that he could not believe that nobody has contacted him from the FBI. He stated that if I had a Federal official on my side more than nothing should have happened already. Let me make sure you understand exactly what happened to me with the FBI and AUSA.  Supporting the criminals in this case they have also conspired against my Civil, human and Constitutional Rights. No government official can legally turn a blind eye to corrupt acts committed by government officials. If they do they are not only co conspirators against my rights but also violating the rules of ethics for Government service. I have been a victim of physical abuse by a local resident since I could walk. I had escaped that abuser.  I acquired my home, business and property. Then, I am physically abused by my local government officials by the intentional use of chemicals as a weapon, no question that the chemicals were applied to my property with intent to cause me serious harm or death. The evidence could not be more solid in supporting that to be a fact. I need someone to enforce to law, to protect me from harm. Right now the only person with influence to do that is you.

I want to know if an AUSA has the authority to violate a civil court order without some type of court procedure. I have a hard time believing this AUSA. He told me that he could completely disregard a civil court order because he has attorney discretion. It is not reasonable that he can violate a court order made by any Judge. Can you find that information out for me. My question is “Does an AUSA have the authority to use attorney discretion to violate a civil court ruling made by a Judge”? The logical answer to that question is no, why would the citizens waste the time and their money to proceed with a civil court trial? Kevin VanderSchel of the Des Moines, Ia US Attorney’s for the Southern District of Iowa is a XXXXXX. He needs to be removed from his position immediately. How many others has he violated before me? I find very few cases in which he is the prosecutor. I find no cases of public corruption filed in the State of Iowa. That in itself is quite telling about the thin blue line. There are more corrupt officials in Lee County that I can write about, I don’t expect Lee County is  the only county with corrupt officials. They quite possibly could be the only county who have used chemical weapons to commit acts of terror against a citizen. I can find no record of chemical weapons used by government officials against a citizen in the USA. Can anyone cite me a precedent case with this issue? Do you share information with

Federal official? I really do not believe Federal official knew anything about my case. However his assistant was acting on his behalf so I don’t know what would be the result of a situation with such serious offenses as have been committed against me. I would at least like to speak with someone justifying the local officials case.  So I could prove whatever evidence they have is fraudulent. Everyone of the named individuals wholly participated in crimes against humanity, and violation of human rights. There is no justification for using chemical weapons EVER!

severe skin disorder caused by illegal application of toxic chemicals to my property by Mark Conlee

3-9-2010-skin-condition-progressing

null

According to AUSA my evidence is assumptive.

image

Note the P.S. in this letter, not negotiable because if I did not take the amount offered he had already taken control of my property. What the hell would I do with $17,000?  These documents could be no better proof that Conlee wanted my property. Understand that he sued me for loss of enjoyment of his property, then he offered me these two out of court settlements before the trial started. My property was not for sale. It was never to be taken by violating my rights to use it as I wished. These are Federal criminal offenses.

null

AUSA stated my evidence was assumptive, yet he is aware that SA Thomas Reinwart made his decision not to investigate my allegations based on what XXXXXXXXXX told a third party and what I had the chance to verbally tell Reinwart, given 2 1/2 hours to tell him. The hard copy evidence was right there on the table for him to review, he refused to review the evidence. I know AUSA VanderSchel reads my posts. Or he did because he was using my site to determine my case by what I had posted. I do not think it would be in my best interest to post all the evidence that has recently been given to me. Tell me now, VanderSchel, who is using assumptive evidence? Hell yes I am pissed off at the incompetence that has been shown in this case since 2005. I have committed no crime, everyone involved in this has committed criminal offenses. Is that, MY only option to have justice served.  Law enforcement has a duty to keep me from harm.  I am going to bitch till the cows come home. If this does not embarrass the government I want you to know that I am embarrassed for you.

Any reasonable person would at least offer me enough to get a comparable property. One that I could operate my business from. I have about $30,000 in receipts of the money I invested in this property. Conlee paid Mayor Dinwiddie $27,000 for the worthless lot he bought from him. It was legally undevelopable. He set a farm on an 70′ wide lot. These structures were illegal when he built them and they are still illegal. I have the original building permits.  

null

 Here is the original fraudulent permit issued for Conlee’s new home.

celeste-cirinna-city-of-montrose-exec-manager-pg-5

 

Here is the fraudulent, fraudulent permit that was altered to show a fee had been paid after Conlee was elected to city council. City clerk, building administrator and Conlee conspired to commit a double fraud? That should pay treble damages in my opinion. This act of fraud was completely unnecessary, the permit is still not signed by the builder. That signature alleviates the city’s liability just like the Mayor said right before I presented it to the city council. These people should be in prison for acts of ignorance unbecoming of a government official.

These are the US law in which they should be prosecuted.

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 – Conspiracy Against Rights This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same). It further makes it unlawful for two or more persons to go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another with the intent to prevent or hinder his/her free exercise or enjoyment of any rights so secured. Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to ten years, or both; and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years, or for life, or may be sentenced to death.

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

This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S. This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race. Acts under “color of any law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under “color of any law,” the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs. Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

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

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

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

contracting or negotiating for any of the rights enumerated above; applying for or participating in any service, organization, or facility relating to the sale or rental of dwellings. This statute also makes it unlawful by the use of force or threatened use of force, to injure, intimidate, or interfere with any person who is assisting an individual or class of persons in the exercise of their housing rights. Punishment varies from a fine of up to $1,000 or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results, shall be fined up to $10,000 or imprisoned up to ten years, or both, and if death results, shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life.

