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.

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.

 

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

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.

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

 

Statute of Limitations on torture? FBI refusing to address my concerns. #Bullshit #ViolationsofFederallaw #Iwillfistfightyourightnow

My local government officials used glyphosate unlawfully applied to my private property ongoing for over 5 years routinely. Their purpose was to eliminate me from my private property so one of their own could acquire my private property. This special protected citizen needed my private property or a court would have ordered him to remove the noncompliant structures from his new illegal property redevelopment. He purchased the non conforming lot from the mayor. The building administer issued fraudulent building permits for the illegal structures. After five years the affects the chemicals had on my skin were chronic severe skin condition. It was unbearable to wear clothes, I was blind and homeless for the following four years. My property was my largest investment as most other citizens. I traveled to Washington DC to change the laws allowing me to get out of poverty to acquire ownership of my property. This property not only contained my home but my business and my pursuit of happiness. I was denied any protection of the law. I made a complaint about the nuisance drainage issue caused by the illegal redevelopment and the building administrator refused his duty to address my concerns, he continued to issue fraudulent permits to this special resident. The structures were the size that would legally fit on an acre of ground. He tried to squeeze them onto a 70′ W X 300’L nonconforming lot. A civil court order citing my right to used my property as I wished I thought would stop the illegal exposure to glyphosate. It did nothing by make this neighbor and the government officials more aggressive in eliminating me from my private property. Senator Grassley requested two inquires into my case. The FBI would contact me he advised. After five years I contacted Grassley again and he put in another request, five more years pass and I am advised by Grassley to be patient. The FBI never contacted me as they are required to do. I reached out after ten years of severe suffering, my life forever changed from my plan for my own destiny, to the local FBI. This agent was so incompetent that it took 14 months for him to come to my now rental home. His purpose was specifically to review the hard copy evidence that proves without a doubt Federal law has been violated. He arrived advising me that he had no intention of reviewing my evidence. I could just tell him the story and he would take notes. He gave me 2 1/2 hours of his time to tell a story that was ongoing for well over ten years in violation of Federal law. He had three notes written on his pad when he left. Two hours after he left my home I receive in the mail a letter from Assistant Deputy Director JC Hacker a letter stating that the agent had determined no violation of Federal law had occurred. It is not possible for this incompetent agent to accomplish an investigation and have a decision in the mail from Washington DC two hours after he left my home. He never investigated financial records to discover a bribe had been taken. He never interviewed any witnesses on my behalf. He never followed standard procedure to assure my allegations were valid. This in itself is an act to deprive me of my rights under color of law. This is not acceptable by any government standard. My allegations are completely supported by the hard copy evidence. For anyone to claim that the statute of limitations has expired is ludacris. Any negligence has been intentional of the part of government officials who have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution and have the duty to hold corrupt government accountable for their violations of Federal law. I am one mad single middle aged female. Discrimination against housing has been committed by all levels of government and I am demanding that a full independent investigation be done. The evidence used was not based on facts. It was based on hearsay. I want compensated for the damages that have intentionally been done to me. This is not a joke. My father did not spend his military service in the South Pacific on a ship taking on bombs and kamikaze pilots for me or anyone else to be denied their freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. Drain the Swamp. Here are the facts https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/18mtF3_4WB2u3mEe1OoSb2QpwlgvI25ulAS5BheCPq4Q/edit?usp=sharing

You can Sue for Civil rights violations!

Federal or State violations of civil rights or constitutional rights

About AUSA Kevin VanderSchel First Assistant Attorney for the Southern District of Iowa.

This guy takes the cake. Like if its not on this website it there must not be evidence, pretty assumptive of the AUSA for the Southern District of Iowa. Chemical warfare has nearly cost me my life and he thinks its a good idea to put all my evidence out here for the public to view, even the deranged people who used chemical warfare to eliminate me from my property. What is it that he is calling assumptive? All the evidence I have posted is hard copy original documents. If he cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that chemical weapons were used to eliminate me from my private property when even a civil court order or no law enforcement would stop him from applying chemicals to MY property, he should really find a new job. This case is cut and dry. Any reasonable person who would read the evidence I have posted has no doubt this was an intentional act. This evidence is based on facts, SA Reinwart wanted to used hearsay evidence, when the hard copy evidence is right in front of him. He wasted tax payer money to travel clear to the tip of Iowa to refuse to review hard copy evidence and ask for hearsay. When a person knows he is causing another person physical harm and doesn’t stop what he is doing to cause it, its pretty obvious why he is doing it. There is nothing that I have posted that does not have hard copy evidence to support. Reinwart did not follow procedure for investigation and you have not followed procedure for prosecuting criminals. VanderSchel you are assuming that reasonable people do not know it is illegal to do anything to another person property, not to mention unheard of act of chemical warfare as stated by the EPA field investigator. That is a F(&99+ fact. And I have to mention that you advised me that you would not be the person prosecuting this case anyway so why do you think you have any input about this case at all? You are assuming you have some kind of authority over a case that you are not the prosecutor of. That show a defect in your personality any reasonable person can determine that to be a fact also. An attorney of minimum experience could win this case. The evidence is solid as a rock. Not the hearsay, the hard copy evidence. Hearsay does not stand up in court, don’t you know that?

