18 U.S. Code CHAPTER 11B—CHEMICAL WEAPONS. FBI SA THOMAS REINWART DETERMINED NO VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW HAS OCCURRED

The fact that FBI Agent Reinwart, refused to review my evidence that supports without a doubt my allegations leaves his decision irrelevant. It does not take a graduate of the academy to know that an investigation requires reviewing evidence from both sides of a case. In an email he sent me he admits that he made his decision based on what I verbally told him and what the County Sheriff told a third party. I even submitted evidence that the Sheriff had a conflict of interest with the opposing party. He made his decision based on false statements given by the sheriff. I asked Reinwart to share with me the information the Sheriff had made in his statements. Reinwart refused. Reinwart was supposed to be investigation this case on my behalf. He could not share the false information given by the Sheriff because I have hard copy evidence that would prove the Sheriff was lying. The sheriff knows no facts about this case. Any information he has is based on lies made by the Conlee’s. I can prove multiple counts of perjury made by Conlee in the civil case. AUSA Kevin VanderSchel was lying when he advised me that he had the authority to violate a civil court order. When we have Federal authorities who have no regard to the oath they took to uphold the Constitution its time for the citizens to unite and remove them from their positions. Dirty Rotten Bastards. I have a purpose to speak to the Inspector General. To expose one corrupt government official is small potatoes. I have an entire group of self serving government impostors that need removed from their positions. Hearsay is not evidence. Dirty Rotten Bastards. Private property is never to be taken without just compensation. Reinwart did not possess the knowledge of  any Federal law, who is responsible for putting this incompetent individual in his position? He has shown me that he is not qualified to investigate any case regarding Federal law!

18 U.S. Code § 229.Prohibited activities

(a)Unlawful Conduct.—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).

(b)Exempted Agencies and .—

(1)In general.—

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.

(2)Exempted persons.—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.

(c)Jurisdiction.—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.

18 U.S. Code § 229A. Penalties

(a)Criminal Penalties.—

(1)In general.—

Any person who violates section 229 of this title shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years, or both.

(2)Death penalty.—

Any person who violates section 229 of this title and by whose action the death of another person is the result shall be punished by death or imprisoned for life.

(b)Civil Penalties.—

(1)In general.—

The Attorney General may bring a civil action in the appropriate United States district court against any person who violates section 229 of this title and, upon proof of such violation by a preponderance of the evidence, such person shall be subject to pay a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed $100,000 for each such violation.

(2)Relation to other proceedings.—

The imposition of a civil penalty under this subsection does not preclude any other criminal or civil statutory, common law, or administrative remedy, which is available by law to the United States or any other person.

(c)Reimbursement of Costs.—

The court shall order any person convicted of an offense under subsection (a) to reimburse the United States for any expenses incurred by the United States incident to the seizure, storage, handling, transportation, and destruction or other disposition of any property that was seized in connection with an investigation of the commission of the offense by that person. A person ordered to reimburse the United States for expenses under this subsection shall be jointly and severally liable for such expenses with each other person, if any, who is ordered under this subsection to reimburse the United States for the same expenses.

18 U.S. Code § 229B. Criminal forfeitures; destruction of weapons

(a)Property Subject to Criminal Forfeiture.—Any person convicted under section 229A (a) shall forfeit to the United States irrespective of any provision of State law—

(1)any property, real or personal, owned, possessed, or used by a person involved in the offense;

(2)any property constituting, or derived from, and proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, as the result of such violation; and

(3)any of the property used in any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission of, such violation.

The court, in imposing sentence on such person, shall order, in addition to any other sentence imposed pursuant to section 229A (a), that the person forfeit to the United States all property described in this subsection. In lieu of a fine otherwise authorized by section 229A (a), a defendant who derived profits or other proceeds from an offense may be fined not more than twice the gross profits or other proceeds.

(b)Procedures.—

(1)General.—Property subject to forfeiture under this section, any seizure and disposition thereof, and any administrative or judicial proceeding in relation thereto, shall be governed by subsections (b) through (p) of section 413 of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 853), except that any reference under those subsections to—

(A)this subchapter or subchapter II” shall be deemed to be a reference to section 229A (a); and

(B)subsection (a)” shall be deemed to be a reference to subsection (a) of this section.

(2)Temporary restraining orders.—

(A)In general.—

For the purposes of forfeiture proceedings under this section, a temporary restraining order may be entered upon application of the United States without notice or opportunity for a hearing when an information or indictment has not yet been filed with respect to the property, if, in addition to the circumstances described in section 413(e)(2) of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 853(e)(2)), the United States demonstrates that there is probable cause to believe that the property with respect to which the order is sought would, in the event of conviction, be subject to forfeiture under this section and exigent circumstances exist that place the life or health of any person in danger.

(B)Warrant of seizure.—

If the court enters a temporary restraining order under this paragraph, it shall also issue a warrant authorizing the seizure of such property.

(C)Applicable procedures.—

The procedures and time limits applicable to temporary restraining orders under section 413(e)(2) and (3) of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 853(e)(2) and (3)) shall apply to temporary restraining orders under this paragraph.

(c)Affirmative Defense.—It is an affirmative defense against a forfeiture under subsection (b) that the property—

(1)is for a purpose not prohibited under the Chemical Weapons Convention; and

(2)is of a type and quantity that under the circumstances is consistent with that purpose.

(d)Destruction or Other Disposition.—

The Attorney General shall provide for the destruction or other appropriate disposition of any chemical weapon seized and forfeited pursuant to this section.

(e)Assistance.—

The Attorney General may request the head of any agency of the United States to assist in the handling, storage, transportation, or destruction of property seized under this section.

(f)Owner Liability.—

The owner or possessor of any property seized under this section shall be liable to the United States for any expenses incurred incident to the seizure, including any expenses relating to the handling, storage, transportation, and destruction or other disposition of the seized property.

18 U.S. Code § 229C. Individual self-defense devices

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prohibit any individual self-defense device, including those using a pepper spray or chemical mace.

18 U.S. Code § 229D. Injunctions

The United States may obtain in a civil action an injunction against—

(1)the conduct prohibited under section 229 or 229C of this title; or

(2)the preparation or solicitation to engage in conduct prohibited under section 229 or 229D[1] of this title.

18 U.S. Code § 229E. Requests for military assistance to enforce prohibition in certain emergencies

The Attorney General may request the Secretary of Defense to provide assistance under section 382 of title 10[1]in support of Department of Justice activities relating to the enforcement of section 229 of this title in an emergency situation involving a chemical weapon. The authority to make such a request may be exercised by another official of the Department of Justice in accordance with section 382(f)(2) of title 10.[1] 

18 U.S. Code § 229F. Definitions

In this chapter:

(1)Chemical weapon.—The term “chemical weapon” means the following, together or separately:

(A)A toxic chemical and its precursors, except where intended for a purpose not prohibited under this chapter as long as the type and quantity is consistent with such a purpose.

(B)A munition or device, specifically designed to cause death or other harm through toxic properties of those toxic chemicals specified in subparagraph (A), which would be released as a result of the employment of such munition or device.

(C)Any equipment specifically designed for use directly in connection with the employment of munitions or devices specified in subparagraph (B).

(2)Chemical weapons ; convention.—

The terms “Chemical Weapons Convention” and “Convention” mean the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction, opened for signature on January 13, 1993.