 ARTICLE XIV.

“Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The reasonable enjoyment of one’s real estate is certainly a vested right, which cannot be interfered with or limited arbitrarily. The constitutional guaranty of protection for all private property extends equally to the enjoyment and the possession of lands. An arbitrary interference by the government, or by its authority, with the reasonable enjoyment of private lands is a taking of private [728] property without due process of law, which is inhibited by the constitutions. But it is not every use which comes within this constitutional protection. One has a vested right to only a reasonable use of one’s lands. It is not difficult to find the rule which determines the limitations upon the lawful ways or manner of using lands. It is the rule, which furnishes the solution of every problem in the law of police power, and which is comprehended in the legal maxim, sic utere tuo, ut alienum non lædas. One can lawfully make use of his property only in such a manner as that he will not injure another. Any use of one’s lands to the hurt or annoyance of another is a nuisance, and may be prohibited. At common law that is a nuisance, which causes personal discomfort or injury to health to an unusual degree. As it has been expressed in a preceding section,1 the right of personal security against acts, which will cause injury to health or great bodily discomfort, cannot be made absolute in organized society. It must yield to the reasonable demands of trade, commerce and other great interests of society. While the State cannot arbitrarily violate the right of personal security to health by the unlimited authorization of acts which do harm to health, or render one’s residence less comfortable, there is involved in this matter the consideration of what constitutes a reasonable use of one’s property. At common law this is strictly a judicial question of fact, the answer to which varies according to the circumstances of each case. One is expected to endure a reasonable amount of discomfort and annoyance for the public good, which is furthered by the permission of trades and manufactures, the prosecution of which necessarily involves a certain amount of annoyance or injury to the inhabitants of the neighborhood. In all such cases, it is a question of equity, on whom is it reasonable to impose the burden of the inevitable loss, resulting from this clashing [729] of interests; and independently of statute it is strictly a judicial question, and all the circumstances of the case must be taken into consideration.

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

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

10-3-2018 Kevin VanderSchel pg 2

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

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

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

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

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

Exempted agencies and persons. (b) 

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

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

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

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

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

(1) takes place in the United States; 

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

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

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

Chemical Weapons

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

A chemical weapon is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

warning to City of Montrose unlawful application of toxic chemicals


warning to City poison

warning to City poison


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

Intentional glyphosate poisoning

chemicals applied to my side of the 300′ common boundary

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

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

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

Exempted agencies and persons. (b) —

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

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

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

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

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

(1) takes place in the United States;

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

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

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

Chemical Weapons

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

A chemical weapon is:

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

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

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

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

Letter from US Attorney based on misinformation.

Letter from Kevin VanderSchel claiming statute of limitations has expired.

I have never claimed my damages occurred in 2003-2005, that is when the illegal property redevelopment was going on. My allegations of conspiracy against rights and deprivation of rights under color of law began in 2005 with the most recent occurring in April 2017. If anyone actually felt they had a duty to actually read my complaint there would be no mistaking of timelines.  But in this case we rely on what someone who was not interested in the first place tell their version of the story to a third party. That is hearsay, which is not evidence that is allowed in court or in any reasonable investigation. Mr. VanderSchel, how about I send a copy of my complaint directly to you. You read the entire complaint and then you may be more able to base a decision on what the complaint states. Your information is incorrect. I should not have to continue to beg for justice based on people being misinformed as to that the evidence supports. 

I contacted Senator Grassley in 2007, he forwarded my information to the FBI. Are you telling me it has taken 11 years for my case to get from the Senator to the hands of the US attorney and the information is not based on the information in the written complaint I submitted to the local FBI agent. This local agent told me 3 different versions of what would happen after I submitted my complaint to him. I do not have any evidence that he even submitted my written complaint. I have evidence that the most recent act of conspiracy happened in April 2017 well within the statute of limitations. I have not been negligent in anyway of not submitting timely complaints. How in the hell does it take 11 years for a complaint to get from a Senator to a US Attorney.

Somebody has some splanin to do. Where is the written complaint I submitted to the local FBI?

652. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR CONSPIRACY

Conspiracy is a continuing offense. For statutes such as 18 U.S.C. § 371, which require an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy, the statute of limitations begins to run on the date of the last overt act. See Fiswick v. United States, 329 U.S. 211 (1946); United States v. Butler, 792 F.2d 1528 (11th Cir. 1986). For conspiracy statutes which do not require proof of an overt act, such as RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961) or 21 U.S.C. § 846, the government must allege and prove that the conspiracy continued into the limitations period. The crucial question in this regard is the scope of the conspiratorial agreement, and the conspiracy is deemed to continue until its purpose has been achieved or abandoned. See United States v. Northern Imp. Co., 814 F.2d 540 (8th Cir. 1987); United States v. Coia, 719 F.2d 1120 (11th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 973 (1984).

An individual’s “withdrawal” from a conspiracy starts the statute of limitations running as to that individual. “Withdrawal” from a conspiracy for this purpose means that the conspirator must take affirmative action by making a clean breast to the authorities or communicating his or her disassociation to the other conspirators. See United States v. Gonzalez, 797 F.2d 915 (10th Cir. 1986).

