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

Letter from US Attorney based on misinformation.

Letter from Kevin VanderSchel claiming statute of limitations has expired.

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

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

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

652. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR CONSPIRACY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I opened the letter from the Dept of Justice

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

US Dept of Justice, US Attorney for the Southern District of Iowa

You are here

 

Divisions

CRIMINAL

The Criminal Division is charged with the responsibility of enforcing federal criminal laws in the Southern District of Iowa. The Criminal Division has a total of 24 prosecutors posted across the District–including in the Des Moines headquarters office and in the District’s two branch offices in Council Bluffs and Davenport. These prosecutors work closely with paralegals, legal assistants, victim witness specialists, and others to fulfill these responsibilities, along with a wide variety of federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies and federal grand juries empaneled to investigate violations of federal law.

Terrorism and National Security
The fight against terrorism is the highest priority of the U.S. Department of Justice, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office is dedicated to combating and defeating terrorism. We work with our partners in law enforcement, the intelligence community, the military, and diplomatic circles to investigate, prosecute, disrupt and prevent terrorism. Criminal Division attorneys work with the Anti-Terrorism Advisory Council and an intelligence specialist in pursuing this important mission.

Fraud and CorruptionCriminal Division attorneys investigate and prosecute complex fraud, public corruption, and financial crimes that the federal government is uniquely qualified to handle.

    • Criminal Division attorneys participate in a Working Group, along with the office of Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller, to pursue mortgage fraud cases, along with investigating agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Housing and Urban Development–Office of Inspector General, and the FDIC-Office of Inspector General.
    • Criminal Division attorneys play a leading role in the Iowa Health Care Fraud Task Force, which identifies cases involving medicaid fraud, insurance fraud, and other types of health care fraud for investigation and prosecution. Federal agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Health and Human Services–Office of Inspector General, as well as the Iowa Attorney General’s Office and state agencies also participate in these efforts.
  • Criminal Division attorneys pursue other types of fraud and public corruption cases with these same agencies, as well as with the United States Postal Inspection Service, the Internal Revenue Service–Criminal Investigation, and the United States Social Security Administration–Office of Inspector General, among other agencies.

Narcotics Trafficking and Violent CrimeWorking with both the United States Drug Enforcement Administration and a wide variety of state and local drug enforcement task forces, Criminal Division attorneys investigate and prosecute federal criminal offenses involving the unlawful importation, possession, distribution, and manufacture of controlled substances, including methamphetamine, cocaine, heroin, ecstacy, and marijuana, as well as prescription drug abuse. Criminal Division attorneys also handle cases involving violent crime, such as armed bank robberies, unlawful possession of firearms (as part of the Department’s Project Safe Neighborhoods program), arson, and violent crime associated with narcotics trafficking.

Computer Crimes, Child Exploitation, and Human TraffickingCriminal Division attorneys, working with the Iowa Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) and other agencies, prosecute a broad range of computer-related crimes, with special emphasis on crimes that involve the sexual exploitation of children and Internet child pornography, including as part of the Department’s Project Safe Childhood Program. Criminal Division Attorneys, along with victim-witness specialists and others, also work to investigate and prosecute interstate prostitution, human trafficking, the enticement of children across state lines for immoral purposes, and unregistered sex offenders who travel across state lines in violation of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA).

Environmental and Wildlife CrimesCriminal Division attorneys, working with both the Environmental Protection Agency and the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, investigate and prosecute criminal violations of federal environmental laws, including violations relating to the improper disposal and storage of hazardous materials and violations of the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act. Criminal Division attorneys also work with the United States Fish & Wildlife Service in pursing cases involving interstate trafficking in unlawfully taken wildlife and similar crimes.

Immigration Crimes and Program FraudCriminal Division attorneys handle a variety of offenses involving the integrity of government programs, such as those administered by the Social Security Administration, the Small Business Administration, the Veteran’s Administration, and the Railroad Retirement Board. Criminal Division attorneys also work closely with the Department of Homeland Security and its agencies to prosecute violations of the immigration laws, such as visa fraud, alien smuggling, and unlawful reentry to the United States following deportation.

Civil RightsCriminal Division attorneys, together with the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, assess complaints alleging violations of the criminal civil rights laws and, in appropriate cases, conduct grand jury investigations and initiate criminal prosecutions for civil rights violations.

