Law Enforcement Misconduct

Intentional Negligence by refusing to review the evidence falls within these guidelines I would assume. AUSA Kevin VanderSchel, FBI SA Thomas Reinwart. My evidence proves this and more!

The federal criminal statute that enforces Constitutional limits on conduct by law enforcement officers is 18 U.S.C. § 242. Section 242 provides in relevant part:

“Whoever, under color of any law, …willfully subjects any person…to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States [shall be guilty of a crime].”

Section 242 is intended to “protect all persons in the United States in their civil rights, and furnish the means of their vindication.” Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 98 (1945) (quoting legislative history).

To prove a violation of § 242, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) that the defendant deprived a victim of a right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, (2) that the defendant acted willfully, and (3) that the defendant was acting under color of law. A violation of § 242 is a felony if one of the following conditions is met: the defendant used, attempted to use, or threatened to use a dangerous weapon, explosive or fire; the victim suffered bodily injury; the defendant’s actions included attempted murder, kidnapping or attempted kidnapping, aggravated sexual abuse or attempted aggravated sexual abuse, or the crime resulted in death. Otherwise, the violation is a misdemeanor.

Establishing the intent behind a Constitutional violation requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the law enforcement officer knew what he/she was doing was wrong and against the law and decided to do it anyway. Therefore, even if the government can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an individual’s Constitutional right was violated, § 242 requires that the government prove that the law enforcement officer intended to engage in the unlawful conduct and that he/she did so knowing that it was wrong or unlawful. See Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 101-107 (1945). Mistake, fear, misperception, or even poor judgment does not constitute willful conduct prosecutable under the statute.

Dear Senator Grassley

Dear Senator Grassley,

I have been corresponding with your assistant John Kaufman since 2006. He advises me that you are aware of my complaint. John has through the years advised me of several things that did not materialize as he said it would. My complaint is that my local government officials used chemicals unlawfully applied to my private property with intent to cause me serious injury or death. The chemicals were applied by a neighbor who purchased his legally nonconforming lot from the Mayor. He illegally redeveloped the property causing nuisance drainage, loss of value and structural damage to my property. My complaints to the building administrator were ignored. His duty to address my concerns were refused. Instead this neighbor’s brother, a County Detective, with an obvious conflict of interest began acting as a city building authority. This County officer had no authority or jurisdiction to act as any official in this City. The actual building administrator continued issuing this neighbor fraudulent building permits. As expected when this neighbor went to get his redevelopment recorded on the County plat map, it was rejected.

It was at this time he, along with the City officials and the County attorney determined his remedy was to eliminate me. With the addition of my property added with his he would be in compliance with State building code. 

He began applying chemicals to my side of the 300′ common boundary in spring of 2005. I developed a “rash” on my shins at this same time. I had owned my property for ten years, I have never had any type of “rash”, never so much as poison ivy. Through the advice of a dermatologist and the process of elimination it has been determined the “rash” was caused by the chemicals my neighbor had exposed me to. I requested him to stop, asking for an incident report from the police chief. The neighbor would not stop. I received an incident report 16 months after the initial exposure. By this time the “rash” had developed into a severe skin condition. It was unbearable to simple wear clothes. I was completely unable to function from what had become a full body condition of eruptions on my skin. I researched the chemical and it did have a history of being known to cause rashes on peoples skin. In this case I was exposed intentionally by this neighbor in which I had no control. I requested the City and the County attorney file a trespassing complaint against him on my behalf. They refused stating they did not believe in neighbor against neighbor complaints. A double standard as I was criminally charged by the City and the State on fabricated laws and ordinances. This was an attempt to cause me financial harm. The chemicals had already rendered me unable to work. I was an upholsterer. The eruptions constantly caused random bleeding from my hands and arms. If I could have worked I could not afford to get blood stains on clients fabric. I was living on money borrowed from friends. Prior to this chemical exposure I was ready to semi retire. I had excellent credit rating and felt financially stable enough to be more selective in the jobs I accepted. I was referred to an attorney. He was briefed on my case by the person who referred him to me. When we met we both understood that the liable party was the city. It was the city who issued the fraudulent building permits. It was the city who refused to stop the trespassing with chemicals on my private property. It was the Mayor who stated on public record that the builders signature on a building permits alleviates the cities liability. At that time I presented one of the building permits issued by the city to this neighbor with no signature. The mayor had no response. There are many similar incidents where the officials implicate themselves on public record. 