So why is it that nobody else has EVER had to take up arms against a neighbor trespassing?

You know full well that there are laws that protect citizens from aggressive neighbors. There is no record of a citizen having to shoot a neighbor in the knee caps to keep him from applying chemicals to their property. I would think if all you had to do was apply chemicals to a neighboring property until they have no option of excaping the chemcials except by fleeing, it would be happening everyday. It is not happening everyday, it does not happen everyday and the reason is because it is against the State and Federal law to do anything to the property of another person. They cannot do it and if they do they are subject to arrest by law enforcement. They do not get to continue the terrorist crimes against humanity until the people who are being poisoned flee. It does not happen and It is not going to happen to me. So whoever had the duty to file a trespassing complaint against this neighbor, I want to know right now. Is it the City police chief? Is it the County Attorney? Because I am going to challenge them to a fist fight. How dare they treat me as an undeserving citizen. How dare they use attorney discrection when the acts agaisnt me were life threatening. Kevin Vanderschel I am coming to town and I am going to request that you review the factual evidence, not the hearsay that you have gotten from third parites. If you collude with these local imposters I am going to swing on you. You do not have the right to violate my rights and you do not have the right to allow anyone to get away with intentionally causing me physical harm. I do not care if you can show me where it is written that you do, I am telling you you can find someone else to violated because I am not going to allow you or anyone else to do it to me . You oath or you office, which is it going to me, I am pissed off. I spent the last two years with an FBI agent who is either ignorant to the natural rights given to the people or he simply is protecting those people who gave him false information and he used it as facts. He has lied to you, I can prove it and you are going to give me the opportunity to prove not one of these locals are credible. I think I could take you in a fist fight, I don’t care how big you are. I am bigger because I have not violated anyone, I have not lied to anyone and most of all I have not critially harmed anyone. Be expecting me as I intend to come to your city on business, perhaps we could have lunch, my treat. Have your evidence prepared because I have mine all ready to battle it out, I do not want you on my case. You are not committed enough to your job to represent my case. You have already as much as told me you are going to allow my property to be taken by force and leave me with only the calassed hands from building my home, business and happiness. You should be ashamed to call your self a public servant just as the rest of them are. Collusion comes to mind.

Letter number two from the US Attorney for the Southern District of Iowa.

Well this letter said basically the same as the first letter I received from the US Attorney’s office.

He said he read the 43 page complaint and that my allegations are based on assumptions. I am telling you that I am not ignorant. I would not have anything in my complaint that I did not have evidence to back it up. The fact that nobody has taken the time to review this evidence is contradicting. So I emailed the nearly completed log of events as they occurred. I also ask that he be courteous enough to send me a reply that he did received the 249 page partially completed complaint. It is a long read but it is in a slide show so please give it a review and then tell me that I do not have enough evidence to prove I am a victim of conspiracy against rights and deprivation of rights under color of law. I am not impressed at all as to the way anything is this case has been handled. I advised the local FBI agent to look into the financial record to see if any of these individuals received payment, or took a bribe. He refused. I advised him that many of my witnesses have passed. I told him that two of them have been diagnosed with cancer. Here is the link to my incomplete complaint I sent him recently. I know that a person is in violation of trespassing if they do anything to your property. In this case this neighbor unlawfully applied chemicals for no other reason than to eliminate me.  https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/18mtF3_4WB2u3mEe1OoSb2QpwlgvI25ulAS5BheCPq4Q/edit?usp=sharing  

I opened the letter from the Dept of Justice

The letter stated that the statute of limitations has expired. WHAT? I contact Senator Grassley in 2007. I have been complaining the last several years that the timeliness is unacceptable. Seems the US Attorney is just recently getting my complaint. I am sorry but I am not responsible for any statute of limitations expiring in this case. Whoever received it from Senator Grassley is responsible for any mishandling of my case. A case that is unprecedented. A case in which the most brutal means of attack were used. Chemical weapons were used with intent to cause serious injury or death. They did cause serious lifelong injury and had I not fled I would be dead. If I would have done this to another human being I would be in prison the rest of my life. How can the statute of limitations be expired if the FBI was investigating this case appropriately? Who is the victim of mishandling of a complaint. I am. So what now. I have followed all the proper procedures, except during the time I was blind and unable to function normally. I could not get my vision restored until 2012. I could not read. This is really a disappointment, I thought my case was being investigated all this time, but it seems the US Attorney is just recently getting my complaint. Come on now, this is unacceptable. Senator Grassley will hopefully deal with incompetence. He supports whistleblowers and exposing corruption. I hope he gets to the root of the problem with my case. The evidence supports all my allegations, the perps implicate themselves on public record. What could go wrong?

Simple question regarding Federal law. Just to verify my own understanding of the law.

I have a simple question regarding Federal law. I am requesting opinions and answers from anyone, this is not limited to attorneys.

Trespassing is a criminal offense? True or False

Someone trespasses on your private property, causing damage.  You have requested them not to trespass.  They continue to trespass and cause damage to your private property. The local law enforcement refuses to issue a criminal complaint on your behalf.

Do you believe these actions are in violation of the 14th Amendment. Is it your opinion that the described actions are in violation of Federal law?

Do you have any references that would support trespassing is not a violation of the 14th Amendment?