Appellate UnitThe Criminal Division’s Appellate Unit handles the office’s criminal appeals before the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is the federal appellate court with jurisdiction over cases arising from Iowa and several neighboring states. Additionally, the Appellate Unit, in consultation with the Department of Justice, decides when to seek appellate review of trial level rulings adverse to the United States, and coordinates with the Department of Justice if further review of cases arising from the Southern District of Iowa is sought before the United States Supreme Court.

Asset Recovery Team–Forfeiture and CollectionsThe Criminal Division’s Asset Recovery Team supports the prosecution of criminal and civil forfeiture cases and enforces and collects criminal and civil debts, including restitution for victims in criminal cases. In addition to litigating civil forfeiture cases, this team of specialists provides support to Criminal Division attorneys on all criminal forfeiture issues. Forfeiture attorneys and paralegals work with federal law enforcement agencies, assisting their criminal investigations by identifying assets subject to forfeiture and developing evidence for seizure and forfeiture. The team also collects criminal debts, such as fines and restitution orders, and civil debt to federal agencies, such as student loans and federally-guaranteed mortgages, and works with Criminal Division attorneys to identify assets that can be used for restitution to crime victims.

CIVIL

The Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office represents the United States and its departments and agencies at both the trial and appellate levels in civil actions filed in the state and federal courts in the Southern District of Iowa. The activities of the Civil Division include defensive civil litigation, affirmative civil enforcement actions and miscellaneous matters.

Defensive Litigation
The types of defensive cases handled by the Civil Division include tort cases filed against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act; claims against individual employees of the United States alleging constitutional violations (also known as Bivens Actions); discrimination cases brought by federal employees based upon race, color, sex, religion, national origin, disability or age; review of administrative action under the Administrative Procedures Act; and appeals of denial of Social Security disability claims.

Affirmative LitigationThe Civil Division brings civil affirmative actions under the False Claims Act to pursue false claims or fraud against the government, Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act and other statutes designed to enforce civil rights, as well as environmental statutes and other health and safety laws.

Miscellaneous MattersCertain miscellaneous matters are also handled by the Civil Division, including summons enforcement action on behalf of the Internal Revenue Service, subpoenas to federal officials, commercial litigation to collect debts owed the United States and protect the government’s interests in bankruptcy and foreclosure actions.

Updated December 22, 2016
Was this page helpful? 
Yes No

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

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

Trespassing is a criminal offense? True or False

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

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

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

Quote

The ugly truth that government-approved chemicals applied daily to crop fields cause cancer is finally seeing the light of day, thanks in large part to the release of a trove of never-before-seen documents known collectively as the “Poison Papers.” Released by the Bioscience Resource Project (BRP) in collaboration with the Center for Media and Democracy […]

via Evidence Is “Overwhelming,” Says EPA Scientist, That Pesticides Contribute To Cancer Risk — Truth To Power

Evidence Is “Overwhelming,” Says EPA Scientist, That Pesticides Contribute To Cancer Risk — Truth To Power

Governmental Conspiracies to Violate Civil Rights: A Theory Reconsidered

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

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

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

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

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

Failure to Intervene

Failure to Intervene,

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

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

 

Joint criminal enterprise

via Joint criminal enterprise | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII / Legal Information Institute

Joint criminal enterprise

“Joint criminal enterprise” (“JCE”) is a mode of liability created by judges on the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) that allows the tribunal to bring charges against members of a group responsible for [[wex:war crime][war crimes]] or [[wex:crime against humanity][crimes against humanity]] even if there is no evidence that the particular individuals physically participated in the crimes (see ICTY Appeals Chamber, Milutinovic et al., 21 May 2003). JCE is distinct from the doctrine of conspiracy in American criminal law in that actual perpetration of the acts is required, rather than just a meeting of the minds  (Id.).

How long? Is it going to take for one person to address my concerns?