I have never needed an attorney or had any experience in a courtroom. I paid my attorney at our first meeting the amount he needed to file a complaint against the city.  He advised that we would sue both the city and the neighbor, adding that the city is where the money is. I submitted my witness list to him. He was impressed, stating that my witness list is “compelling in itself”, that they are “experts in their own right”. I was naive and actually believed an attorney would always have their clients best interest in mind. I have had a significant reality check since then. My attorney had to have gotten a better financial reward from the opposing party. He never filed the complaint but continued to assure me that he did. I get served papers from this neighbor. He is suing me for “loss of enjoyment of his property”. All along the chemicals have routinely been applied to my property. My attorney still misleading me to believe he had filed the complaint against the city advised we would counter sue the neighbor for nuisance drainage. When I advised him of the severe skin condition the chemicals were causing I assumed he would amend the complaint to include damages I suffered from the chemicals. He did not amend the complaint. At trial he did not question any of my witnesses or submit their written affidavits. He did not submit any of the photo evidence that I had been documenting this entire time. Even with my evidence suppressed the judge cited my right to use my property as I wished. He dismissed both complaints. It was on the last day of this civil trial that I asked my attorney about the case against the city. He snickered and told me that he did not want that case. I did not understand why he would deceive me in this way. I understand now that he was a co conspirator with the opposing party. I did feel a sense of relief knowing that the judge ordered my right to use my property as I wished. That was a false sense of relief. The chemicals continued to be applied to my property without pause. I had lost my eyesight by this time. I could not read or recognize people. Only by their voices could I know who was around me. The vision loss was a result of the massive amounts of steroid injections administered by the ER at the local hospital. The steroids would offer me fifteen minutes of relief, that fifteen minutes helped me want to stay alive and regain my health. During this time I contacted you though John Kaufman. First he gave me specific direction as to where to send my evidence. I recall it was the Davenport office with ATT. Penny. I submitted that large envelope of evidence and never heard another thing about it. Sometime later, in a state of dis pare I contacted you again. I signed another authorization for personal information and was advised that you requested an inquiry on my behalf from the FBI. You advised me that the FBI would contact me. I waited five years, Senator Grassley. No FBI ever contacted me. The chemicals continued in a more aggressive manner as my health deteriorated. I contacted you again. Again you advised me that you would request another inquiry on my behalf. You again advised me that the FBI would contact me. You advised me to “be patient” it “takes time”. Another five years passed and no FBI contacted me. 

One afternoon a County sheriff’s officer who was aware of the situation stopped by my home. He advised me that this neighbor had no intention to stop applying the chemicals to my property. The neighbor had to acquire my property or the court would order him to bring his structures into compliance to State building code, or remove the structures and return the lot to its existing condition. Having no protection of the law I had only two options that would eliminate the chemical exposure. One would be to commit a criminal offense myself or I could flee and seek compensation when and if I regained my health. Staying at my home was certain death. I fled homeless, blind and with a severe full body skin condition. 

I am still waiting for an investigation into my case. I contacted an agent though the County Sheriff. Against my gut knowing he had a conflict of interest with the opposing party. 

The agent took 14 months to come to my home. The purpose was specifically for him to review my evidence. He arrived announcing that he had no intention of reviewing any of my evidence. He advised me to verbally tell him my story. I protested. I attempted to point out the violations of Federal law that have been committed against me. Such as violation of my private property rights. He did not recognize that as a violation of Federal law. In fact he was not interested in what I was telling him. He seemed lethargic. He was steady checking the time on his wrist watch. He gave me 2 1/2 hours to tell him a story that took a student lawyer the better part of three days to review the evidence I have documented in this case. Two hours after this agent left my home I receive in my mailbox a letter from the Washington DC headquarters a letter signed by Deputy assistant director JC Hacker. The letter stated that the agent had determined no violation of Federal law has occurred. This investigation was a fraud. this agent did not interview any of my witnesses, he did not interview my Dr. He did not look through financial records for a payment of a bribe. It is not possible for an agent to send a report to Washington DC, and an assistant director to get a decision back to me in Iowa in a period of two hours. This agent pre determined his decisions based on false information the County Sheriff gave to a third party. Several weeks later I received a letter stating as much of the same.

You advised me to document everything. I did that Senator Grassley, the part that has not been done is a competent authority to review my documented evidence. 

 ​Attached is a heartfelt letter I sent to the FBI Omaha division. Still nobody responded, this was soon after your last request for an inquiry. These actors will not go unpunished. In a case of crimes against humanity and torture there are no Statute of Limitations.  Senator I am giving you this one last opportunity to do your job and follow through on what you have the power to do. 

If I do not get a response in a timely fashion I will accept the fact that you have given your permission to take the law into my own hands and serve justice myself using my 2nd amendment right. I hope that if this letter is intercepted by one of your staff members they personally hand it to you. You can reach me at 319-520-0253. It is unfortunate that I have not been allowed to talk directly with you. You present yourself as a supporter of Constitutional Rights and support whistle blowers. I pray that you do not force me into committing a criminal offense. I have no criminal history. I do have a paper trail of my contact with you that will be exposed after you let choose to allow a tragedy occur.  I would like copies of the FBI reports following up on your requests for the inquiries you requested on my behalf. If there are none then it is clear that no legitimate investigation has been done in this case. I will know when an investigation is being done because I have the evidence supporting my allegations in my possession. Advise the FBI there is no statute of limitation for torture. Advise the FBI that this is a case of cruel and unusual punishment. Advised the FBI that hearsay is not evidence. Advise the FBI and the US Attorney for the Southern District of Iowa that they do not have the authority to violated my Federally protected Constitutional Rights anymore that these local government officials did. Hold them accountable for the crimes against humanity they have committed. Good Day Senator.

sincerely serious,

Melody Boatner. ​​

2-12-2011 MB to FBI Omaha

My Doctor says “I am pioneer of the effects Roundup by Monsanto can cause to the human body after being intentionally exposed to the chemical for over five years on a routine basis.