Governmental Conspiracies to Violate Civil Rights: A Theory Reconsidered

Source: Governmental Conspiracies to Violate Civil Rights: A Theory Reconsidered

My neighbor used chemicals as a weapon with intent to cause serious harm or death. Most extreme case of criminal actions carried out by the “good old boy network”.

The motive was to acquire my property as his new redevelopment of an otherwise worthless property was non-compliant to State building codes and he could not get the illegal redevelopment recorded on the County plat map. Having been successful in acquiring my property after 5 years of exposing me to the chemicals, He and those who participated are living large and I suffer from chronic health problems and was homeless for over 3 years and blind.

My neighbor intentionally applied Roundup on my property with intent to cause serious harm or death. The link will explain the unprecedented case that I been a victim of. I am requesting any legal contacts that can represent me in Federal court. I have asked multiple attorney’s they all reply with the same response “we simply do not have time to dedicate to such a complex and unprecedented case”. The damages done to me will forever affect my life. I need advice in the proper way to sue these officials for the damages they have intentionally caused me. I went to the city council in an attempt to notify them of what was going on, the neighbor stated that the roundup dissipates. We all know that is a false statement, but in this case all local authorities have to be aware that this man is a pathological liar. All statements made by this neighbor were taken as proof positive and my hard copy evidence was dismissed.
sincerely,
Melody Boatner

The chemicals were non-stop, I did eventually have to make a decision of whether to flee from my home, property and business. Stay and die from the intentional exposure to the chemicals or shoot this neighbor dead. Not much of a choice for someone who has no criminal record.This neighbor was allowed to redevelop a non-conforming property with no regard to State of Iowa building codes. He went to get the redevelopment recorded on the county plat map. The redevelopment was rejected from being recorded. It was at this time the neighbor assisted by local city and county officials determined the remedy to get the illegal redevelopment recorded on the plat map was to acquire my property. Doing so would provide enough sq ft of property that his redevelopment could be legally recorded on the county plat map.
sincerely,
Melody Boatner.

Failure to Intervene

Failure to Intervene,

An officer who purposefully allows a fellow officer to violate a victim’s Constitutional rights may be prosecuted for failure to intervene to stop the Constitutional violation. To prosecute such an officer, the government must show that the defendant officer was aware of the Constitutional violation, had an opportunity to intervene, and chose not to do so. This charge is often appropriate for supervisory officers who observe uses of excessive force without stopping them, or who actively encourage uses of excessive force but do not directly participate in them.

Law does not provide for Lee County Sheriff’s Detective Bob Conlee to act as a building official for the city of Montrose. Or for Brent Shipman not to issue  a trespassing ticket because “he did not want to make him mad”. Or any other the other officers who were involved or knew about the illegal in the taking of my property using chemicals as a weapon. https://poisonedbymyneighborfromhell.com

 

Monsanto chemical safety data, Roundup Herbicide

This is if the product were used according to the directions, clearly the intentional exposure that I suffered was not according to directions. EFFECTS OF TOXIC CHEMICALS HAVING DIRECT CONTACT WITH MY SKIN

The year 2015 hasn’t been kind to Monsanto. In March, the World Health Organization declared that the company’s flagship product, its herbicide glyphosate or Roundup, is a probable human carcinogen. Increasingly, national health ministries are taking a hard second look at glyphosate’s health and environmental dangers and efforts are underway to ban the herbicide.[1] To protect its citizens, last year the Netherlands, Bermuda and Sri Lanka have either banned or imposed strict limits on Roundup. Last June, France banned its use in gardens. Brazil, Germany and Argentina are considering legislative bans. And this month, California’s environmental protection agency launched plans to label Roundup as a carcinogen.[2]

Glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide in the world today. Over 130 countries currently permit extensive use of the chemical. The US is the largest consumer, using approximately 20% of the world’s Roundup.[3] The latest reliable figures from the US Geological Survey record 280 million pounds of Roundup were used in 2012, nearly a pound for every American.[4] In 2013, gross profit of $371 million on crop chemicals including Roundup climbed 73% due to a 37% increase in sales. That same year Monsanto’s net income rose 22% to $1.48 billion.[5]

Over the years a large body of independent research has accumulated and now collectively provides a sound scientific rationale to confirm that glyphosate is far more toxic and poses more serious health risks to animals and humans than Monsanto and the US government admit. Among the many diseases and health conditions non-industry studies identified Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and autism since Roundup has been shown to instigate aluminum accumulation in the brain. The herbicide has been responsible for reproductive problems such as infertility, miscarriages, and neural tube and birth defects. It is a causal agent for a variety of cancers: brain, breast, prostate, lung and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Other disorders include chronic kidney and liver diseases, diabetes, heart disease, hypothyroidism, and leaky gut syndrome. In addition to lung cancer, glyphosate may be responsible for today’s growing epidemics of chronic respiratory illnesses among farm workers and their families.[6] However, these findings derive from outside the Big Agriculture industry. Private industries routinely defend themselves by positing their own research to refute independent reports. Consequently, for several decades it has been a he-said-she-said stalemate. Monsanto is content with this. It can conduct business as usual, Roundup sales increase, and the debates and media wars continue without government interference. Then who is protecting the public?

Government officials and health regulators more often than not simply ignore these studies even if published in peer-reviewed journals. The bulk are independently funded. Most have been performed in foreign nations and therefore American bias dismisses them outright. Furthermore, Monsanto and other large chemical agricultural companies are quick to counter and discredit adverse scientific findings. The company has the financial means to retain large international PR firms, such as Burson-Marsteller and Fleishman Hillard, consultation firms and think tanks, as well as large armies of hired trolls and academic spokepersons to mobilize damage control upon notice and protect the integrity of Monsanto’s products and public image. It funds and orchestrates self-serving research at universities and research laboratories to increase an arsenal of junk science. And of course it has Hillary Clinton and Bill Gates as its celebrity cheerleaders.

The EPA continues to align itself with Monsanto’s safety claims and limits glyphosate’s risks to kidney, reproductive and carcinogenic damage; and the warning only applies for very long-term exposure to high levels of the toxin. Anything under that is considered harmless. The EPA continues to approve small amounts of glyphosate as safe in drinking water to children. Its safety level is 0.7 ug/L. This was determined back in 1994, and after 20 years of further research into glyphosate’s biomolecular activities and health risks, the level has remained the same.[7,8] A review of existing data sponsored by Moms Across America found that out of 21 drinking water samples analyzed, 13 had glyphosate levels between 0.08 and 0.3 ug/L, well below the EPA’s limit, but significantly above the European Union’s limit of 0.1 ug/L.[9]

While the company manages to successfully dodge scientific research outside its purview, the tables would certainly turn if it could be proven in a court of law that Monsanto has known for decades that glyphosate is one of the most toxic substances ever launched on the public, which adversely affects almost every tissue and cell in a mammal’s body.

Imagine for a minute that evidence emerged to implicate Monsanto on a massive cover-up and manipulation of scientific data from hundreds of research trials. If it were Monsanto’s data indicting itself about glyphosate’s toxicity, and if it can be shown the company falsified, masked or fudged its data to win regulatory approval, it may likely be the largest corporate scandal in history. The question could Monsanto be charged with crimes of omission and more deservingly crimes against humanity?

This scenario may not be fantasy or the wishful thinking of GMO’s opponents. The case has a precedent and has been played out in the courts before. In November 1998, the US government won a judgment against the four largest US tobacco companies: Philip Morris, RJ Reynolds, Brown & Williamson, and Lorillard. The case came to trial after a former vice president of research and development at Brown & Williamson, Jeffrey Wigand, turned whistleblower and revealed that his company concealed the tobacco’s health risks and was making concerted efforts to addict people to smoking. High ranking executives were found to have approved the inclusion of known addictive and carcinogenic chemicals, such as coumarin, in its cigarettes to increase smoking, sales and profits.

Before the trial there had never been a lawsuit lost by a tobacco company because no one could prove with absolute medical certainty that smoking had ever caused lung cancer or emphysema. During Congressional hearings, all seven CEOs representing the four tobacco giants lied under oath stating they had no knowledge about an association between nicotine and brain addiction. Their rationale was that they believed their research data and marketing strategies were protected under propriety secrecy claims and therefore they could avoid conviction. Although FDA scientists possessed all the necessary information that could condemn Big Tobacco’s false claims, the industry relied upon proprietary rules in order to hide behind legal protection. The FDA was silenced and powerless to make the industry’s information public. Consequently it is estimated that millions of people died from a risk that could have been prevented or at least reduced substantially. Instead, the FDA honored the tobacco industry above all human life.

The guilty verdict, which resulted in the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement against the tobacco companies, enforced a minimum $206 billion settlement over a 25 year period. While the majority of payments were to settle 46 states’ Medicaid lawsuits to recover smoking related health costs, the settlement unfortunately exempted the industry from private tort claims. Many critics of the Agreement state that the settlement was too merciful. No tobacco executive went to prison and evidence indicates the industry emerged stronger and consolidated the companies into an ever more powerful cartel.[10]

What busted the tobacco companies was not the scientific evidence piling up outside the industry. Rather it was its crimes of omission about cigarettes’ health risks within the industry. The industry’s own research prosecuted itself. And this is demanded today in order to bring down Monsanto’s chemical regime and to protect populations and children throughout the world.

Perhaps we might want to consider the atmosphere Monsanto faced after it first developed glyphosate in 1973 and prepare for EPA approval for the remainder of the decade.

During the latter half of the 1970s, Monsanto’s leading products were under federal inquiry and public assault regarding safety. Dioxin had been banned. Safety concerns arose over its sweetener saccharin, and cyclamate was removed from the market. The company’s attempts to get it’s new artificial sweetener aspartame confronted obstacles during FDA scientific review. Independent research had shown that aspartame caused brain tumors in mammals. And its best selling herbicide at the time, Lasso, was showing signs of carcinogenicity. Today Lasso is a restricted-use pesticide due to its oncogenicity. With sales falling and future growth under threat, Monsanto faced a desperate need to launch a new and novel flagship product. Monsanto found itself banking its future on its new herbicide glyphosate. As we recently discovered, enormous amounts of research, analysis and hundreds of trials were conducted to learn as much as possible about the compound’s bioactivity in mammals and its potential health risks. All of this research data, studies and reports were subsequently sealed as trade secrets upon submission to the EPA. For over thirty years it has sat in the EPA vaults.