Look I do not care who you are. If you are a citizen of the United States you do not have the right to do anything to anyone else’s property. In my case a civil court judge cited my right to do with what I want with my property. This criminal enterprise of self-serving public officials had no regard to any court order, any law, any oath or any self respect. I want answers to my questions, the same questions I asked in 2005 and got no response. I am not going away and if I do I will not be going alone. I am supposed to watch myself in making threatening statements. Hell with that, this people had my life in jeopardy and not a word was or has been said to anyone of them. When a city clerk can commit document fraud without being terminated something is seriously wrong with the management of that city. In this case everyone involved committed serious criminal offenses in violation of Federal law and have to date gotten away with taking my property without just compensation. In fact they took it by rendering me unable to defend my person or my property by using chemicals as a weapon with intent to cause me serious injury or death. They would have completed their mission had I not chose to flee from my property to escape the chemicals. This is an unprecedented case and if nobody is going to refer me to someone who can answer my questions then the shit is going to hit the fan. I am not going to be the only victim in this tragedy. I was terrorized for over 5 years by one or more psychopaths. I will not allow this to be the end of this story. It is not my duty to protect my rights, it is the duty of law enforcement. What would you do if you were in my shoes, do not say just let it go, if that’s the case sign your property over to me right now. Providing it has what my property provided for me. Mark Conlee is a sick individual and he needs to be tested for mental illness. I say this to the public waiting for a defamation allegation to be filed against me. Bring it on good old boys. You phony SOB’s.

Monsanto chemical safety data, Roundup Herbicide

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FBI holds public corruption as a high priority

The Bureau’s Public Corruption program focuses on:

  • Investigating violations of federal law by public officials at the federal, state, and local levels of government;

In my case it is the City and County officials who conspired against my Federally protected rights. It is the local law enforcement who deprived my of my Federally protected rights under color of law. So if the FBI works closely with local law enforcement agencies there is no doubt some locals will be lying to the Feds. They cannot work closely with the local law enforcement if they are going to expose local public corruption in my City and County.

That statement conflicts with this statement

  • No other law enforcement agency has attained the kind of success the FBI has achieved in combating corruption. This success is due largely to the cooperation and coordination from a number of federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies to combat public corruption. These partnerships include, but are not limited to the Department of Justice, Agency Offices of Inspector General; law enforcement agencies’ internal affairs divisions; federal, state and local law enforcement and regulatory investigative agencies; and state and county prosecutor’s offices

Uncle Sam + the Human RIghts Hipocrite

{Also see: US Admits It “Lost” 1,500 Immigrant Children, Handed Many of Them Directly To Human Traffickers and Pentagon Seeks $300 Million in Weapons for 65,000 US-Backed Forces (Terrorist Mercenaries) in Syria} As far as the State Department, Washington and the nation’s reigning corporate, financial, and imperial power elite is concerned, the violations of the […]

via “Uncle Sam, the Human Rights Hypocrite” — An Outsider’s Sojourn II (The Journey Continues)

Public Corruption Why It’s Our #1 Criminal Priority!

03/26/10  A little outdated but still the front page article on their webpage.

public_corruption.jpgPublic corruption is a breach of trust by federal, state, or local officials—often with the help of private sector accomplices. It’s also the FBI’s top criminal investigative priority. To explain why the Bureau takes public corruption so seriously and how we investigate, we talked with Special Agent Patrick Bohrer, assistant section chief of our Public Corruption/Civil Rights program at FBI Headquarters.

Question: Why is public corruption so high on the FBI’s list of investigative priorities? 
Answer: Because of its impact. Corrupt public officials undermine our country’s national security, our overall safety, the public trust, and confidence in the U.S. government, wasting billions of dollars along the way. This corruption can tarnish virtually every aspect of society. For example, a border official might take a bribe, knowingly or unknowingly letting in a truck containing weapons of mass destruction. Or corrupt state legislators could cast deciding votes on a bill providing funding or other benefits to a company for the wrong reasons. Or at the local level, a building inspector might be paid to overlook some bad wiring, which could cause a deadly fire down the road.

Q: Can you describe the kinds of public corruption that the FBI investigates? 
A: It really runs the gamut. Bribery is the most common. But there’s also extortion, embezzlement, racketeering, kickbacks, and money laundering, as well as wire, mail, bank, and tax fraud. Right now, based on our intelligence on emerging trends, we are focused specifically on several major issues: corruption along our national borders; corrupt officials who take advantage of natural disasters or economic crises to divert some of the government’s aid into their own pockets; and a myriad of officials who may personally benefit from the economic stimulus funding.