(3)Key component of a binary or multicomponent chemical system.—

The term “key component of a binary or multicomponent chemical system” means the precursor which plays the most important role in determining the toxic properties of the final product and reacts rapidly with other chemicals in the binary or multicomponent system.

(4)National of the united states.—

The term “national of the United States” has the same meaning given such term in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22)).

(5)Person.—

The term “person”, except as otherwise provided, means any individual, corporation, partnership, firm, association, trust, estate, public or private institution, any State or any political subdivision thereof, or any political entity within a State, any foreign government or nation or any agency, instrumentality or political subdivision of any such government or nation, or other entity located in the United States.

(6)Precursor.—

(A)In general.—

The term “precursor” means any chemical reactant which takes part at any stage in the production by whatever method of a toxic chemical. The term includes any key component of a binary or multicomponent chemical system.

(B)List of precursors.—

Precursors which have been identified for the application of verification measures under Article VI of the Convention are listed in schedules contained in the Annex on Chemicals of the Chemical Weapons Convention.

(7)Purposes not prohibited by this chapter.—The term “purposes not prohibited by this chapter” means the following:

(A)Peaceful purposes.—

Any peaceful purpose related to an industrial, agricultural, research, medical, or pharmaceutical activity or other activity.

(B)Protective purposes.—

Any purpose directly related to protection against toxic chemicals and to protection against chemical weapons.

(C)Unrelated military purposes.—

Any military purpose of the United States that is not connected with the use of a chemical weapon or that is not dependent on the use of the toxic or poisonous properties of the chemical weapon to cause death or other harm.

(D)Law enforcement purposes.—

Any law enforcement purpose, including any domestic riot control purpose and including imposition of capital punishment.

(8)Toxic chemical.—

(A)In general.—

The term “toxic chemical” means any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals. The term includes all such chemicals, regardless of their origin or of their method of production, and regardless of whether they are produced in facilities, in munitions or elsewhere.

(B)List of toxic chemicals.—

Toxic chemicals which have been identified for the application of verification measures under Article VI of the Convention are listed in schedules contained in the Annex on Chemicals of the Chemical Weapons Convention.

(9)United states.—The term “United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States and includes all places under the jurisdiction or control of the United States, including—

(A)any of the places within the provisions of paragraph (41) [1] of section 40102 of title 49, United States Code;

(B)any civil aircraft of the United States or public aircraft, as such terms are defined in paragraphs (17) and (37),1 respectively, of section 40102 of title 49, United States Code; and

(C)any vessel of the United States, as such term is defined in section 70502(b) of title 46, United States Code.

 

Federal Prosecution of State and Local Corruption: From Sea to Shining Sea

There’s actually a constitutional basis to argue that the federal government should pursue these cases. The Guarantee Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article 4, Section 4, provides that the “United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government.” If “republican form of government” is understood to mean a representative democracy with power derived from the consent of the governed, then federal prosecution of state corruption may fulfill this mandate by removing corrupt state officials who either rose to power illegitimately or are using their powers to the detriment of their citizens. The normal political and legal structures within a state may be fine for handling most crimes, but when it comes to political corruption those structures themselves may be impaired. When that’s the case, there may be a role for the federal government.

When Should the Feds Step In?

One reason federal intervention in a state corruption case might be appropriate and even welcome is the presence of a real or perceived conflict of interest among state officials. If corruption exists at a high level in the state government, those who would be charged with investigating and prosecuting it – the state attorney general, for example – may be political allies and close friends of the potential targets. If a city or state is run by a well-entrenched corrupt political “machine” (I’m lookin’ at you, Chicago) it may be unrealistic to expect the local authorities to tackle the corruption among their friends and colleagues. Indeed, the prosecuting authorities in the state may themselves be involved in the corruption.

Another factor in favor of federal prosecution can be the resources available to the federal government. A large-scale public corruption investigation demands a great deal of prosecutorial and investigative time and money. Many state prosecutor’s offices could quickly be overwhelmed by the demands of such a case, particularly considering all of the other state matters they are tasked with handling. Federal prosecutors, with the vast investigative and prosecutorial power of the federal government behind them, are simply better equipped to tackle such a large-scale investigation than their state counterparts.

Prosecutorial resources and expertise are also an issue. Many state and local prosecutors accustomed to dealing with street crimes may have never handled a major public corruption case. Such cases raise complex legal and factual issues concerning things like proof of corrupt intent, not found in more typical state criminal law fare. The U.S. Department of Justice recognized the special nature of political corruption investigations by establishing the Public Integrity Section in 1976, with a staff of attorneys who specialize in such cases and travel the country assisting other federal prosecutors who are handling them. DOJ can bring a degree of prosecutorial firepower and experience to such investigations that is beyond the reach of most states.

The Laws Used to Prosecute State and Local Corruption

Somewhat surprisingly, there are not a lot of federal laws aimed directly at state and local corruption. The principal federal statute covering bribery and gratuities, 18 U.S.C. § 201, applies only to federal public officials. But federal prosecutors have been creative when it comes to putting other federal statutes to work in these cases.

Honest services fraud – perhaps the most popular theory used to prosecute state and local corruption is honest services mail and wire fraud. The mail and wire fraud statutes (18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1343) apply to use of the mail, phone lines, or wireless transmissions in furtherance of any “scheme or artifice to defraud.” The statutes are routinely applied to the more typical schemes to defraud victims of money or property, such as a Ponzi scheme. But prosecutors also use mail and wire fraud to prosecute state and local officials for corruption, on the theory that the corrupt acts defrauded the public of its intangible right to the fair and honest services of their public officials.

Honest services fraud has been used to prosecute many state and local officials over the past few decades. At times it has been applied to schemes that appeared more politically sleazy or unethical than criminally corrupt, which led to controversy about the potential breadth of the theory. But in 2010 in Skilling v. United States the Supreme Court limited the statute, ruling that it only applies to conduct that amounts to bribery or kickbacks. Even with this limitation, though, it remains an important weapon for federal prosecutors attacking state or local corruption. Honest services fraud was one of the primary statutes used in the McDonnell prosecution, as well as in the prosecutions of New York state legislators.

Hobbs Act Extortion – another common theory is extortion under color of official right under the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951. As I have discussed elsewhere, extortion “under color of official right” has been interpreted by the Supreme Court essentially to be the equivalent of bribery. In the absence of a general federal bribery statute that applies to state and local officials, Hobbs Act extortion is a favorite of federal prosecutors looking at state and local corruption. Along with honest services fraud, Hobbs Act extortion formed the core of the indictment against the McDonnell’s in Virginia, and the same two statutes also were used in the recent indictment of former New York state Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver.

Federal Program Bribery – a less commonly used but very powerful law is the federal program bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 666. It prohibits theft or bribery by an agent of any organization or state or local government in connection with programs or agencies receiving federal funds. There are certain (and quite modest) minimum dollar requirements involved, but once those are met this statute is a potent anti-bribery tool that can apply not only to state or local government officials but to private individuals as well.