 

Government abuse—because the government must obey laws, too

A previous request for a hero. No authority responded to the letter. The FBI claims I did not contact them until much later. As a citizen I assumed that when my US Senator advised he requested an inquiry into my case I expected the FBI to respond. The FBI never did respond to the two inquires Senator Grassley made on my behalf. Apparently they have no record of this and many other letters I wrote to the FBI.

From: songboat@gmail.com

To: Omaha@ic.fbi.gov<Omaha@ic.fbi.gov>;                                   2-12-2011 10:30 a.m.

To whom it may concern,

In light of the recent tragedy in Tuscon I am writing this to your agency because I understand you do have the authority to investigate my complaint into criminal offenses committed by local state officials. I have followed every procedure available to me in the civil court system. I have legitimate criminal complaints, the fact that my complaints are against those with the duty to prosecute and file all criminal cases. Unless you can provide me with information as to how I can access the criminal court and file a complaint of perjury and contempt of court against without the assistance of the County Attorney I will proceed on my own. If I can only access the 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 intentional negligence, official misconduct and any other charges that may apply. Due to the fact that I call by telephone locally but can receive long distance telephone I am requesting that one of your agents call me at 319-473-2729.  At times my telephone is temporarily unavailable until I can get in to town an reactivate it. I have over 400 documents of evidence due to the fact that the 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 some basis 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 reference to the contempt of court violation 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. Apparently according to the State officials the only office with the authority to represent my Constitutional Rights is the County Attorney. According to the information on your website you have authority to investigate my local government officials. I am requesting an investigation based on my evidence and witnesses that support my allegations. 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 your office 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 resource available, with no response regarding my request into an independent 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. Please respond.

sincerely,

Melody Boatner

 

— crime (krim) n. ca.1920. An unethical or immoral act against ones fellow man.

 

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 – Conspiracy Against Rights

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.

Is there any question that these laws have been violated through this evidence?

Montrose and Lee County, Iowa unprecedented case of #public corruption, #nepotism and #kleptocracy

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.

Montrose and Lee County, Iowa unprecedented case of #public corruption, #nepotism and #kleptocracy

Montrose and Lee County, Ia. unprecedented case of public corruption, nepotism and kleptocracy.

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.

 

My Comment Submitted on Regulations.gov (ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0361-2340). The use of chemicals applied to another person’s property is a fucking criminal offense! Who wants to prove otherwise? You who know and ignore are as guilty of this as those who participated!

My local government officials assisted one of their own in applying glyphosate to my side of our 300′ common boundary. This behavior continued for over five years. I verbally requested this neighbor to stop because I felt it was causing a rash on my shins. He refused to stop. I requested the City police chief to file a trespassing complaint against this neighbor. He refused advising that he did not want to make this neighbor mad. I requested the County Attorney to file a trespassing complaint against this neighbor he advised that he did not file neighbor against neighbor complaints. His double standard is indisputable because I was criminally charged multiple time by the State based on fabricated laws. I was criminally charged by the city multiple time by the city based on fabricated ordinances. While I was trying to defend my person and my property the “rash” had progressed into a full body severe skin condition. I hired an attorney to sue the City for my damages. The city is liable because they issued fraudulent building permits to this neighbor. The building administrator refused his duty to address my complaints in regard to the nuisance drainage causing adverse effects to my property and significant loss of value. The fact that the Mayor sold this legally nonconforming lot to this neighbor provides an existing conflict of interest. The building administrator refusing to address my concerns was replaced by the Lee County Detective and brother of this neighbor. He had no jurisdiction or authority to act as a building administrator. A field investigation was done by the proper authority. The investigator advised me when he saw my skin condition that he knew what was causing it. I did not inquire because I had already use the process of elimination and determine the glyphosate had to be the cause of my condition. My attorney failed to file the complaint against the city, he failed to inform me that he did not file the complaint. This neighbor filed a frivolous complaint against me alleging “loss of enjoyment to his property”, he had no concern that he had been applying chemicals to my property knowing it was causing me health problems. The judge in the civil case cited my right to use my property as I wished. That order was violated without hesitation. The County Attorney and the Detective had a special relationship for 17 years working hand in hand creating a conflict of interest. I contacted US Senator Charles Grassley, he advised me that he would request and inquiry of my case to the FBI. Grassley advised me that the FBI would contact me. I waited for five years. No FBI contacted me. By this time my condition had progress to the degree that I felt my life was in danger. I contacted Senator Grassley again and he requested a second inquiry into my case, he advised me again that the FBI would contact me. He advised me to be patient, it takes time. I felt that ten years of waiting for intervention, suffering severely everyday was not acceptable. I had no protection of the law, this neighbor had a motive to eliminate me from my property and a County Deputy that have ultimate respect for stop at my house advising me that this neighbor had no intention of stopping with the chemicals until he acquired my property. I have followed all the standard procedures to remedy this situation. The government has not, they have fully partnered with this neighbor/council member in violation my rights. I am requesting a legitimate review of the evidence I have collected throughout this taking of my private property by using chemicals as a weapon to cause my person and my property harm.