Q: Where do you find this corruption? 
A: Just about everywhere—at the federal, state, and local levels throughout the country. And I should point out, the vast majority of our country’s public officials are honest and work hard to improve the lives of the American people. But a small number make decisions for the wrong reasons—usually, to line their own pockets or those of friends and family. These people can be found—and have been found—in legislatures, courts, city halls, law enforcement departments, school and zoning boards, government agencies of all kinds (including those that regulate elections and transportation), and even companies that do business with government.

Q: How does the FBI investigate public corruption?
A: We’re in a unique position to investigate allegations of public corruption. Our lawful use of sophisticated investigative tools and methods—like undercover operations, court-authorized electronic surveillance, and informants—often gives us a front-row seat to witness the actual exchange of bribe money or a backroom handshake that seals an illegal deal…and enough evidence to send the culprits to prison. But we have plenty of help. We often work in conjunction with the inspector general offices from various federal agencies, as well as with our state and local partners. And we depend greatly on assistance from the public. So let me end by saying, if anyone out there has any information about potential wrongdoing by a public official, please submit a tip online or contact your local FBI field office. Your help really makes a difference.


Seriously? My experience with the lazy FBI agent. This is my life you have taken. Do you understand being gang raped? The damage done?

I have taken 1 step forward and 10 steps backward. Let me tell you how my interaction has developed with the FBI. I actually have made contact with an agent at the Federal level and it has been a difficult task that is not nearly over and done with to my satisfaction by any means. The article above talks about wasted money, in my case I can identify wasted money as in the local division agent actually getting taxpayers money for doing nothing that is described as an investigation. I began seeking assistance from the FBI in 2007. My case if reviewed any reasonable person could recognize, clearly supports local government corruption. I do not care who you are if you do not understand that private property rights are protected, Federally guaranteed to every citizen. It makes no difference for those who want to argue, these rights are protected by the Constitutional law, by natural law, or by God’s law. These are unalienable rights never to be taken. It’s been well over a year since I first contacted this local agent. I had a vision of how this would play out. I was totally disillusioned to the reality of how this really works. I contacted the FBI numerous times since 2007. It was always a quick excuse to why they cannot assist and goodbye. To have the opportunity to speak directly is nonexistent. I did write to my US Senator in 2007 requesting that he help me get my case investigated. Initially he blew me off probably thinking that I was “crazy”. The difference in this case is if Mr. Senator had that opinion he kept it as a thought. Unlike my local government officials who defamed my character by making statements that I was “crazy” with intent to give the general public an unfavorable opinion of my character. Defamation of character is a violation of Federal Law 28 U.S. Code § 4101 – Definitions