RICO – the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1964, is a statutory behemoth primarily aimed at organized crime. Given the breadth of the statute, however, it is possible to apply it to entities such as a governor’s office, charging that state officials or others conducted the affairs of that office through a “pattern of racketeering activity.” Racketeering activity is defined to include a number of state law crimes, including bribery and extortion. Accordingly, a state law bribery scheme affecting a state or local government, while not violating the federal bribery statute, may be brought as a federal prosecution through the vehicle of RICO.

Debate over federal prosecution of state and local officials reflects fundamental tensions about the proper balance of state and federal power that have existed since the founding of the nation. There will always be some, such as Governor McDonnell’s defenders in Virginia, who will argue that the federal government should butt out and allow the states to handle their own affairs. But as discussed above, there are many reasons why federal intervention may be necessary and appropriate — and if recent developments are any indication, federal prosecutors are not hesitating to jump in.

Montrose and Lee County, Iowa unprecedented case of #public corruption, #nepotism and #kleptocracy  Using Chemical weapons against civilians for the purpose of eliminating them from their private property.

US Assistant Kevin VanderSchel and FBI Agent Thomas Reinwart, incompetent Federal authorities violating Federal law.

Assistant US Attorney Kevin VanderSchel and FBI SA Thomas Reinwart,
The both of you have shown incompetence in you job duties. Kevin VanderSchel had to
resort to my website in order to obtain any evidence about my case. In what he did
comprehend from my website, he had the fact completely ass backwards.
SA Thomas Reinwart had no evidence to submit to VanderSchel because as I have always
stated, Reinwart never reviewed my evidence.
I want to know the names and contact information for your supervisors.
I requested this information from Reinwart previously and got no answers.
Senator Grassley has a duty to oversee that procedures of Federal authorities are met
with high regard. In this case their has been no regard shown to a citizens Federally
protected rights.
I have the evidence to support these allegations. Do you job Senator Grassley.
Private property taken by unlawful use of chemicals against a civilian.
Use of chemicals as a weapon is defined as terrorist acts.
Not on my watch

TOTAL DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS Section II

TOTAL DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS Section II

The phrase, “no one can “be compelled to be a witness against himself,” is in agreement with the Supreme Court ruling in Haynes v. U.S., 390 U.S. 85, 88 S.Ct. 722, wherein the ruling was that to force anyone to register anything is communicative, and such communicative evidence is precluded by the 5th Amendment

So with that in mind, all fiat governmental administrators, police and all associated by interlocking directorates have been given knowledge! You “know, or should have known.” 

Under USC Title 42 §1986: Action for neglect to prevent…, it states: Every person who, having knowledge that any wrongs conspired or to be done… and having power to prevent or aid in preventing… Neglects or refuses so to do … shall be liable to the party injured… and; 

The means of “knowledge”, especially where it consists of public record, is deemed in law to be “knowledge of the facts” that makes the offending, trespassing, pirating “Officer” and all supporting interlocking directorates subsequently liable for all damage and injury. THE WORLD has now been given “knowledge of the facts” as it pertains to this conspiracy to commit a fraud against me.

AT LEAST THIRTEEN (13) TIMES I noticed all Capturing and Offending Parties that I reserved ALL my Rights at all times. I did not, do not, and never have voluntarily agreed to play any game of ‘let’s pretend’ with any Legal Fictional Entity or other governmental agency. I stopped trusting big boys with real guns in 1968 with my Honorable Discharge for US Army. I reiterate, I reserved all my Rights at all times, compromising none, even though that increased my degree of torture within their confines.

“[W]aivers of fundamental Rights must be knowing, intentional, and voluntary acts, done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences. U.S. v. Brady, 397 U.S. 742 at 748 (1970); U.S.v. O’Dell, 160 F.2d 304 (6th Cir. 1947)” . 

Fraud, deceit, coercion, willful intent to injure another, malicious acts, RICO activity and conspiracy were instrumented against Claimant by said Capturing and Offending Pirates Unconscionable “contract “One which no sensible man not under delusion, or duress, or in distress would make, and such as no honest and fair man would accept. ; Franklin Fire Ins. Co. v. Noll, 115 Ind. App. 289, 58 N.E.2d 947, 949, 950. And; 

Under USC Title 42 §1982, §1983 and/or §1441. Property rights of citizens …, further evidences the above position that the City or State cannot take property because they DO NOT have Jurisdiction. It states that federal or state governmental agencies MUST have a monetary or proprietary interest in my private property in order to have jurisdiction over it (my property has no government grant/funding and is not a subsidized government project). 

The State cannot diminish the rights of the people. Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516.

To say that one may not defend his own property is usurpation of power by the legislature.” O’Connell v. Judnich (1925), 71 C.A.386, 235 P. 664.

“The phrase ‘common law’ found in this clause, is used in contradistinction to equity, and admiralty, and maritime jurisprudence.” Parsons v. Bedford, et al, 3 Pet 433, 478-9 “If the common law can try the cause, and give full redress, that alone takes away the admiralty jurisdiction.” Ramsey v. Allegrie, supra, p. 411.Inferior Courts – The term may denote any court subordinate to the chief tribunal in the particular judicial system; but it is commonly used as the designation of a court of special, limited, or statutory jurisdiction, whose record must show the existence and attaching of jurisdiction in any given case, in order to give presumptive validity to its judgment. In re Heard’s Guardianship, 174 Miss. 37, 163, So. 685

 The high Courts have further decreed that Want of Jurisdiction makes “…all acts of judges, magistrates, U.S. Marshals, sheriffs, local police, all void and not just voidable.† Nestor v. Hershey, 425 F2d 504. 

Void Judgment -One which has no legal force or effect, invalidity of which may be asserted by any person whose rights are affected at any time and at any place directly or collaterally. Reynolds v. Volunteer State Life Ins. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 80 S.W.2d 1087, 1092. 

“Whenever a law deprives the owner of the beneficial use and enjoyment of his property, or imposes restraints upon such use and enjoyment that materially affect its value, without legal process or compensation, it deprives him of his property within the meaning of the constitution. … It is not necessary, in order to render the statute obnoxious to the restraints of the constitution, that it must in terms or effect authorize the actual physical taking of the property or the thing itself, so long as it affects its free use and enjoyment, or the power of disposition at the will of the owner.” Forster v. Scott,136 N. Y. 577, [18 L. R. A. 543, 32 N. E. 976]; Monongahela Nav. Co. v. United States, 148 U. S. 312, 336, [37 L. Ed. 463, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 622].

 Mr. Lewis in his work on Eminent Domain, third edition, section 11, says: ‘A law which authorizes the taking of private property without compensation, … cannot be considered as due process of law in a free government.’ (Chicago etc, R. R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U. S. 226, [41 L. Ed. 979, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 581].” Associated etc., Co. v. Railroad Commission (1917) 176 Cal. 518, 528-530.

An unconstitutional law is not a law, it confers no rights, imposes no duties, and affords no protection. Norton vs. Shelby County, 118 US 425.

Primacy of position in our state constitution is accorded the Declaration of Rights; thus emphasizing the importance of those basic and inalienable rights of personal liberty and private property which are thereby reserved and guaranteed to the people and protected from arbitrary invasion or impairment from any governmental quarter. The Declaration of Rights constitutes a limitation upon the powers of every department of the state government. State ex rel. Davis v. Stuart. 64 A.L.R. 1307, 97 Fla. 69, 120 So. 335. 