10-3-2018 pg 2 Kevin VanderSchel

10-3-2018 pg 2 Kevin VanderSchel

FBI SA investigation was incompetent

According to the FBI website SA’s work 24/7. That is not the case with the agent that happened to answer the phone when I called. Initially I had contacted a female agent. She seemed interested in what I was telling her happened at the hands of my local government officials. She requested that I email her my evidence, she would contact me after she had the opportunity to review my case. I waited a month or so and she never got back with me. I telephoned the number that I had previously reached her. A man answered the phone this time. He explained that the agent I was trying to reach had been transferred. That turned out to be my misfortune. So apparently whoever answers the telephone automatically get the case. This SA does not work 24/7. Determined that someone was going to review the hard copy evidence that I had been documenting for the past 10 years, I took the initiative of traveling to his location. I had been advised by my US Senator that an FBI authority would contact me. I repeatedly contacted the Senator asking for a ballpark timeline of how long this would take/ The response was be patient it takes a while. Ten years is unreasonable in my opinion. I also want to state that all this time I would send the Senator my evidence and was told he in turn was forwarding the documents to the FBI Washington division. I drove the the local division headquarters. I called the number from their parking lot. This agent advised me that it would not be possible to speak to anyone on that day because it was 2:30 p.m. I advised that I would get a room and be there first thing the next morning. With that he advised me that it would not be possible to meet with an agent the following day because it happened to be a Federal holiday, Columbus Day. So just so the public knows, the statement that the FBI works 24/7 is false.

Feeling defeated I returned home, pretty disappointed in being deceived by the information posted on the FBI website. I continued to correspond with this particular agent. Eventually (16 months) we set a date for him to come to my home specifically to review my evidence. My evidence has to date never been reviewed by any State or Federal authority. When he arrived he informed me that he did not intend to review anything. Relevant to this case is the fact that the County Sheriff had taken it upon himself to contact a FBI friend of his. I do not know what information the Sheriff gave him. I requested that information be shared with me to give me the opportunity to prove the hearsay was false. I was denied access to that information. There is clearly a conflict of interest between the Sheriff and the opposing party. I emailed a newspaper article supporting the conflict of interest and he seemed to take a little more interest in what I was telling him.

The agent sitting on my sofa refused to review the hard copy evidence requested that I verbally tell him the story. I advised him that I could not verbally tell this story to anyone. This story is too complex to be comprehended verbally. He was not willing to accept anything else. I skipped around on different issues in this case. After 21/2 hours he advised me that he was not going to submit my case to the US Attorney because he claims there was no Federal law violated. I completely disagree. Private property rights are Federally protected rights. I also allege conspiracy against right, deprivation of rights under color of law, and torture.  He advised me of three different versions of how he got this case to the AUSA. I think it was the third and final version was how he did it. He submitted my case orally to a third party who in turn verbally told the story to the AUSA. Now knowing that this agent did not have the information needed to submit a complete complaint to anyone, how can this be considered competent? Also my allegation of conspiracy against rights, I had done all the leg work in this case. I did not have the authority to look into financial records for any transaction that could be found indicating a payment (bribe) had been paid. He had that authority and never bothered to use his authority to investigate that. I allege deprivation of rights under color of law. This is easy to recognize from the hard copy evidence I have. This neighbor was attacking me with chemicals used as a weapon for over 5 years as routinely as he mows his yard. Once a week would be an accurate claim. He did it as if it were part of his yard maintenance. Again private property rights are Federally protected rights. This agent would never acknowledge this is a fact, I assume he is ignorant about Federal law. His expertise is in hate crimes. He recognized right away that this was not a hate crime. My case is not alleging hate crime so perhaps he should not have been the investigator. My case requires the knowledge of Federal rights, as described in public corruption guidelines. The FBI website claims they hold a high priority in exposing public corruption. That is a false statement. There could be no stronger case with evidence so solid in supporting public corruption in my local government officials.  The violation of civil rights, civil liberties, and Constitutional rights cannot be denied. My right to equal protection of the law, assault with chemical weapons resulting in torture is undeniable by the evidence I have. The intent of my local government officials was to eliminate me from my property using chemicals as weapons. The fact that local law enforcement did not want to make this neighbor says plenty about how this brutal attack occurred. It says much more about the character of this neighbor. There is nothing he would not do to achieve his goal to acquire my property for the purpose of making his illegal property redevelopment recordable on the county plat map without having to remove the noncompliant structures from his small non conforming lot. The environmental factors putting my health in serious harm is also a Federal environmental violation. 