Eventually I did convince my Senator that my case is a Federal case. During this extended period of time he has requested two congressional inquiries on my behalf.  That being done I assumed it was reasonable an agent would reach out to me. Never happened, I had no name or contact information for any agent. I had no idea how the agency is structured. At some point I became determined that somebody with authority of the FBI was going to review the evidence supporting my allegations. I packed up my old truck and headed to Cedar Rapids with my extensive library of evidence. I arrived in the parking lot around 2:00pm. I call the number listed for this division.  Apparently with the local division the agent you get is the one who answers the telephone. I told him my intention. He advised me that is was to late in the afternoon for me to meet with anyone. I advised him that I would get a room and be there first thing in the morning. He advised me that I would not be able to speak with anyone on the following day because it was Columbus Day. I couldn’t believe I had not recognized that day as being a Federal holiday and accepted it as an error on my part. We spoke several times after trying to make arrangements to meet but those appointment were canceled do to various reasons, I did request that he come to my home because I have limited resources and frankly could not afford to travel that distance again. My vehicles is old and not trustworthy.  After all this time of pleading and begging for anyone of authority to simply review my evidence. He finally agreed to meet me at my house. Prior to the date we had set to meet I advised him that my evidence takes an estimated 12 hours to review. He advised me that he did not intend to spend 12 hours reviewing anything. I was ready to get a room when I went to his location. He arrived and I had placed evidence supporting specific allegations in separate piles for his convenience, I was in the process of explaining what was where when he advised me that he would just take notes on what I would tell him orally. There is no way to tell this story verbally. It is simply too complex and confusing in that the witnesses and criminal actors are family member and many same names. There are so many individuals involved. There were 4 Mayors over this period of five years not to mention the turnover in law enforcement and council members. The agent arrived at 11: 00 am. I had not even gotten started telling him what took place before he advised me that he believed this to be a civil case. We both agreed that neither of us were lawyers. I asked him to please submit what few facts he did have of the case to a US Attorney. He advised me that he did not intend to submit my case to an attorney. He left my house at 2:00pm timing the ride so he would be back to his office by 5:00pm. I think his unwillingness to work overtime or on a holiday was odd, different than I expected. I expected an officer whose duty it is to expose public corruption to be more interested in a case alleging public corruption, Not long after he left the mail came. In the mail that day was a letter from an Assistant Deputy Director at the Washington bureau. The letter informed me that it had been determined there has been no violation of Federal law. At that point I became angry. At what point can a determination of any kind be made without a through review of the evidence. I need an answer to that question. I demand an answer to that question. I have since been advised by credible State attorneys that my case is in violation of Federal law. I know a person cannot unlawfully apply chemicals to another person’s property with intent to cause serious injury, I know a person cannot redevelop a property violating State building codes. I know that all the acts committed against me are criminal offenses, not as the agent advised me civil offenses. I know I will not settle for the word of any person disputing what I know to be true. I recognize hearsay and facts determine the ruling of a court. I have emailed this agent requesting the name of his supervisor. He will not reply. I sent a certified letter to the Assistant Deputy Director of the letter determining no Federal law has been violated and someone did receive it, So when law enforcement is negligent at the Federal level what recourse for justice does one have? The only resource available that I am aware of is the right given by the second amendment. I am not an attorney but I am not completely ignorant of the law either, Who are these people falsely portraying themselves as representatives of defenders of the law and protector of the Constitution. I have reach out to every resource available, all have assaulted me as a woman unequal for protection of the law. Give me liberty or give me death.  In regard to the last sentence of the article. I have tried to get information to this agency for 10 years and making contact must be similar to breaking into Ft. Knox. I submitted tips, I called the Washington bureau, I called the Omaha Division multiple times. No person ever showed the professional courtesy to respond. The newly elected Sheriff went so far to put me in contact with an agent he knows. He has a conflict of interest and has violated State laws on behalf of the corrupt local officials I have evidence supporting all my allegations and I have not had the opportunity to touch on them yet. Fortunately he was not an agent with my local division. This contact from the Sheriff was quick to advise me that the statute of limitation has expired. I returned a message on his voicemail advising him that there is no statute of limitation for acts of terrorism. There was no response. I am not accepting of what this enterprise of local rapist have perpetrated on me. Someone needs to be a hero sooner than later in my opinion, I believe I have the right to file a formal complaint.  I do not have access to the information as to how to file a complaint.

In this case it would be suitable to bring Federal charges for torture 18 U.S. Code § 2340 

 

H.R.510 – Defense of Property Rights Act 114th Congress (2015-2016)

Is there anyone who would be willing to assist me by advising me as to what forms I need to file a case in Defense of Property Rights Act. I have no idea how to go about any legal matter, I hired an attorney one time and he conspired against me. So I have no trust or financial assets to use to obtain an attorney at this time. I recognize the statue states 6 years, the fact that I was blind until 2012 should be considered in this case. I believe my case is criminal, in violation of Federal law. I know my Constitutional Rights have been violated. I could use some opinions https://poisonedbymyneighborfromhell.com
H. R. 510

To establish a uniform and more efficient Federal process for protecting property owners’ rights guaranteed by the fifth amendment

 


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 22, 2015

Mr. Reed introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


A BILL

To establish a uniform and more efficient Federal process for protecting property owners’ rights guaranteed by the fifth amendment.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “Defense of Property Rights Act”.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds that—

(1) the private ownership of property is essential to a free society and is an integral part of the American tradition of liberty and limited government;

(2) the framers of the United States Constitution, in order to protect private property and liberty, devised a framework of Government designed to diffuse power and limit Government;

(3) to further ensure the protection of private property, the fifth amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified to prevent the taking of private property by the Federal Government, except for public use and with just compensation;

(4) the purpose of the takings clause of the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution, as the Supreme Court stated in Armstrong v. United States, 364 U.S. 40, 49 (1960), is “to bar Government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens, which in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole”;