“The rights of the individual are not derived from governmental agencies, municipal, state, or federal, or even from the Constitution. They exist inherently in every man, by endowment of the Creator, and are merely reaffirmed in the Constitution, and restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies of government. The people’s rights are not derived from the government, but the government’s authority comes from the people. The Constitution but states again these rights already existing, and when legislative encroachment by the nation, state, or municipality invade these original and permanent rights, it is the duty of the courts to so declare, and to afford the necessary relief. City of Dallas, et al. v. Mitchell, 245 S. W. 944, 945-46 (1922). 

A constitution is designated as a supreme enactment, a fundamental act of legislation by the people of the state. A constitution is legislation direct from the people acting in their sovereign capacity, while a statute is legislation from their representatives, subject to limitations prescribed by the superior authority. Ellingham v. Dye, 178 Ind. 336; NE 1; 231 U.S. 250; 58 L. Ed. 206; 34 S. Ct. 92; Sage v. New York, 154 NY 61; 47 NE 1096.

 “Owner has constitutional right to use and enjoyment of his property.” Simpson v. Los Angeles (1935), 4 C.2d 60, 47 P.2d 474

“We find it intolerable that one constitutional right should have to be surrendered in order to assert another”. SIMMONS v US,

 “When rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.

 “The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.” Miller v. U.S. 230 F 2d 486, 489. History is clear that the first ten amendments to the Constitution were adopted to secure certain common law rights of the people, against invasion by the Federal Government.” Bell v. Hood, 71 F.Supp., 813, 816 (1947) U.S.D.C. — So. Dist. CA. 

Economic necessity cannot justify a disregard of cardinal constitutional guarantee. Riley v. Certer, 165 Okal. 262; 25 P.2d 666; 79 ALR 1018. When any court violates the clean and unambiguous language of the Constitution, a fraud is perpetrated and no one is bound to obey it. (See 16 Ma. Jur. 2d 177, 178) State v. Sutton, 63 Minn. 147, 65 NW 262, 30 L.R.A. 630 Am. 459. 

“The ‘liberty’ guaranteed by the constitution must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiar and known to the framers of the constitution. This liberty denotes the right of the individual to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to locomotion, and generally enjoy those rights long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” Myer v. Nebraska, 262 U .S. 390, 399; United States v. Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 654.

 “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” Norton vs. Shelby County, 118 US 425 p. 442

 “The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

 “No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.” 16 Am Jur 2nd, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256 

All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void. Chief Justice Marshall, Marbury vs Madison, 5, U.S. (Cranch) 137, 174, 176 (1803).

 “Right of protecting property, declared inalienable by constitution, is not mere right to protect it by individual force, but right to protect it by law of land, and force of body politic.” Billings v. Hall (1857), 7 C. 1.

People are supreme, not the state. Waring vs. the Mayor of Savannah, 60 Georgia at 93 

“The Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity is one of the Common-Law immunities and defenses that are available to the Sovereign…” Citizen of Minnesota. Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, (1988) 491 U.S. 58, 105 L.Ed. 2d. 45, 109 S.Ct. 2304.

“The people of the state, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the king by his own prerogative.” Lansing v. Smith, (1829) 4 Wendell 9, (NY). 

“In Land v. Dollar, 338 US 731 (1947), the court noted, that when the government entered into a commercial field of activity, it left immunity behind.† Brady v. Roosevelt, 317 US 575 (1943); FHA v. Burr, 309 US 242 (1940); Kiefer v. RFC, 306 US 381 (1939

 “Ignorance of the law does not excuse misconduct in anyone, least of all in a sworn officer of the law.” In re McCowan (1917), 177 C. 93, 170 P. 1100.

“All are presumed to know the law.” San Francisco Gas Co. v. Brickwedel (1882), 62 C. 641; Dore v. Southern Pacific Co. (1912), 163 C. 182, 124 P. 817; People v. Flanagan (1924), 65 C.A. 268, 223 P. 1014; Lincoln v. Superior Court (1928), 95 C.A. 35, 271 P. 1107; San Francisco Realty Co. v. Linnard (1929), 98 C.A. 33, 276 P. 368.

 “It is one of the fundamental maxims of the common law that ignorance of the law excuses no one.” Daniels v. Dean (1905), 2 C.A. 421, 84 P. 332.

NOTICE OF CLAIMANTS INTENT

 I’VE THROWN MORE LAW INTO THIS DOCUMENT than the offending Libellee(s) have probably read in their lifetime. Forcing a Living Man to “pretend”  he’s a corporation, a trust, a legal entity, or some other “device” is contrary to common sense and True Law. A benefit, no matter how benevolent, cannot be forced upon any Living Man against his will. I exercise my will to inform the entire world that I am not a partaker in the/this/any Babylonian Empirical enterprise that ‘buys and sells men’s souls’ as a common commodity.  My plain statement of intent revolves around the fact that one man’s protest won’t help my fellow man, unless I demand “Enforceability.”  [Pr 29:19 “A servant will not be corrected by words: for though he understands he will not answer.”] And, [Jeremiah 13:22-26. I will discover thy skirts upon thy face, that thy shame may appear] I am openly showing you and the entire world the filth of the “Whore of Babylon”  I am lifting her skirt above her head that all can see the filth of the murders, slavery, torture, extortion and, yes, even PIRATING done by her. There are no ‘innocent by-standers’ in this theatre of Legal Fictional Entities (actors). You are either part of the solution or you are part of the problem. I am exercising one of my greatest Rights, the Right of being left alone, the Right of Privacy, the Right of Peace, which all Libellee(s) have greatly disturbed. 

The ninth (9th) Maxim of Commercial Law states that credibility is measured by the degree of risk one takes. You won’ find much greater risk than I have taken to bring Truth and clarity to this very ugly scenario. 

WHAT IS THE TRUE PURPOSE FOR POLICE ACTION/REVENUE GENERATORS? 

My limited education has informed me that anyone having my signature can use it as they see fit. So, they create new money by sending a “bill,” an instrument which has no charge to it. The bill is like an invoice, which if not rebutted will run like any invoice … 30, 60, 90 days, then it becomes a security which can be levied against. The new money created is MY money which I can prove by either 1099OID or 1099A. 

All vendors, retailers, etc., have the liability (ability to lie) to collect the interest on the national debt, which in essence is what they are doing … but they are not sending that along to the US Treasury and are in reality “pirates” operating on letters of marque and reprisal against the “enemies” of the US, you, me, and the 14th Amendment citizen under TWEA (trading with the enemy act) … BUT THEY ARE NOT PAYING THE TAX MEANING THAT THE MONEY CREATED IS “UNREPORTED INCOME” …hence the OID or A and resulting 1040 claim on interest back to principal – ME. 

When you do a full AFV (Acceptance For Value by a Private Bank/Banker) and state on the AFV “bill” to Deposit to the US Treasury and Charge the same to your corporate, Legal Fictional Entity (strawman), or to the vendor itself, it is a chargeback to the collector of the national debt, the US Treasury (you could do a chargeback to any other source … like to the Republic … if you so choose). The newly created money then is taken from the pirate for failure to ‘state a claim upon which relief can be granted (Rule 12 b 6)’ and either charged back for the use of the Republic or charged back where ever you send it. [Read: EXHIBIT  THERE IS NO MONEY] The client (vendor/presenter/seller/clerks/police “ticket†) account(s) is/are not entitled to the funds because of failure to pay the tax. The new bill is always ‘new’ money (which increases the National Debt with every issue) as they got paid when we put our signature on the original application for “credit”. The presenter (police/ticket) is always trying to avoid liability on the return of the tax to US Treasury by doing a ‘pass over’ from the application/ Bill directly to the bond of the strawman and getting you/me to become liable (30,60,90 days) … so now the presenter is trying to pirate from the US Treasury and make you liable for the payment of the tax bill — which we do when we take the Bill and AFV and deposit to the US Treasury and charge it back to either the presenter or our strawman (they are actually the same entity … all corporations o the US).     

The Treasury can’t ‘cut them a check’, but actually ‘charge’ them for the money on the presentment which is essence should have been forwarded to Treasury on the national debt!!! THEY ARE IN DISHONOR AND WILL BE LIQUIDATED UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHAPTER 11 BANKRUPTCY OF THE US! Vendors or presenters already have the benefit privilege of discharge when issued a TIN, and trying an end run with a ‘bill’ is thievery under public policy. They are not entitled to “new” money as this is a felony called unjust enrichment. One easy way to prove the felony is the 1099A, and under 18 USC 4 — misprision of felony, the IRS has to prosecute. The presenter has no rights in the matter for failure to state a claim and pay the tax … it is all NEW MONEY!!! And, every action performed raises the National Debt by that much. These are Dark Matters.

 

AUSA advises “unless I have a document that specifically states Mark Conlee intentionally applied poison on Melody’s property to hurt her”,

AUSA Kevin VanderSchel wrote in a letter to me that “unless I have a document that

specifically states Mark Conlee intentionally applied poison on Melody’s property to hurt her”, he will not pursue my case.

Is this the standard procedure for prosecuting cases? Prosecutor must have admission of guilt? Evidence beyond a reasonable doubt is not enough?

The fact that I verbally told him the first day I discovered the chemicals to stop and he did not stop, as the evidence supports. It took the police chief 16 months to give me an incident report that I requested as documentation for evidence I told Conlee to stop trespassing, as the evidence supports. The evidence also supports, A criminal conspiracy exists when two or more people agree to commit almost any unlawful act, then take some action toward its completion. The action taken need not itself be a crime, but it must indicate that those involved in the conspiracy knew of the plan and intended to break the law. A person may be convicted of conspiracy even if the actual crime was never committed. It was obvious by looking at my skin I was being harmed, as the evidence supports. There are multiple hard copy evidence documents supporting he and the police chief conspired to violate my private property rights. The fact that a civil court order citing my right to use my private property as I wished supports he never stopped applying the chemicals, as the evidence supports. He admitted in court that he applied chemicals to my property, as the evidence supports. Witness/council member stated that it did not look like he had sprayed the chemicals but rather poured chemicals on my property, as the evidence supports.

The fact that he intentionally used chemicals on my private property and it did cause me physical harm has no relevance to him violating Federal law regarding my right to enjoy private property.

If you or Reinwart would have given a shit about a US citizen who  has a legitimate complaint, that proves without a doubt, violates several Federal laws. Instead of being so determined to protect these rapists of my rights.  You and your colleagues have every reason and duty to prosecute each and every one of these local public impostors. If you had the evidence you would have to pretend to be blind not to recognize Conlee applied chemicals to my property with the intention of causing me harm. It doesn’t not take a law degree to read, does it?

Where in the hell is it written that private property rights are not Federally protected? Where the hell  is it written that you have the authority to violate a civil court order.  It is not written anywhere. You continue raping me of my individual Constitutional Rights. You do not have the authority to violate a civil court order. A civil court judge has authority over you.  Your duty as a Federal prosecutor is not to continue gang raping a citizen because “you can”.  It makes no difference what Federal law has been violated. You have shown you are committed to using attorney discretion no matter the circumstances. I believe you are knowingly making false statements by telling me that you have the authority to violate a civil court order using your attorney discretion. I sent you the guidelines and I think your supervisor would have an issue based on the degree of seriousness that I have been violated. If I have to advise you that the citizens given rights are inalienable then how did you pass the bar? You have a duty to expose public corruption where ever the evidence supports corruption has occurred. That is what Federal law states. You can only convince me, a reasonable person, that you are telling the truth by submitting to me documentation stating that you have the authority to violate a civil court order. Because you advise me of something does not convince me that what you are saying is true, your word is hearsay. Considering the facts of this case, which I know you do not have, and your suggestion that I have not made certain statements on my web page as if it were real time. What you did read you completely misread the facts concerning the timeline as you stated in your first letter to me.

I have no reason to take any government official at their word. Your credibility has always been questionable. I can comprehend what the Bill of Rights gives the citizens. As I told you, my father was a city street commissioner and a WW ll Navy veteran. I was educated by an expert as to what duties the City, State and Federal government must provide the citizens. He had no agenda or intent to violate any residents private property rights.

You should be embarrassed by what you have written to me, really. Where in the hell does a citizen find a government officials who is not a narcissist? Hitler used chemical weapons on civilians and he is referred to as a psychopath. Chemical weapons were unlawfully applied on my private property weekly for over five years with intent to cause harm to my person and my property. The man who did this to me is not viewed by government as a psychopath or to have so much as committed a criminal offense? I can tell you as his victim and a reasonable person this man is a psychopath. I suggest you re-educate yourself about what is described as your duties as an AUSA. I believe you may have put yourself in the position of a co-conspirator and be guilty of obstruction of justice. I am not an attorney, but I could probably hold my own arguing a case against you. I still challenge you to a fist fight in front of the Capitol building. I have been reviewing your history, I am not impressed with what you have achieved in your career. Not at all, in fact I have reason to believe you have probably victimized other citizens. Then after insulting my intelligence, you advised me that you are not the person who would be prosecuting this case anyway.

Where would you get the authority to make a prosecutorial decision since this would not be your case anyway? Sheriff Weber has dirty hands, as the evidence supports. I did not include that information on my website for self protection. You know, these locals, as a group, would have killed me with the chemicals had I not have fled, as the evidence supports. I waited, suffering for over 5 years, for law enforcement to protect me from harm and uphold my State and Federal Constitutional given rights to private property, as the evidence supports. The evidence is indisputable that I have. If I was in your position I would make sure the evidence I was given is based on facts. Not, as in this case, hearsay from the most notorious agency of fabricators in our government, law enforcement. And then to know the information you have came from a third party of an organization of known liars. You are a sad excuse for an attorney of any type in my opinion. Reinwart gave me three different versions of how he actually submitted my case to you, I find that suspicious in regard to his credibility. I am not a trained investigator but I caught that clue of inconsistency in his statements . Had he only done what the taxpayers paid him to do when he came to my home, review the hard copy evidence, he would not have needed to use hearsay. He requested that I give him hearsay evidence. He had three notes on his pad when he left my home. For all I know it could have been a grocery list. It took me six years to chronologically put the evidence in order. He gives me 2 1/2 hours of his time. My witnesses are experts in their own right. He did nothing that would be considered standard procedure for a legitimate investigation. He did not review the hard copy evidence. He did not look into financial records for a suspected bribe. He did not interview any of my witnesses. He did not interview my doctors. He did not share the false information given to him by Sheriff Weber by the third party to give me the opportunity to provide conflicting evidence.

He  predetermined his decision based on no hard copy evidence before he met with me. I received the letter from Washington DC in the mail two hours after he left my home. I used the term “information” literally as no information that has been given to you has any evidence to support a fact. The two of you seem to work well together in  holding no regard to you oaths of office. Not indifferent than these local officials. What is the driving force behind those few cases that are legitimately investigated as public corruption? The FBI works closely with local law enforcement covering up crimes committed by locals officials, I get that. Iowa has no cases of public corruption that I can find. The only State in the Nation with zero cases of public corruption. Reasonable citizens recognize we only have honest public servants in Iowa. They read my case and they will have an eye opening sense of reality.

Also, you should know there is a criminal and a civil division of FBI. Referring me to obtain private council for a civil case is not an option. I have no assets or credit that I had before the taking of my private property that allows me the financial ability to obtain an attorney. I only survive, I have financial difficulty making it to my medical appointments at the University of Iowa dermatology clinic that I am regularly scheduled as a patient. I have the right to be made whole, to have my day in court. That is impossible. My life cannot be returned to me as it was.

How does the FBI protect the civil rights of people in the United States?

Federal civil rights violations fall into several categories:

  • hate crimes motivated by bias against such characteristics as race, religion, national origin, and sexual orientation;
  •  color of law crimes involving law enforcement and related criminal justice professionals’ misuse of their right to discretion, such as use of excessive force or police misconduct; 
  • involuntary servitude or slavery;
  • violations of the Voting Rights Act of 1965,
  • the Equal Credit Opportunity Act,
  • the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act;
  • the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act;
  • the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act;
  • and violations of human trafficking statutes included as part or the Trafficking Victims Protection Rights Act.

The FBI’s civil rights investigations are separate from Equal Employment Opportunity Commission investigations, although EEOC regulations are enforced within the agency.

Until my evidence is competently reviewed you and your government agency have no right to disregard me or my complaint. I am a natural born citizen of the US, deserving of all the rights guaranteed to all citizens.  

Using chemical weapons against civilians is a war crime, a crime against humanity.  The law does not differentiate between one victim or an entire race. Those are universal international laws.

I get more pissed off with each day that passes, you will not take my private property without paying the price. Hey I have not paid my half of the court fees as ordered in the civil case Conlee vs Boatner. File a contempt charge against me on that one, State of Iowa!

I am so upset this a.m. Let me tell you why. I am 61 years old, just started getting arthritis in my knee. I spent the entire day and night at a river park in Keokuk, Ia. I have to go there now to work on my vehicles. I had a garage that had heat and AC. I have air compressor and air tools. I had room for two cars in my garage if I wanted to put two cars in there. I have nothing, I was offered nothing and I am not about to settle for nothing.  The chemicals that I was intentionally exposed to caused me to have a chronic skin condition that I cannot control. Prior to being exposed to these chemicals I never so much as had poison ivy. I want you to understand completely what the evidence supports happened to me at the hands of my government officials. I want you to understand that at every opportunity for the government to intervene they have made the choice, not to act on my behalf in their duties according to Federal law.
But let’s get back to why I am feeling intense stress at this time. I have always maintained my own equipment. I like maintaining my own equipment. I am replacing a leaking break line on my car at this time. However instead of having my garage and equipment to assist me in such endeavours I had to leave my vehicle at the river park on a jack stand for the rest of the night. I am simply to tired to finish the job tonight. It takes me much longer to complete any given task now that I was force to flee from my private property, including my well laid out garage. I have to depend on trying to contact someone to give me a ride down to the park to attempt to finish the brake line tomorrow.
The entire day and night the RR crossing arms were down and the warning bells are loud and were ringing constantly during my attempt to get some needed maintenance done on my car. My head is pounding and the ringing seems as if I am still at the park. Why in the hell should I have to go to the park to work on my vehicle. How in the hell is this acceptable. I cannot use my air tools at the park, the hose to my compressor is not 2 miles long. The lifestyle I chose allowed for me to put my car in my garage and use my tools in an efficient manner. Not only did I have to leave my car in the park on a jack stand this morning. But I also had to call friends twice during the time I spent at the park today. I happened to forget a couple of the tools I needed for the brake line repair. I chose to have a garage so I would have all my tools conveniently located for any given task. I will have to ask someone to give me a ride back to the park tomorrow. I chose to have my own garage at my own home on my own property because when I was in charge of my own destiny I did not plan on needing to ask people for favors. I did not plan on being taken out of the working class 20 years earlier than I had planned to retire. Had I have been in charge of my own destiny I had planned to use my private property as a source of income in my golden years. If I had control of my own destiny I damn sure would not be in the riverpark barely able to crawl in and out from under my vehicle or get up off the ground due to the arthritis in my knee at 61 years old.
I am absolutely livid. Here are the basics of my environment complaint. I was intentionally exposed to glyphosate by my neighbor Mark Conlee. Is that a crime? Yes it is the crime of trespassing at the minimum. Trespassing complaints a commonly filed in Lee County Iowa. There is no good or legal reason I should have been denied the right to file a trespassing complaint against Mark Conlee.
Conspiracy against rights. … If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person […] in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same;…
Ok, so whoever the individual was that refused me that right can be viewed as a conspirator against my rights. My right to enjoy my private property, my right to use my private property as I wished as cited by Judge John Linn.
Iowa District Court Lee County
 Case no.   No. EQEQ004304
Conlee vs Boatner.
Right off the top the three who denied my right to file a criminal complaint for trespassing against Mark Conlee are
  1. former City of Montrose Police Chief Brent Shipman,
  2. former Lee County Attorney Mike Short and
  3. current Lee County Iowa Attorney Ross Braden.

Ross Braden was told about my situation soon after he accepted his position of Lee County Attorney and he advised that he was not interested. He and the prior named all knew that criminal acts were being committed against me and they chose not to protect me from harm or protect my Federal rights leaving all of the above co-conspirators against my rights.

Ms Melody…I don’t know how you do it, day in, day out.