This SA who had done nothing to investigate my allegations advised me that he had make his determination not to further investigate based on what I had told him compared to what the Sheriff had told his colleague. This means that the Sheriff’s word was found to be more credible than my word. I have evidence that proves the Sheriff acted unethical, has made false statements to me and has received stolen property that belongs to me. The statistics support any law enforcement officer will knowingly make false statements or turn a blind eye to the officers serving under him in unethical behavior. There is no evidence that I have misled or made false statements about any of my allegations. This SA is incompetent and I am requesting new investigation based on the allegations stated in this letter. Having no contact information for a higher FBI authority this is my formal request. I am requesting a tolling of the statute of limitation due to the incompetence that has occured throughout this case. I don’t care who you are, nobody has the right to do anything to another person’s property.

regards,

Melody Boatner

Exposing public corrupt personnel at all levels.

 This may be against my best interest but at this point what do I have to lose. I am publishing the email of the FBI SA who refused to review my hard copy evidence. Did not look into the financial record of the accused to see if perhaps a bribe has been paid. He accepted hearsay to be evidence. My case did not even get issued a case number. He did not recognize that private property rights are Federally protected rights. He continued to claim that no Federal law has been broken when anyone who has taken the time to review the evidence agrees with me that Federal laws have been violated on more than one occasion. tjreinwart@fbi.gov. He goes by the first name of Thomas.

The AUSA immediately advised me that he would not prosecute giving me three different reasons at three different times. The first three reasons I submitted evidence that he was incorrect as to what the evidence proved he was basing his decision on. Knowing he has been given false information or information based on hearsay by the above named FBI agent. The most recent decision not to prosecute was because he has the authority. I sent him guidelines suggested by the Attorney General but to no avail. The letter states that I am not supposed to contact this AUSA again. They will not put any more resources into my insignificant case. I explained that a civil court order early on in my favor was violated by the local government officials and he callously does not care. Kevin.VanderSchel@doj.gov. he of course goes by the name of Kevin.

There is no record of any citizen being forced to flee from their private property due to unlawful application of toxic chemicals being applied, ongoing for over 5 years. NONE. It seems to me that anyone who would continue an act that he knows is causing anyone else physical harm has some mental health issues. I know I would not do anything to anyone else’s property because it is illegal and immoral. It seems the Federal authorities feel that they can join in this figurative gang rape. I feel they need to be held accountable as well as the locals. There is nothing I have posted that is based on hearsay or based on fabricated information. There is much evidence that I have not posted. If these individuals are satisfied that they have upheld their duty and the oath they took to uphold the Constitution of the United States then they should be proud of their job performance in my unnumbered case. They never showed any real intent to defend my rights given by Federal law. They should be proud of their actions in this case that has multiple violations of Federal law. Anyone who reads my information and feels my Federally protected rights have been violated I urge you to email these individuals and let them know that private property rights are Federally protected rights and any other opinions you may have that Federal law has in fact been violated. Terrorism is not a violation of Federal law I have been told. Only supporters of terrorism are violating Federal law, so clearly the local officials who would not stop this neighbor from applying the chemicals to my property are supporters of terrorism. Yes herbicides and pesticides are considered chemical weapons. I have done all the research to know that violations of Federal law have occurred.

If something happens to me it is well documented as to who may be involved. Just saying. Glyphosate is harmful to human beings (me) when not applied as directed on the label. This is what is wrong with our Government today. Covering up and supporting corruption is not what the FBI has the duty to do. I want to know why I am exempt from the same rights that every other citizen takes for granted, as I was when I fled from my home, business and property. There is no justifiable reason any US citizen should have to suffer what I have suffered at the hands of these public servants.