(5) the agencies, in their efforts to ameliorate public harms and environmental abuse, have singled out property holders to shoulder the cost that should be borne by the public, in violation of the just compensation requirement of the takings clause of the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution;

(6) there is a need to both restrain the agencies in their overzealous regulation of the private sector and to protect private property, which is a fundamental right of the American people;

(7) the incremental, fact-specific approach that courts now are required to employ in the absence of adequate statutory language to vindicate property rights under the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution has been ineffective and costly and there is a need for Congress to clarify the law and provide an effective remedy;

(8) certain provisions of sections 1346 and 1402 and chapter 91 of title 28, United States Code (commonly known as the Tucker Act), that delineates the jurisdiction of courts hearing property rights claims, complicates the ability of a property owner to vindicate a property owner’s right to just compensation for a governmental action that has caused a physical or regulatory taking;

(9) current law—

(A) forces a property owner to elect between equitable relief in the district court and monetary relief (the value of the property taken) in the United States Court of Federal Claims;

(B) is used to urge dismissal in the district court on the ground that the plaintiff should seek just compensation in the Court of Federal Claims; and

(C) is used to urge dismissal in the Court of Federal Claims on the ground that the plaintiff should seek equitable relief in district court;

(10) property owners cannot fully vindicate property rights in one court;

(11) property owners should be able to fully recover for a taking of their private property in one court;

(12) certain provisions of sections 1346 and 1402 and chapter 91 of title 28, United States Code (commonly known as the Tucker Act) should be amended, giving both the district courts of the United States and the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction to hear all claims relating to property rights; and

(13) section 1500 of title 28, United States Code, which denies the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction to entertain a suit which is pending in another court and made by the same plaintiff, should be repealed.

SEC. 3. PURPOSE.

The purpose of this Act is to

(1) encourage, support, and promote the private ownership of property by ensuring the constitutional and legal protection of private property by the United States Government;

(2) establish a clear, uniform, and efficient judicial process whereby aggrieved property owners can obtain vindication of property rights guaranteed by the fifth amendment to the United States Constitution and this Act;

(3) amend certain provisions of the Tucker Act, including the repeal of section 1500 of title 28, United States Code;

(4) rectify the constitutional imbalance between the Federal Government and the States; and

(5) require the Federal Government and States to compensate compensation to property owners for the deprivation of property rights.

SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

For purposes of this Act the term—

(1) “agency” means a department, agency, independent agency, or instrumentality of the United States or an individual State, including any military department, Government corporation, Government-controlled corporation, or other establishment in the executive branch of the United States Government or an individual State;

(2) “agency action” means any action or decision taken, permanently or temporarily, by an agency that—

(A) takes a property right; or

(B) unreasonably impedes the use of property or the exercise of property interests or significantly interferes with investment-backed expectations;

(3) “just compensation”—

(A) means compensation equal to the full extent of a property owner’s loss, including the fair market value of the private property taken and business losses arising from a taking, whether the taking is by physical occupation or through regulation, exaction, or other means; and

(B) shall include compounded interest calculated from the date of the taking until the date the agency tenders payment;

(4) “owner” means the owner or possessor of property or rights in property at the time the taking occurs, including when—

(A) the statute, regulation, rule, order, guideline, policy, or action is passed or promulgated; or

(B) the permit, license, authorization, or governmental permission is denied or suspended;

(5) “private property” or “property” means all property protected under the fifth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, any applicable Federal or State law, or this Act, and includes—

(A) real property, whether vested or unvested, including—

(i) estates in fee, life estates, estates for years, or otherwise;

(ii) inchoate interests in real property such as remainders and future interests;

(iii) personally that is affixed to or appurtenant to real property;

(iv) easements;

(v) leaseholds;

(vi) recorded liens; and

(vii) contracts or other security interests in, or related to, real property;

(B) the right to use water or the right to receive water, including any recorded lines on such water right;

(C) rents, issues, and profits of land, including minerals, timber, fodder, crops, oil and gas, coal, or geothermal energy;

(D) property rights provided by, or memorialized in, a contract, except that such rights shall not be construed under this title to prevent the United States from prohibiting the formation of contracts deemed to harm the public welfare or to prevent the execution of contracts for