Monsanto has yet to be caught and charged for falsifying scientific data on glyphosate. However on earlier occasions two laboratories Monsanto outsourced research to were caught and indicted. In 1978, the EPA busted Industrial Biotest Laboratories for rigging laboratory results; the company’s executives were found guilty for submitting fabricated data supporting glyphosate positively to the government. In 1991, another firm, Craven Labs, was found guilty on similar charges with 20 felony counts.[11]

To this day, Monsanto continues to assert that Roundup is environmentally friendly. We are told it biodegrades rapidly and therefore poses no long-term risks after repeated usage. We are told that the herbicide is ideal for weed control. Throughout the US, it is liberally sprayed on our public parks, school playgrounds, sporting fields, and throughout our lawns and gardens. We are told it doesn’t bio-accumulate in the body’s cells and tissues and is excreted rapidly. We are also told that glyphosate toxicity is dose specific. Only exceedingly high levels of the pesticide pose any serious health risks.[12]

How factual are these claims or are they mere propaganda to obscure scientific truths far more deceptive and sinister? To answer that we would have to know for certain whether or not Monsanto conducted long-term studies on glyphosate that revealed devastating toxic effects on mammal health. We would need evidence that their own data clearly negates their scientific declarations, and that the company intentionally, and with forethought, either distorted or concealed data from federal regulatory officials and the public.

There is now an enormous cache of evidence on both scientific and legal grounds that Monsanto in fact conducted numerous studies in the 1970s and 1980s on glyphosate’s toxicity and health risks and intentionally sealed this research from independent and public review and scrutiny. As with Big Tobacco’s proprietary claims that prevented the FDA from publicly warning Americans about the dangers of smoking, the EPA has sat on Monsanto’s own deleterious data for decades.

Anthony Samsel is an independent research scientist working internationally in the interest of public health and the environment. He is a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists, and a former scientist and consultant at Arthur D. Little, one of the world’s leading management consulting firms. Now retired, Samsel has devoted much of his independent research on Roundup’s toxicological characteristics and bioactivity. Unable to gain access to research reports and data Monsanto submitted to the EPA through FOIAs, he turned to his senator’s office, who assisted in the procurement of studies and reports he sought. Months later he received a hoard of scientific documents, over 15,000 pages worth, covering Monsanto’s complete glyphosate research.

With his co-investigator Dr. Stephanie Seneff at MIT the two have been reviewing Monsanto’s data. Their conclusion is Monsanto’s claims about glyphosate’s safety are patently false. The company has known for almost four decades that glyphosate is responsible for a large variety of cancers and organ failures. Clearly it was for this reason that Monsanto demanded the data and reports to be sealed and hidden from public scrutiny as proprietary trade secrets.

During an exclusive interview on the Progressive Radio Network on September 4, Samsel stated that Monsanto used an industry trick to dismiss evidence about glyphosate’s risks in its own research. “Monsanto misrepresented the data,” says Samsel, “and deliberately covered up data to bring the product [glyphosate] to market.”[13]

In order to minimize and cancel out its adverse findings, Samsel explained that Monsanto had relied upon earlier historical animal control data, toxicological research with lab animals afflicted with cancer and organ failures, and completely unrelated to glyphosate. In some cases the control animals displayed kidney, liver and pancreatic diseases. Many of Monsanto’s own studies required the inclusion of extraneous studies in order to cancel out damaging results. This is not an uncommon industry habit, particularly in toxicological science. It enables corporations to mask undesirable outcomes and make claims that observable illnesses and disease are spontaneous occurrences without known causal factors. Frequently, Monsanto would have to rely on three external control studies to negate the adverse effects of a single one of its own. Samsel found other incidences in Monsanto’s data where 5, 7 and in one case 11 unrelated studies were necessary to diminish the severity of its own findings. In effect, glyphosate received licensure based upon a platform of junk tobacco science. By ignoring cause and effect relationships behind the onset of multiple cancers and other life-threatening diseases throughout many of its research trials, Monsanto engaged in a radical scientific denialism that has since raked in tens of billions of dollars.

But the cache of Monsanto documents, after Samsel’s and Seneff’s review, reveals much more that we should be worried about.

In addition, Monsanto’s studies included doses from low to high range. Samsel observed that low glyphosate doses were equally if not more toxic than higher doses. The company later discontinued low dose trials, relying only on higher levels because it is customarily assumed to have greater toxicological risks. Samsel’s observation has recently been confirmed by a study published in the August issue of the Environmental Health Journal by scientists at Kings College London and the University of Caen in France. The two year study found that glyphosate administered at an ultra low dose of 0.1 ppb (the EU’s safety limit) in drinking water altered over 4000 gene clusters in the livers and kidneys of rats. These alterations, the study reports, “were consistent with fibrosis, necrosis, phospholipidosis, mitochondria membrane dysfunction and ischemia.”[14] Consequently low doses of Roundup are far more toxic than US EPA limits.

During its years investigating glyphosate’s bioactivity, Monsanto conducted hundreds of trials on mice, rats, beagle dogs, rabbits and other life. Among the many cancers and diseases Monsanto’s own research found associated with glyphosate are:

   Adenoma cancer in the pituitary gland
   Glioma tumors in the brain
   Reticular cell sarcomas in the heart
   Malignant tumors in the lungs
   Salivary mandibular reticular cell carcinoma
   Metastatic sarcomas of the lymph gland
   Prostate carcinoma
   Cancer of the bladder
   Thyroid carcinoma
   Adrenal reticulum cell sarcomas
   Cortical adenomas
   Basal cell squamous skin tumors

In female mammals there were cancers of the lung, liver, thymus, stomach, bladder adrenal glands, ovaries, colon, uterus, parathyroid and mammary glands.