I tell you the truth with each day that passes I feel the need to remedy my situation myself. It seems that there will be no justice served by our legal system. I have reached out to every person who I feel may remotely have the ability to use their influence to assist me. And to top it off is was just a matter of months ago a couple county deputies came knocking on my door asking if I had threatened anyone from my hometown. I immediately went into open a can of whoopass mode on these cops that had no clue about anything that has taken place. They wanted to come in and look at my computer. I think smoke was coming out my ears. I said you mean to tell me that you are here on behalf of the police chief of my hometown and asking if I have threatened anyone, they nearly killed me. I was forced to flee from my home to save my own life! The one who was questioning me kind of glanced around the room. I happened to be bagging up stuff in those vac bags from dollar tree. I have kept many of my med bottles and keep small items in them. He could not tell what was in them. I had like 5 of those bags on the dining room table. He asked, “do you take all those meds”? I told him yes, that is the only thing that keeps me from carrying out defending myself in the brutal attack your colleagues have committed against me. He hightailed it out the door. I never even asked who the threat was supposed to be against. I have never even met the new police chief. Someone from the AVVO lawyers must have reported me to the Montrose police chief. I asked a question, “who protects me from harm”?. A response was, “you”. I asked a question to that, “I protect myself from harm”? Note the question mark. Stupid asses don’t understand punctuation, that’s what I told the cop. GRRRRR, it just depends on the day. One day I am ready to go armed and loaded and the next I am back to begging for legal assistance that seems will never come. It is tough to keep emotionally together. I am consumed by what they did to me. I am consumed knowing that there is not one other citizen in the Nation who has been forced to flee from their private property to escape chemical weapons, in all cases trespassing complaints have been filed against anyone who would do this only one application. This guy did this for over 5 years on a weekly basis. There are trespassing complaints listed in the newspaper here commonly. The EPA field investigator told me what they were doing was “unheard of”. He was not joking. He advised the only reports he has ever investigated has been from an accidental spill from an factory. I want to know why I was exempt from filing a complaint? I was exempt from filing a complaint against a city clerk who committed multiple counts of document fraud and altering of ordinances specifically and only for me? I want to know why building permits that do not have the required information by the State of Iowa or the signature of the builder have not been pulled and the City of Montrose, Ia. held accountable for fraud? I want to know how an FBI agent can claim to have investigated my complaint but refused to review any hard copy evidence? I want to know how that agent left my home after not reviewing any evidence and got a report to his supervisor and back to my mailbox in a matter of two hours? I want to know the answers to these questions. And nobody has provided me any reasonable explanations. I want the general public to know what has taken place in Lee County, Iowa on behalf of one man that my experience of interaction can only be associated with a full blown psychopath. I want to know where it is written that an AUSA has the authority to violate a civil court order with no type of court proceedings. He cannot produce such a document he is lying. He has an ethical duty to uphold court orders, not violate them because he has attorney discretion. He has discretion not to prosecute but he has no authority to violate a court order that has already been decided. Then he has the balls to lie about it. He needs hung by the balls and put in prison. Nothing worse that a corrupt public official. I can’t say I have met one that is not corrupt or honors his oath of office. Not one!

I want to move on past this so bad but they have me so financially disabled I have no way to get out of this rut. How many citizen get a return on their property investment? I had the investment and they forced me to evacuate. They used chemical weapons to eliminate me. Who does this in America? Is there anyone who has a remotely similar situation? I can find no cases in which chemicals were applied to a citizens property against their will and ongoing for over five years. This went from a civil suit to a criminal complaint when they allowed trespassing on my property.

To top that off I bought a car that wasn’t much to look at but was mechanically strong. A dude that works at one of the highest paying factories and his gf who is a CNA let their 13 year old unlicensed daughter drive on the street to pick up a friend. Well she ran a stop sign and the front end of my car is totaled. No insurance, I only have liability. So I am screwed. The court gets $50 a month payment but the cop did not include me as a damaged person on his report so I get no damages. Every time the government has been involved in my life I get screwed.

One time I got a bill from child support services. What? I have never gotten a cent of child support? I blew up that day and I never heard from that agency again. I know of nobody who has ever gotten a bill from child support recovery services. Even if they get child support.

I think I may be one of the “targeted individuals”! lol but seriously. lol Thanks for the message. Always good to know someone supports us out here in single female easy target land.  take care

No authorities or persons close to a government authority will respond to this message because they are cowards and committing acts of treason to their duty to the Constitution. A bunch of low life assholes that need bitch slapped. Step on up here I will fist fight every last one of you cowards.

Letter I wrote in 2011, got no response from State and Federal officials.

To whom it may concern,
I have followed every procedure available to me in the civil court system. Elected City officials and City police officers have publicly defamed my character over a period of over 4 years. County law enforcement officers have publicly defamed my character by knowingly making false statements about my character over the police radio heard by any citizen with a police scanner in their home. I have been denied my right to enjoy my own home, business and property for a period of over 4 years.I have been denied equal protection of the law for over a period of 4 years. I have been denied the right to file criminal complaints against the perpetrators by law enforcement officers for over a period of 4 years. I was a victim of domestic terrorism by being intentionally exposed to toxic chemicals applied on my property by the owner of the property adjoining mine and in violation of EPA regulations by the City for over a period of 4 years. The city official refused his appointed duty to address the concerns of a resident in reference to the nuisance drainage issue, there is no record of this long time or any other appointed building administrator refusing his duty in a private manner by going to the site in question and answering questions of the property owners involved. I contacted a local elected State Representative. He having never heard of a situation as I described being treated contacted City Hall on my behalf requesting I be put on the agenda, in an effort to force the appointed council member to answer my questions. Public records shows it a rare occasion that particular council member having served 15 years that I lived in town and many years prior to my moving into City limits was absent at this meeting. His absence was an intentional act to avoid his duty to address my concerns. Local law enforcement officers have refused to investigate my allegations by refusing to review the documented evidence or question the list of witnesses I have provided to the officer and the County Attorney. The City officials have continuously refused their duty enforce compliance of State laws pertaining to property redevelopment that protect adjoining property from nuisance drainage, required set backs of new structures. The adverse effects to my property were foreseeable and preventable. The City acted intentionally negligent and the redevelopment of this property caused a loss of value to my property according to the assessor due to the excessive increase of storm water diverted directly on to my property. The fact the criminal acts against me were perpetrated by the Mayor (who was also the seller of the property being redeveloped adjoining mine), several council members, City police officers, the County Attorney and 2 County deputies violated their duty to protect and chose to conspire in criminal and unethical offenses. No where in the Constitution or Bill of rights either State or Federal that states a government official is allowed to opt out of his sworn duty. Now the Federal Government officials has the duty investigate my evidence, defend and protect my individual rights given by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Nor does the fact that these individuals being government officials exempt them from being held accountable and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law in a Federal Court. These same individuals have a history of unethical behavior in the past. Using their positions in a self-serving manner. I am unaware of any so brutal to cause personal injury to another human being as has happened to me. My case is unprecedented. I am a victim of domestic terrorism by the use of toxic chemicals, chemical warfare. No different than anthrax or any other dangerous chemical. When reports of anthrax being sent by mail to government officials or other individuals of notoriety it is taken very serious by the Federal Government, The FBI is investigating the evidence of every allegation immediately. I was selected to speak to a Congressional committee on capitol hill in the past. My testimony helped provide many poor family acquire the assets to become productive members of society. I owned my own home, owned a highly reputable self-employed business and a substantial size piece of property for 15 years. I was debt free and had an excellent credit rating. Does that qualify me as being worthy of at least the professional courtesy of my simple request of an investigation? An  investigation by the FBI should be acted on immediately on behalf of any citizen who’s allegations are as serious in nature as what I have been the victim of. Physical injury due to ongoing intentional exposure to toxic chemicals. I will continue my quest for answers as to why this happened to me by continuing to contact every resource available, repeatedly until someone investigates my story, be it a Government agency or the media. If you can advise and assist me as to how I can and file a criminal complaint of perjury and contempt against this councilman/neighbor without the assistance of the County Attorney I will anxiously proceed to do so. If I can only access the State criminal court system though the County Attorney then I want to file a Federal complaint against the County Attorney and local law enforcement officers for violating my Constitutional Rights, intentional negligence, official misconduct and any other charges that may apply. I have over 400 documents of evidence that prove what I am claiming is completely true, due to the fact that this criminal attack on me has been ongoing and continuous beginning in 2005. I am also requesting to correspond with only 1 investigator because I am very timid and it is very difficult for me to speak openly with a complete stranger. The documents and photos evidence is contained in an several 3 ring binders by date of event. I have a couple basic questions I would like to know if you have ever heard other cases similar to what I have experienced. For instance the EPA field investigator advised me that what the City did with chemicals to an easement in the manner in which was done to my property was “unheard of”.
A couple questions for you. Have you ever hear of a case in which when I contacted the county attorney in requesting that I wanted to file a contempt of court charge against the opposing party in a civil trial his response was “I frankly don’t care what Judge ____. ruled”. 
Have you ever know of a case in which a pastor went to City Hall to pay on my water bill her payment was not accepted.  She was told that the payment have to come out of my pocket. She expressed to me that she became irate when she was told that. She stated that she recognized at that time the degree of oppression I had suffer. She was treated so disrespectful, absolutely unacceptable behavior of the City officials. 
Please, I believe my case is the most brutal and vicious that has ever occurred in the Country. If you can find one that is comparable I desperately need to see it. I am sure I will find comfort knowing that I am not the only person that has suffered severely at the hands of local government officials extreme continuous criminal, unethical and immoral behavior. These are dangerous individual capable of causing  the death of another human being. I don’t know if I can handle the emotional turmoil inside of me. At what point does a person decide his only option is the 2nd amendment. How can you help me get justice for the crimes committed against me?  
I have evidence of numerous serious criminal and unethical acts against me. The following describes the most physically and mentally damaging. This was an act of domestic terrorism. I have been advised by the State Attorney Generals office that they can only get involved in a case if a case is referred to them by the County Attorney. I believe anyone has the right to investigate my local government officials. I believe the Government has the duty to investigate citizens being oppressed and violated of their given rights.I am requesting an investigation based on my evidence and witnesses that support my allegations. It will shock those who have no conscience. An investigation by a reputable National media source could certainly be embarrassing to the Government. The evidence that this chemical is toxic and was also unlawfully applied by the City comes from an investigation by EPA. Evidence supporting other offenses including arson, knowingly making false statements, defamation, harassment, perjury, contempt and document fraud. All of which are by admission of the offender and indisputable. The witnesses on my behalf being immediate family members or fellow law enforcement officers. The repercussions have proven to be severe to those who have attempted to speak on my behalf. This County has a history of corruption that has only been exposed by outside sources. I believe my life could be in danger.   
In May 2005 my neighbor applied chemicals to my property without my knowledge. I then advised him and law enforcement that I had developed a rash and did not want anything applied to my property. I requested an incident report from the police officer. The officer would not give me an incident report or file a complaint against this man on my behalf. The officer stated that he did not want to make the councilman/neighbor mad. He continued to apply chemicals to my property on a regular basis throughout the summer. My rash progressed to a full body skin disorder, causing me to repeatedly seek medical attention at the ER. The pain and suffering was excruciating. I continue to suffer extreme mental anguish because the officer would not intervene. He presented an incident report in Sept. stating that he could not remember what my complaint was in reference to. I told him that I wanted a report based on my initial complaint. A week later he gave me a report with the relevant information. The officer failed to protect my right to enjoy my property. The officer failed to provide me equal protection of the law. That officer was forced to resigned due to unrelated unethical behavior, The new officer hired by the City continued the same type of behavior. The neighbor continued to apply chemicals to my property. My skin disorder continue to progress. I could not work, I could not function. I could not control my emotions. I could not bear to wear clothes. I was in severe pain 24/7. The new officer advised me that I should move. A civil court ruled against the neighbor citing my Constitution Right to enjoy my own property.  The neighbor acting in contempt continued to apply chemicals to my property with no concern of being held accountable. I did sell my home and business in an unsuccessful to date effort to regain any quality of life. I have always been of the opinion that it was the actions of the councilman/neighbor that caused injury to me. But it is the liability of the City and County Attorney due to the intentional negligence. Do you agree that this is a matter of violation of my Constitutional rights? There exists a conflict of interest between the County Attorney and the City preventing any contempt of court proceedings. The evidence and witnesses I have prove without a doubt my allegations. I have been constantly harassed and my complaints ignored. My character has been defamed and these authorities have knowingly made false statements from the beginning of this nightmare,. My allegations are absolutely outrageous but completely true and provable. I have lived in a state of terror with no protection of the law. There has been no investigation into my allegations. In fact, if any outside source would give me the benefit of the doubt and review my evidence and question my witnesses they might conclude that there needs to be more oversight and criminal prosecution of local government authorities. I contacted many of you previously when I was clearly in a state of despair and there was no response. Perhaps I was not clear with my explanation of what had transpired. I had severely impaired eyesight that hampered my ability to communicate adequately for an extended period of time. Unfortunately the corrective surgery has not been completely successful and the I can not get further medical attention until April.  I have contacted every State Government resource available, with no response regarding my request into an  investigation of my evidence. Some one needs to be the hero here. I am a victim and a witness of serious criminal acts by local government authorities. I can understand now how a person can be so personally violated, beg for help, be ignore, lose control, labeled as deranged to satisfy the public the facts never disclosed to the public. That in my opinion is a tragedy. I will continue to this forum as my weapon for justice until the day I die. Do not dismiss me as crazy until you review my evidence.  Please respond.sincerely,
Melody Boatner

This was sent to mhorvit@ire.org, non-attorney Staff <legal.program@aclu-ia.org>, Congressman Dave Loebsack <Rep.Loebsack@mail.house.gov>, dateline@nbcuni.com, Jason Hancock <jason@iowaindependent.com>, IDCI Gerard Meyers <meyers@dps.state.ia.us>, Omaha@ic.fbi.gov, usa@mediacom.com

Recently there was an imposter sent to my home perpetrating an FBI agent. The intent was for him to review the hard copy evidence I have supporting my allegation. He arrived advising me that he had no intention of reviewing any hard copy evidence. He ordered me to verbally tell him the story. I advised him that it was not possible to tell this story because it is to complex. I had the option of verbally telling him or I suppose he would have left with nothing. He gave me 2 1/2 hours to attempt to tell the facts of a case of pubic corruption that had gone on for years. That same day two hours later I received in the mail a letter from FBI Washington, DC. The letter stated that the imposter agent had determined no violation of Federal law had occurred. The letter was signed by J.C. Hacker. This letter was obviously was based on a fraudulent investigation. Predetermined by the imposter that came to my home. He admitted that he had been given verbal information that came from the County Sheriff. He somehow was so professional that he believed the fabricated story of a know dirty cop over my story. He had the opportunity to review the evidence himself. He knew if he had followed procedure for investigations he would have no option but to bring criminal charges against these corrupt local officials. So where the hell is justice in this. This only expanded the conspirators violating my Constitutional Rights. Deprivation of Rights under color of law, Discrimination, Fraud, and I guess these people want me to commit a crime to get a response from them. What crime would it be to force someone to defend themselves by taking up arms? Do they think I am just going to walk away and let this psychopath have my assets? Hell no I am not. There are laws that protect citizens from trespassing. Criminal laws, laws that force compliance to court order, contempt of court. Glyphosate is a poison, I was intentionally expose to this toxic chemical by my local public officials. What the hell are public corruption laws written for if not to protect the rights of the citizens. Statute of limitations does not apply in cases of torture. Domestic terrorism is real.