(i) national security reasons; or

(ii) exigencies that present immediate or reasonably foreseeable threats or injuries to life or property;

(E) any interest defined as property under State law; or

(F) any interest understood to be property based on custom, usage, common law, or mutually reinforcing understandings sufficiently well-grounded in law to back a claim of interest; and

(6) “taking of private property”

(A) means any action whereby private property is directly taken in part or in whole as to require compensation under the fifth amendment to the United States Constitution or under this Act, including by physical invasion, regulation, exaction, condition, or other means; and

(B) shall not include—

(i) a condemnation action filed by the United States in an applicable court; or

(ii) an action filed by the United States relating to criminal forfeiture.

SEC. 5. COMPENSATION FOR TAKEN PROPERTY.

(a) In General.—No agency, shall take private property in part or in whole except for public purpose and with just compensation to the property owner. A property owner shall receive just compensation if—

(1) as a consequence of a decision of any agency private property (in part or in whole) has been physically invaded or taken without the consent of the owner; and

(2) (A) such action does not substantially advance the stated governmental interest to be achieved by the legislation or regulation on which the action is based;

(B) such action exacts the owner’s constitutional or otherwise lawful right to use the property or a portion of such property as a condition for the granting of a permit, license, variance, or any other agency action without a rough proportionality between the stated need for the required dedication and the impact of the proposed use of the property;

(C) such action results in the property owner being deprived, either temporarily or permanently, of all or substantially all economically beneficial or productive use of the property or that part of the property affected by the action without a showing that such deprivation inheres in the title itself;

(D) such action diminishes the fair market value of the property which is the subject of the action by the lesser of—

(i) 20 percent or more with respect to the value immediately prior to the governmental action; or

(ii) $20,000, or more with respect to the value immediately prior to the governmental action; or

(E) under any other circumstance where a taking has occurred within the meaning of the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution.

(b) Burden Of Proof.— (1) The agency shall bear the burden of proof in any action described under—

(A) subsection (a)(2)(A), with regard to showing the nexus between the stated governmental purpose of the governmental interest and the impact on the proposed use of private property;

(B) subsection (a)(2)(B), with regard to showing the proportionality between the exaction and the impact of the proposed use of the property; and

(C) subsection (a)(2)(C), with regard to showing that such deprivation of value inheres in the title to the property.

(2) The property owner shall have the burden of proof in any action described under subsection (a)(2)(D), with regard to establishing the diminution of value of property.

SEC. 6. JURISDICTION AND JUDICIAL REVIEW.

(a) In General.—A property owner may file a civil action under this Act to challenge the validity of any agency action that adversely affects the owner’s interest in private property in either the United States District Court or the United States Court of Federal Claims. This section constitutes express waiver of the sovereign immunity of the United States. Notwithstanding any other provision of law and notwithstanding the issues involved, the relief sought, or the amount in controversy, each court shall have concurrent jurisdiction over both claims for monetary relief and claims seeking invalidation of any Act of Congress or any agency action defined under this Act affecting private property rights. The plaintiff shall have the election of the court in which to file a claim for relief.

(b) Standing.—Persons adversely affected by an agency action taken under this Act shall have standing to challenge and seek judicial review of that action.

(c) Amendments To Title 28, United States Code.— (1) Section 1491(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amended—

(A) in paragraph (1) by amending the first sentence to read as follows: “The United States Court of Federal Claims shall have jurisdiction to render judgment upon any claim against an agency for monetary relief founded either upon the Constitution or any Act of Congress or any regulation of an executive department, or upon any express or implied contract with an agency, in cases not sounding in tort, or for invalidation of any Act of Congress or any regulation of an executive department that adversely affects private property rights in violation of the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution”;

(B) in paragraph (2) by inserting before the first sentence the following: “In any case within its jurisdiction, the Court of Federal Claims shall have the power to grant injunctive and declaratory relief when appropriate.”; and

(C) by adding at the end thereof the following new paragraphs:

“(4) In cases otherwise within its jurisdiction, the Court of Federal Claims shall also have ancillary jurisdiction, concurrent with the courts designated in section 1346(b) of this title, to render judgment upon any related tort claim authorized under section 2674 of this title.