A legitimate investigation would have determined it was not the city that applied the chemicals to the city easement. It was in fact my neighbor/city council member who took it upon himself to act as a city street department employee. This report was done after three years of the chemical being applied to my 300′ common boundary with this “above the law” neighbor/ council member. The city is liable because they issued fraudulent building permits. But the personal financial gain of the Mayor from selling this otherwise worthless non conforming property was more important that protecting the rights of this resident.

warning to City poison

warning to City poison

Montrose and Lee County, Iowa unprecedented case of corrupt local government officials. Taking private property for personal gain.

Are Private Property Rights Federally Protected?

      I have continuously asked for confirmation if private property rights are Federally protected Rights. I have gotten no confirmation. I can only assume that they are but nobody wants to admit it.

      My neighbor invaded my private property for over five years by applying chemicals on my side only, of our 300′ common boundary. I verbally advised him not to apply anything to my private property on the day I noticed he had done this. That same day I also advised the Chief of Police that I had given my neighbor a verbal notice not to apply anything to my private property and requested an incident report. 

      The chemicals continued to be applied on my private property by my neighbor without hesitation. I repeatedly requested the incident from the Chief of Police. I received a report 16 months after my first request. That report did not represent what I had advised the neighbor. I refused to take it and advised the Police Chief that it was unsatisfactory. Two weeks later I did receive one that was not as I would have like but it did state some of the facts on it. 

       The neighbor continued his assault against my person and my private property. I requested the Police chief file a trespassing complaint against him on my behalf. I was advised by the Police chief that he would not file a complaint against my neighbor because he did not want to make him mad. 

       I confronted the Mayor about the issue. The Mayor advised me that he did not think neighbors filing complaints against neighbors was in anyone’s best interest and refused to manage the  Police Chief in following procedure to remedy the situation. The Mayor also had an existing conflict of interest as he was the seller of the property to my neighbor only two years prior. Public record shows the Mayor stated that legally nonconforming property can not have larger structures built on the lots than the existing structures. The Mayor states on public record that the signature of the builder on a building permit alleviates the city from liability. The building permit is not signed by the builder. A double standard was used when I was the victim of my neighbor’s assault.

       The building permits issued by the City building administrator are fraudulent. They are not completed as required by the State of Iowa building regulations and the drainage of my neighbors redevelopment of the legally nonconforming lot does not comply with State drainage law. When I requested the city building administrator to address my concerns as standard procedure requires he refused. He did continue to issue fraudulent building permits to this neighbor for his legally nonconforming lot. 

      Conflicting with the reason the Mayor would not have the police chief to follow the law in issuing a trespassing complaint against my neighbor I was criminally charged multiple times by the city for fabricated laws based on fraudulent ordinances.

      A double standard was also supported by the County Attorney when I advised him that my neighbor was applying chemicals to my private property. The County attorney took the same stance as the Mayor. He advised me that he did not allow neighbors to file complaints against neighbors. I was criminally charged by the State for violations of fabricated law. I reported to the County Attorney that the City Clerk had fabricated ordinances anonymously over the telephone. He advised that he had a problem with a clerk that would fabricate ordinances. Only when I arrived at his office, and he realized who the parties were did he no longer have a problem with the city clerk committing fraud. 

      This type of behavior continued with every authority that I contacted. Including an attorney I hired to file a complaint against the city which he never informed me that he neglected to file.  I discovered this when I was served court papers by my neighbor. There was a civil court order citing my right to use my private property as I wished. That civil court order was never complied with by my neighbor or enforced by law enforcement. 

      The chemicals caused me to suffer severe chronic skin condition that I continue to be treated for by the University of Iowa Dermatology clinic..

      For five years I paid the taxes on my private property. The deed was in my name.  I had no control what took place on my private property. I was denied protection from harm by law enforcement. I was force to flee from my private property to escape the chemical poisoning. The chemicals caused me to suffer severe chronic skin condition that I continue to be treated for by the University of Iowa Dermatology clinic.. Those who participated in violating my private property rights include but are not limited to the County Sheriff, FBI agent Thomas Rienwart and AUSA Kevin VanderSchel.

 

     Trespassing is a criminal offense. The crime of trespass is commonly found to be charged against individuals in Lee County, Iowa. I was denied that right to protection.

 

     Fraud is a criminal offense. There are numerous individuals who have been charged with fraud in Lee County, Iowa. I was denied that right to protection.

 

 Violations of Federal laws to be prosecuted by the Federal Civil Rights Division

 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 was denied that right to protection

 

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. I was denied that right to protection

 

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. I was denied that right to protection

 

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. I was denied that right to protection

 

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. I was denied that right to protection.

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.

Correspondence with Charles Grassley’s assistant. Why did the FBI not contact me eight years ago when I first submitted the evidence, with special instruction to send the evidence to “Penny”. The FBI did not follow procedure for an inquiry from a US Senator. The issue still stands and needs to be addressed. I am not the negligent party. This was the second authorization to release information!

Melody,

Just to be clear, Senator Grassley is only able to work with government agencies to solve a person’s issue. So in your case, you talked about how people were trying to destroy your property. We can look into that issue. What we can’t do is be involved in court matters or personal issues that you are having with local officials. It is unlawful for us to inject ourselves into those matters.

I understand how concerned you are with the alleged attempts to harm your property so if you could provide a clear statement on the facts you have with this issue, I would advise that.

I hope that this explanation helps.

Thank you,

John Kaufmann

Constituent Services Specialist

U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley

201 W. 2nd Street, Suite 720

Davenport, IA 52801

563.322.4331

563.322.8552(fax)

john_kaufmann@grassley.senate.gov

From: songboat [mailto:songboat@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 3:43 PM
To: Kaufmann, John (Grassley) <John_Kaufmann@grassley.senate.gov>
Subject: Re: Public Corruption

I need some assistance in writing this complaint. I have researched and The FBI gets hundreds of Public Corruption complaints and one a handful get investigated. I have been victimized by my local government officials in an unprecedented manner. Unprecedented meaning I have no documents to use as an example or reference to use as an example document. I have found suggestions of how to write a complaint all over the internet. Some say include every detail, some say write a brief summary. I can tell you that it is not possible to write a “brief” summary as my case is ongoing for over 5 years. There were unprecedented turn over in the Mayor, City Council and law enforcement during this time. For example there were 4 different Mayors in 5 years.  The initial instigators Mayor Dinwiddie, Lee County Detective Bob Conlee, and the man who physically carried out the terrorist attack on me, Mark Conlee defamed my character to all colleagues and the general public stating that I was “crazy” and kept me oppressed from speaking at the council meetings the officials that followed behind them just followed up with the same behavior. I was never given the opportunity to present evidence that supports what I claim.  I contacted Lee County Attorney multiple times in reference to the unlawful application of toxic chemicals to my property after Mark Conlee violated the civil court order. Mr. Short told me sarcastically to take him to contempt court. I am well aware the County Attorney is the only authority to file criminal charges against a citizen. I was denied my right to file a trespassing complaint against Mark Conlee for continuing to ally toxic chemicals to my property. Mr. Short told me I was having an allergic reaction. Can you tell me what that has to do with the criminal act trespassing? I contacted Mr. Short and presented him with the undeniable evidence that City of Montrose clerk Celeste Cirinna had committed multiple counts of document fraud. In response he stated “I (he) will decide who gets prosecuted in Lee County. I then received a summons to court State vs. Boatner the citation stated as follows, Mark Conlee says Melody Boatner drive by his house real slow and gave him the finger. Mr. Kaufmann it is not against the law to give someone the finger. A week later a second complaint was filed against me. This complaint was worded exactly the same with the addition of Mark is tired of Boatner continuously giving him the finger. This complaint was for harassment, hence the added term  “continuously”. The second complaint was investigated by Lee County Deputy Dave Hunold. Mr. Short requested Officer Hunold due to a possible “conflict of interest”. When Officer Hunold arrived at my home he came in and we sat down and I took the opportunity to present the Civil Court ruling  citing “Boatner has the right to enjoy her own property”. Officer Hunold stood to leave and I told him I wanted to file a trespassing complaint against Mark Conlee for continuing to apply toxic chemicals to my property. Officer Hunold’s response was Round-up is not dangerous and the Civil Court Ruling did not specify Mark Conlee not to unlawfully apply chemicals to my property, only that I had the Right to Enjoy my Property. His final statement was that he was only at my house to investigate me giving Mark Conlee the finger.

Mr. Kaufmann I suffer every minute of every day from the brutal attack against me. I lost my home my business and my life that I worked so hard to pay off and enjoy. I cannot let this go. I was physically unable to defend myself. I went blind do to this and only got my vision restored with surgery in 2012. There is no doubt in my mind that this man was intent on getting my property at the cost of my life and the public officials were going to allow it to happen. If you have a doubt about my allegations now, let me assure you, reviewing the evidence I documented over the years to date you will have no doubt. I believe these are special circumstances and I am requesting assistance in filing a complaint that is unprecedented.

sincerely,

On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 10:33 AM, Kaufmann, John (Grassley) <John_Kaufmann@grassley.senate.gov> wrote:

Hi Melody,

I am following up from your message sent regarding the violation of your rights. What is a good time/day to call you?

Thank you,

John Kaufmann

Constituent Services Specialist

U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley

201 W. 2nd Street, Suite 720

Davenport, IA 52801

563.322.4331

563.322.8552(fax)

john_kaufmann@grassley.senate.gov

From: songboat [mailto:songboat@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 4:24 PM
To: Kaufmann, John (Grassley)
Subject: Re: Follow Up

John,

You mentioned that you had my emails from 8 years ago. Do you happen to have the documents I sent to Penny at that time? I sent her much of the information then as well as the authorization to release personal information. Can I scan and email you the release you sent me in the mail? It will be some time before I can get all this info in the style of a complaint. As I mentioned earlier this is documentation for over 7 years. Any referrals to where I might get some assistance in drafting a complaint? I assume you do want it in that format, as I do not imagine you want to mess with anything other than passing it on to the proper authorities. Can you use the evidence I have already put online? if so I will go ahead and send you back the authorization to release.

sincerely,

Melody Boatner

Keokuk, Ia

On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Kaufmann, John (Grassley) <John_Kaufmann@grassley.senate.gov> wrote:

Melody,

I don’t have the documents. After a period of time, (I think it is 2 years but don’t hold me to it) the files leave this office and are sent to the records center. This is a secure place, just for your information. Getting them back is extremely difficult so if you could send me what you think is important, that would be great.

Thanks,

John Kaufmann

Constituent Services Specialist

U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley

201 W. 2nd Street, Suite 720

Davenport, IA 52801

563.322.4331

563.322.8552(fax)

john_kaufmann@grassley.senate.gov

From: songboat [mailto:songboat@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 4:37 PM
To: Kaufmann, John (Grassley) <John_Kaufmann@grassley.senate.gov>
Subject: Re: Follow Up

sure no problem, just making sure. Can I use email or you use the online documents for your submission?

I just don’t have printer ink and such

 

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.

FEDERAL COORDINATION OF TITLE VI AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

Title VI:

A Powerful Tool to Address Discrimination and Advance Environmental Justice

“Title VI’s breadth of coverage is extensive and it can address a huge array of injustices: from environmental racism…to disparities in basic health care and basic services to inequities in transportation, housing, and education.”

August 19, 2010 Memorandum from the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights to the Federal Funding Agency Civil Rights Directors.

Environmental justice and Title VI are both rooted in the same basic principle that no person should bear an unfair share of harm on account of their race, color or national origin. At its core, Title VI requires recipients of federal funding to ensure that their programs operate in a nondiscriminatory manner. Indeed, the central tenet of environmental justice – that programs benefiting a community as a whole not disproportionately allocate their adverse environmental and health burdens – flows directly from this underlying principle of Title VI.

Where federally funded programs – like transportation agencies, state agencies responsible for environmental permitting, hospitals and health clinics, and countless others – affect human health or the environment, Title VI enforcement may resolve problems that other laws cannot.

Discriminatory Effects under Title VI. Most federal agencies have regulations implementing Title VI, which prohibit funding recipients from “utilizing criteria or methods of administration which have the effect of subjecting individuals to discrimination because of their race, color, or national origin….” See, e.g., 28 C.F.R. 42.104(b)(2) (DOJ regulations). This prohibition on unjustified discriminatory effects was first established nearly 50 years ago, just after passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964. Individuals must turn to the administrative complaint process to secure the protections afforded by these regulations. Federal funding agencies play a vital enforcement role because individuals must turn to the administrative complaint process to secure the protections offered by these regulations. The Attorney General has directed federal agencies to fully utilize these provisions and the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights has emphasized the need for their vigorous enforcement. Federal agencies must recognize their crucial role in addressing discriminatory effects and work to further environmental justice though Title VI enforcement.

Intersection of Title VI and Environmental Justice. Many types of Title VI cases involve environmental justice issues and could be resolved through the administrative complaint process. Some factors to consider in determining whether specific situations raise environmental justice concerns include whether individuals, certain neighborhoods, or tribes:

  • Suffer disproportionately adverse health or environmental effects from pollution or other environmental hazards;
  • Suffer disproportionate risks or exposure to environmental hazards, or suffer disproportionately from the effects of past under-enforcement of state or federal health or environmental laws;
  • Have been denied an equal opportunity for meaningful involvement, as provided by law, in governmental decision making relating to the distribution of environmental benefits or burdens. (Example: permit processing and compliance activities)

Where a federally funded program may be responsible for these harms, a Title VI investigation may help determine whether  the harms have a discriminatory effect on persons identifiable by race, color, or national origin.

Federal Coordination of Title VI and Environmental Justice

The Department of Justice is charged by Executive Order 12250 with ensuring the government-wide consistent and effective enforcement of Title VI, which includes nondiscrimination in programs and activities that affect the environment and human health:

  • The Title VI Committee of the Federal Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice (EJ IWG), which is chaired by DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, acts as a resource to help agencies connect their civil rights enforcement responsibilities with their efforts to achieve environmental justice. In 2014, the EJ IWG launched its Title VI webpage with the goal of ensuring consistent enforcement of Title VI across the federal family and encouraging the use of this critical enforcement tool to address environmental justice issues. go.usa.gov/3BYf5
  • The Civil Rights Division’s Federal Coordination and Compliance Section runs a robust program of technical assistance and legal counsel to civil rights offices across the government. A significant part of the Division’s environmental justice work is providing targeted technical assistance to federal agencies that receive complaints alleging Title VI violations in programs that effect the environment and human health. The Division helps many agencies in addressing matters involving intentional discrimination as well as discriminatory effects in matters involving environmental permitting and enforcement, transit equity, municipal services, emergency management, access to federal benefits, and more. Read more about our Title VI Coordination Initiative here: go.usa.gov/3BYfV).
  • The newly launched Title VI training program for federal civil rights staff includes a segment on environmental justice. This training component emphasizes the ability of agencies that fund activities that affect human health and the environment to use their Title VI compliance efforts to achieve the environmental justice goals of Executive Order 12898.
  • The revised Title VI manual will be issued in 2015. The update will provide detailed guidance to agencies analyzing, among other issues, discriminatory treatment and discriminatory effects under Title VI. Over time, the manual will address the application of Title VI in a range of areas, including environmental justice, transportation equity, and school discipline.
  • DOJ’s public outreach on environmental justice issues has included moderating a panel on federal Title VI enforcement during the annual Environmental Justice Conference and Training Program held in Washington, D.C. as well as holding listening sessions to learn about various civil rights issues of concern from stakeholders.

Highlights of Agency Efforts to Advance Environmental Justice through Title VI Enforcement

Approximately 30 federal agencies investigate Title VI administrative complaints alleging discrimination in federally funded programs affecting human health or the environment. Additionally, many of those agencies publish annual environmental justice progress reports. Below we highlight several agencies’ Title VI enforcement activities involving environmental justice issues.

Department of Transportation. DOT has a well-established set of environmental justice (EJ) and Title VI policies, including the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) two companion circulars that help recipients understand and comply with environmental justice principles through both Title VI compliance and the environmental justice executive order. Notably, the Title VI circular requires, among other things, that certain recipients conduct an equity analysis of the impact on minorities of certain actions and decisions. Both circulars and related materials are available here.

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) also directs recipients to address environmental justice issues in their federally funded activities. It is currently developing a number of resources, including the EJ Reference Guide, which is intended to be a resource for staff to ensure compliance with EJ requirements, and the EJ Booklet highlighting recent policy changes and initiatives. The Guide will aid staff and stakeholders in identifying and addressing disproportionately high and adverse effects of agency programs, policies and activities on minority populations and low-income populations. The Reference Guide clarifies existing requirements and is available to the public on the FHWA EJ website, and can be accessed under “Recent Updates” or “References.” The FHWA has also formed an EJ Workgroup, which includes other DOT modes, and collaborates with the National Highway Institute. The workgroup is developing an EJ Analysis Course as part of the EJ Reference Guide. In order to register for the webinar, participants external to US DOT will first need to request an account here, then register here. FHWA’s civil rights office has conducted a national Title VI Program webinar that includes a component on EJ requirements for state transportation agencies and monitoring responsibilities of FHWA Division offices.

DOT components also address environmental justice issues through investigation and resolution of Title VI complaints. For example, in one case, FTA found two cities in south Florida non-compliant with Title VI requirements when the cities failed to assess the potential adverse disparate impacts stemming from relocation of a trolley maintenance facility to a historically Black neighborhood. As a direct result of FTA’s involvement in the matter, city officials agreed to keep the facility near its current location. Read more here. Similarly, in another Title VI investigation, FHWA found that an Ohio city’s denial of expanded bus service to a large medical center, as well as other essential services, caused disproportionate harm to African Americans. The case ultimately resulted in the construction of three new bus stops. Read more here.

Environmental Protection Agency. In accordance with Title VI, EPA’s office of Civil Rights (OCR) maintains a program to ensure that recipients of Federal financial assistance from EPA do not operate their programs or activities  in a way that discriminates on the basis of race, color, or national origin, including on the basis of limited-English proficiency. Consistent with EPA’s ongoing efforts to strengthen its external civil rights compliance program, earlier this week OCR released a report that outlines its progress on specific deliverables related to Title VI compliance efforts, as a supplement to Plan EJ 2014.  Read the full report for more information about EPA’s accomplishments regarding specific Title VI deliverables over the past four fiscal years, including: OCR’s renewed commitment to (1) strategic management of its Title VI complaint docket; (2) successful resolution of complaints; and (3) settlement of significant Title VI matters.

In addition, this week OCR released a policy paper entitled “Issue Paper on the Role of Complainants and Recipients in the Civil Rights Complaints and Resolution Process.”  The purpose of this paper is to promote greater participation by complainants and recipients in the civil rights complaint and resolution process, including Title VI complaints, by clarifying existing practices and identifying opportunities for greater participation within that framework.

Several agencies’ civil rights offices, such as the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Homeland Security, have committed to review environmental justice issues and allegations that arise in programs and activities they fund. To learn more about other federal agencies’ environmental justice and Title VI efforts, visit the home page of the Federal Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice here and its Title VI page here.

Public Corruption and Private Property Rights in Violation of Federal Law.

I have always been searching for a private attorney, clearly I do not have a retainer. My assets were unlawfully seized. Prior to this I could have gotten anything I desired on my excellent credit rating.  That being said this is why I believe the Feds have the duty to protect my Constitutional right to private property.

The Fourth Amendment protects Americans from “unreasonable searches and seizures” by the government. But the Supreme Court’s interpretation of “unreasonable” has varied over time. Some searches require warrants, but others do not. In general, the Fourth Amendment protects a person and their property from searches by the government wherever there is a “reasonable expectation of privacy.” For instance, trash that is still inside a person’s home is protected; trash sitting beside the street curb for pickup is not. In the age of the Internet, where so much personal information is shared over social media such as Facebook and Twitter, some people argue that privacy has become a myth. After the 9-11 attacks, Congress passed laws making it easier for the government to use such information when investigating terrorism. The Fifth Amendment protects the right to private property in two ways. First, it states that a person may not be deprived of property by the government without “due process of law,” or fair procedures. In addition, it sets limits on the traditional practice of eminent domain, such as when the government takes private property to build a public road. Under the Fifth Amendment, such takings must be for a “public use” and require “just compensation” at market value for the property seized. But in Kelo v. City of New London (2005), the Supreme Court interpreted public use broadly to include a “public purpose” of economic development that might directly benefit private parties. In response, many state legislatures passed laws limiting the scope of eminent domain for public use.

Rights content written by Linda R. Monk, Constitutional scholar

My property was illegally seized by local government officials. Any control of use of my private property was violated by my neighbor and the local government officials. Unlawfully assaulting me with chemical weapons with the intent of eliminating me from my property is an act of terrorism resulting in torture, that I can testify to and the evidence supports. There is no other side to this story, I am fully disclosing the evidence that supports my allegations are factual.

Public corruption involves a breach of public trust and/or abuse of position by federal, state, or local officials and their private sector accomplices. By broad definition, a government official, whether elected, appointed or hired, violates federal law when he/she asks, demands, solicits, accepts, or agrees to receive anything of value in return for being influenced in the performance of their official duties. One of the most high-profile forms of public corruption is bribery of a public official. Title 18 of the U.S. Code, Section 201 provides the statutory framework for bribery prosecutions. Federal legislators are continuing to work on legislation that increases penalties for public corruption and that attempts to close loopholes created by previous legislation. Ethics violations occur at all levels of government (local, state, and federal) and includes allegations of judicial, legislative, regulatory, contract, and law enforcement corruption. Law enforcement corruption accounts for more than one-third of the current corruption investigations. These cases typically involve law enforcement officers accepting money to protect (or facilitate) drug-trafficking and organized criminal activity. Breaches of the public trust can impact everything, from how well our borders are secured and our neighborhoods protected, to verdicts handed down in courts of law, to the quality of our roads and schools. Public corruption is one of the FBI’s top investigative priorities—behind only terrorism, espionage, and cyber crimes. Federal cases of public corruption are prosecuted by the Department of Justice. Individual states also prosecute cases of public corruption, including charges of bribery, receiving unlawful gratuities, and misuse of confidential information. Private criminal defense lawyers often specialize in either state or federal cases. State court penalties for public corruption range from six months in prison and a $1,000 for misdemeanor misuse of confidential information to a prison term of 8 years and up to a $250,000 fine for felony bribery. A federal offense can likewise garner serious penalties, which may include thousands of dollars and/or time in federal prison.                                                                         

Private criminal defense attorneys are hired by those who are accused of crimes regarding public corruption, not the victims of public corruption. In this case the State attorney for Lee County, Iowa discriminated against me, he had an existing conflict of interest. He refused to prosecute this neighbor for criminal trespassing (in violation of a civil court order) He criminally charged me multiple times with fabricated laws. Laws that do not exist. The city clerk also altered city ordinances specifically for my in the best interest of this neighbor/council member. She committed document fraud multiple times. She never even got reprimanded. Fraud is a criminal offense. This clerk actually got a title of higher authority for the crimes she committed against me. I don’t know if you have viewed my website but here are some links that provide the relevant information and the hard copy evidence.                                            https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/12-U-5aB6PuRmxZX4B8uy-hTpaQ2_Qs34lmVYmGo5tic/edit?usp=sharing   

 https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1OQYEN-sOBooq62NUHwyFObWHlLCwUbLGb3tpmyXON00/edit?usp=sharing

 https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1XkyMRhjC-_8toaLl2pfLSt4YWF_9dts69nIWfTaSfts/edit?usp=sharing               

My site is https://poisonedbymyneighborfromhell.com                     

This is an unprecedented case. There is no other case in which chemicals have been used to eliminate a citizen from their own private property.  https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/10o7BgegCaQc5BVIqEabn4KD_9fBbjaf2Xb6TP6F7iX4/edit?usp=sharing

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.