Samsel and Seneff also noticed that Monsanto had conducted many long-term studies, as much as two years, on mice and rats. When Gilles-Eric Seralini and his French team reproduced and extended the length of Monsanto’s 3-month GMO maize rat-fed study for the life of the animals, they observed profuse cancer and tumor development started after the 4th month of the study. Monsanto continues to stand by its 3-month study as sufficient proof of GM maize’s safety. Yet the thoroughness and variety of Monsanto’s research operations should give strong reason to suspect that Monsanto has likewise conducted long term studies and knows all too well the deleterious effects of its pesticides, herbicides and genetically modified crops.

One of Monsanto’s claims is that glyphosate doesn’t bio-accumulate in tissues, rapidly bio-degrades and is excreted from the body readily. Contrary to this claim, Monsanto carried out meticulous studies to determine levels of accumulation and the organs, tissues and cells glyphosate reaches. Glyphosate was radio labeled with carbon 14 and given in 10 mg doses to seven groups of animals, male and female. After only 24 hours, the toxic chemical was found in the lungs and all body fluids: lymph, blood, urine and cerebral spinal fluid. Glyphosate also accumulated in the bone by 30 ppm and in the bone marrow by 4 ppm. Monsanto’s studies were comprehensive. It found an accumulation of the chemical in red cells, thyroid, uterus, colon, testes and ovaries, shoulder muscle, nasal mucosa, heart, lung, small intestine, abdominal muscle and the eyes.

Samsel and Seneff noted that the bioaccumuilation in the pancreas was not reported. Why would such meticulous efforts be made to measure radio labeled carbon 14 laced glyphosate levels in all the other organs, tissues and bodily fluids and then ignore the pancreas? The scientists believe this was deliberate.

Samsel notes that glyphosate does a “particular number on the lungs.” According to a 2014 report by the National Cancer Institute, lung cancer rates have been declining. The decline is largely due to the national decrease in smoking. However, other lung cancers such as adenocarcinomas are on the rise. The NCI is unable to account for this anomaly.[15] Yet the Institute is not considering that Americans are increasingly being exposed to glyphosate in their food, water and environment?

During the PRN interview, Dr. Seneff stated that the pancreas may be driving glyphosate to gather in the lungs. The pancreas is responsible for the release of the enzyme trypsin. which in turn infiltrates the lungs. A study published by Brazil’s Universidade Federal de Santa Maria in the medical journal Ciencia Rural measured glyphosate’s reactivity with digestive enzymes including trypsin. Trypsin activity was found to increase in parallel to higher glyphosate concentrations.[16] Seneff suggests that this may be contributing to the increase of glyphosate in the lungs that is contributing to the dramatic rise in COPD and asthma conditions, as well as lung cancers.

The occurrence of cataracts is rising rapidly, particularly in Mid-Western states such as ND, SD, NB, IA, KS, and MO. According to Prevent Blindness America’s statistics, 17% of adults over 40 years have cataract problems. The NIH projects the rate will reach nearly 40% by 2030.[17] Monsanto’s study showing glyphosate activity in the eye may be contributing to this epidemic. Dr. Seneff stated that the eye’s exposure to sunlight reacts with glyphosate residue thereby potentially making the chemical more toxic. Farmers often apply glyphosate on crops when it is warm, moist and when there is plenty of sunlight in order for the chemical to activate more effectively. These are similar conditions to our eyes during the day.

Monsanto’s research was not limited solely to the Roundup compound. It also performed extensive research on glyphosate’s individual metabolites, the intermediate molecules that result after Roundup’s breakdown through metabolic reactions. Many of these metabolites are every bit as toxic as glyphosate. All the glyphosate metabolites in solutions fed to rats were measured before and after feeding. One of Samsel’s more disturbing discoveries was that levels of the metabolite N-Nitrosoglyphosate (NNG) were found in higher concentrations in the rats’ feces and urine excretions than the original amount in the feeding solutions. NNG is a known carcinogen and endocrine disruptor. Samsel postulates that our own body’s natural nitrous acid reacts immediately with glyphosate, without requiring a catalyst, to produce NNG. Both the EPA and the World Health Organization acknowledge that NNG is present in glyphosate during the manufacturing process. The agencies therefore have established safety limits for NNG. However, for any endocrine disruptor, there is no realistic safety limit because such chemical disruptors destroy cells on a molecule to molecule basis.

Nitrous acid naturally occurs in the colon, urinary tract and skin tissue. According to the CDC, skin cancer is the most common form of cancer in the US, and affects more men than women. The Skin Cancer Foundation estimates that “each year there are more new cases of skin cancer than the combined incidence of cancers of the breast, prostate, lung and colon.”[18,19] Basal cell and squamous cell carcinomas are the two most common forms, both which have been identified by Monsanto with glyphosate exposure, particularly in males. When glyphosate reacts in the skin along with nitrous acid the metabolites NNG contributes to skin melanomas. Other chemicals are added to Monsanto’s Roundup to increase its effectiveness such as the surfactant POEA (polyethoxylated tallow amine), which also increases its toxicity.

We don’t pay enough attention to these other ingredients, Samsel states, because the EPA permits Monsanto to add anything it wants to enhance Roundup’s potency while identifying these substances innocuously as “inert.” When Monsanto convinces the public that glyphosate breaks down quickly, we are not told that the compound’s metabolic byproducts are equally toxic.

Therefore Anthony Samsel’s unprecedented discovery and review of Monsanto’s actual scientific and toxicological data of Roundup has provided us with information that warrants a thoughtful pause. Samsel and Seneff cover the subject in more detail in a new peer-reviewed paper titled “Glyphosate Pathways to Modern Diseases IV: Cancer and Related Pathologies.” The paper has been approved for publication in October.

During recent years dozens of states are submitting bills to label GMO foods. These food crops are heavily laced with glyphosate residue. Not only GM crops, but even non-GM produce are sprayed with Roundup. According to the Organic Consumers Association, non-organic and non-GM foods such as wheat, barley, oats, flax, peas, lentils, beans and sugar cane are also being sold to farmers “as a dessicant, to dry out all their crops so they could harvest them faster.”[20] Monsanto, Dupont, Syngenta, Grocery Manufacturers of America and other agro-chemical companies are aggressively combating labeling efforts. The Big Ag lobby is today pushing for a national bill to prevent GMO labeling that would supersede individual state’s rights. We can only wonder what the voting outcome in California, Colorado, Washington and Oregon may have been had Monsanto’s own research been made available to the media and public. Is it therefore not time for full Congressional hearings to learn the truth once for all and make the disclosure of Monsanto’s Roundup research public for all?

Richard Gale is the Executive Producer of the Progressive Radio and a former Senior Research Analyst in the biotechnology and genomic industries. Dr. Gary Null is the host of the nation’s longest running public radio program on nutrition and natural health and a multi-award-winning director of progressive documentary films, including Seeds of Death about GMOs and Poverty Inc. More at the Progressive Radio Network

REFERENCES
[1] Daniel Cressey. “Widely Used Herbicide Linked to Cancer” Nature. March 25, 2015
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/widely-used-herbicide-linked-to-cancer/
[2] RT (Russian TV). “California EPA mulls labeling Monsanto’s Roundup as being ‘known to cause cancer” September 6, 2015                                                                                                                       https://www.rt.com/usa/314544-california-epa-glyphosate-carcinogenic/
[3] Alexis Baden-Mayer, “Monsanto’s Roundup. Enough to Make You Sick” Organic Consumers Association. January 21, 2015
https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/monsanto%E2%80%99s-roundup-enough-make-you-sick
[4] Mary Ellen Kustin. “Glyphosate Is Spreading Like a Cancer Across the U.S.” Environmental Working Group. April 7, 2015
http://www.ewg.org/agmag/2015/04/glyphosate-spreading-cancer-across-us
[5] Jack Kaskey, “Monsanto Raises Forecast as Profits Tops Estimates on Corn” Bloomberg Business, April 3, 2013. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-04-03/monsanto-raises-forecast-as-profit-tops-estimates-on-corn-seed
[6] Alexis Baden-Mayer, op.cit.
[7] Environmental Protection Agency “Glyphosate Fact Sheet” http://www.epa.gov/safewater/pdfs/factsheets/soc/tech/glyphosa.pdf
[8] Environmental Protection Agency. “Basic Information about Glyphosate in Drinking Water”
http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/glyphosate.cfm
[9]Zen Honeycutt, Henry Rowlands, Lori Grace. “Glyphosate Testing Full Report: Findings in American Mothers’ Breast Milk, Urine and Water,” Moms Across America. April 7, 2015 http://www.momsacrossamerica.com/glyphosate_testing_results
[10] “Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement,” Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_Master_Settlement_Agreement
[11] “Monsanto Timeline of Crime 1901-2014” Children of Vietnam Veterans Health Alliance. February 16, 2015. http://covvha.net/monsanto-1901-2014-timeline/
[12] EPA, “Glyphosate Fact Sheet” op cit.
[13] Interview with Anthony Samsel and Stephanie Seneff. Gary Null Show, Progressive Radio Network. Broadcast on September 4, 2015. http://prn.fm/the-gary-null-show-09-04-15/
[14] Mesnage R, Arno M, Costanzo M, Seralini G-E, Antoniou M., “Transcriptome profile analysis reflects rat liver and kidney damage following chronic ultra-low dose Roundup exposure”   Environmental Health 2015, 14:70  doi:10.1186/s12940-015-0056-1
[15] “Lung Cancer Fact Sheet.” American Lung Association. http://www.lung.org/lung-disease/lung-cancer/resources/facts-figures/lung-cancer-fact-sheet.html
[16] Salbero I, Pretto A, Machado da Silva V, Loro V, Lazzari R, Baldisserotto B. “Glyposate on digestive enzymes activity in piava (Leporinus obtusidens). Cencia Rural Vol. 44 no. 9. September 2014.
[17] “Vision Problems in the US,” Prevent Blindness America. http://www.visionproblemsus.org/cataract/cataract-map.html
[18] Skin Cancer Foundation. “Skin Cancer Facts.” http://www.skincancer.org/skin-cancer-information/skin-cancer-facts
[19] “Skin Cancer Statistics,” Centers for Disease Control. http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/skin/statistics/
[20] Alexis Baden-Mayer, op cit.