“(5) In proceedings within the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims which constitute judicial review of agency action (rather than de novo proceedings), the provisions of section 706 of title 5 shall apply.”.

(2) (A) Section 1500 of title 28, United States Code, is repealed.

(B) The table of sections for chapter 91 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking out the item relating to section 1500.

SEC. 7. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.

The statute of limitations for actions brought under this title shall be 6 years from the date of the taking of property.

 

SEC. 8. ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS.

The court, in issuing any final order in any action brought under this Act, shall award costs of litigation (including reasonable attorney and expert witness fees) to any prevailing plaintiff.

SEC. 9. ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION.

(a) In General.—Either party to a dispute over a taking of property as defined under this Act or litigation commenced under this Act may elect to resolve the dispute through settlement or arbitration. In the administration of this section—

(1) such alternative dispute resolution may only be effectuated by the consent of all parties;

(2) arbitration procedures shall be in accordance with the alternative dispute resolution procedures established by the American Arbitration Association; and

(3) in no event shall arbitration be a condition precedent or an administrative procedure to be exhausted before the filing of a civil action under this Act.

(b) Review Of Arbitration.—Appeal from arbitration decisions shall be to the United States District Court or the United States Court of Federal Claims in the manner prescribed by law for the claim under this Act.

SEC. 10. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to interfere with the authority of any State to create additional property rights.

SEC. 11. SEVERABILITY.

If any provision of this Act, an amendment made by this Act, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and the application of the provisions of such to any person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.

SEC. 12. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The provisions of this Act shall apply to actions commenced on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Cato Handbook of Policy Makers

I can tell you one thing this handbook is useless unless these policies are guaranteed to be enforced. Where is a Cato representative to represent what they declare they represent?

Cato handbook of policymakers

Image

Nonconforming Uses, aka; Grandfathered Use in Zoning

nonconforming use is generally defined as a land use or structure that was legal when established but does not conform to the standards of the current zoning ordinance. The term“nonconforming use” actually covers several situations, including nonconforming uses, lots and structures.

Pre-existing land uses that do not conform to current zoning are not favored. The ultimate goal of zoning is to achieve uniformity of property uses within each zoning district. At the same time, landowners have made investments in their businesses and buildings, and it would be unfair — not to mention illegal in some states — to require immediate termination or removal. Rather than require the immediate elimination of these preexisting uses, the zoning ordinance will outline a set of conditions for the continued existence of nonconforming uses.

Although state courts apply different interpretations to local zoning codes regarding nonconforming uses, the expansion, enlargement or intensification of a nonconforming use in almost all cases can be regulated or prohibited.

Resumption of a nonconforming use or structure after it has been destroyed may be prohibited in some states. In other states the right to re-establish the nonconforming use exists. Zoning ordinances traditionally have set a specific threshold– for example, a percentage of assessed value — for defining what constitutes destruction, and courts generally defer to the stated threshold. Again, the principle is to allow landowners to continue to reap the benefits of investments made in their properties. If those investments have been destroyed, however, the community may or may not have an obligation to allow a landowner to reinvest in a use prohibited by current zoning.

To prevent nonconforming uses from becoming blighted properties, zoning codes generally do allow for routine maintenance and repair, so long as such activities do not constitute expansion or enlargement.

Once a nonconforming use has been abandoned, its resumption can be prohibited. Most ordinances state a time period, usually six months to a year, that creates a presumption of abandonment if the property is not used for that period. Some states do not allow just a passage of time to establish abandonment. The issue of what constitutes abandonment is one that is generally the subject of much state court case-law, with some courts requiring that an “intent to abandon” be shown before the nonconforming use is considered to be terminated. The intent to abandon may be something like a list of criteria, in the zoning ordinance, from which “abandoned” is established from a preponderance of facts about the particular situation.

Gary D. Taylor,

Iowa State University

6-1-2002 original property layout (397x204) (397x204).jpg

Original layout of Dinwiddie and Conlee properties. Conlee structures are one small double wide trailer home. One two story single car garage. The driveway of both properties exit onto 5th street.

 

cropped-4_7_2012-aerial-shot-after-conlee-redevelopment-e1506199371160.jpg

After illegal property redevelopment. How many changes can you find on the 6 half lots that run parallel with the city alley?

 

%d bloggers like this: