Hard to keep local government officials within the guidelines of Federal law?

I was recently advised of this by an attorney, in fact over these past few years several attorney’s have had similar advice for me.

I have gone to extreme lengths to get the proper authority to review the evidence in my case and to proceed to have justice served.

My case is non typical of any other case in this Nation. The criminal acts committed against me have been intentional. They have been as brutal as a civilian in this Country have ever experienced. The pain and suffering continues to exist from the time my eyes open till the time they go to sleep.

The fact that no Federal authority chooses to prosecute my attackers should not have ever been considered in this case. There are Federal laws on the books that are in place to protect citizens from exactly what has happened to me. These laws are not optional for prosecution. Those who have the duty to investigate and prosecute and have not preformed their duties and just as guilty as the ones who physically attacked my person and property, in my opinion they are more liable. They have provided me with no means of having justice be served. The violations of my State and Federal Rights are not to be violated anymore than those who have attacked me. For any person to be held above the law in serious criminal offenses against another citizen is difficult to understand. I know this neighbor is suffering from psychopathic personality disorder. I know that the other officials were in it for personal financial gain. I know the facts because I was a witness, and I have the documentation supporting my allegations.

To the extent in which I have been violated lets get right to the bare bones. Corrupt local government is a common reality in the entire USA. Generally it does not take the form of intentionally causing physical harm and suffering to an innocent civilian. When Senator Chuck Grassley advised me that he requested an inquiry into my allegations I felt a sense of relief. The Senator has great influence over the Federal Government. He advised me that the FBI would be contacting me. I waited for five years and nobody from the FBI contacted me. I contacted the Senator again, he advised me that he would request a second inquiry on my behalf. He advised me to be patient, it takes time. Another five years pass and nobody from the FBI contacted me.

Have you ever tried to contact the FBI, well don’t waste your time because you are only going to be disrespected and hung up on. You can never get the name of the person you are speaking with and quite frankly the statistics show that they as a whole are incompetent. In my case the same is true. I reached out to an agent through the County Sheriff, I knew he had a conflict of interest, that’s how desperate I was.

During these ten years of waiting for a response from the Senator’s inquiry I continued more advanced degree of suffering. My entire body was reacting to the chemical exposure. I had no choice but to stay at my private property with would have resulted in my death I am sure, or flee to escape the chemicals. I chose the latter believing that at some time I would be compensated for the damages I suffered from the intentional actions of my corrupt local government officials. They terrorized me, I was afraid to go to sleep at night because I knew they were not beyond setting my house on fire with me in it. I know that for a fact. You don’t know that because you have never had the opportunity to read my story.

The Senator still has an obligation to assure my evidence has been properly reviewed, however he has now suggested he can do nothing on my behalf. So to sum up what he did, he requested two inquiries on my behalf. He apparently was never given a follow up report from the FBI disclosing what they discovered in my case. I can tell you what they discovered. They discovered nothing, they have never reviewed the evidence. The agent who I finally got connected with came to my home for the purpose of reviewing my evidence. He arrive announcing that he had no intention of reviewing anything. He later disclosed to me that the County Sheriff had given information (hearsay) to a third party and that is how he determined no Federal law has been violated. I can tell you and most of you know that when it come to telling the truth about any subject a law enforcement officer is the last source you can trust to be honest. I was not privy to the information given to this agent, for the purpose I am sure that I would not have the opportunity to present evidence that he was making false statements. This agent was supposed to be investigating on my behalf. He instead cover up the violations of Federal law committed by corrupt local officials.

Now what options do I have to seek justice in a case that destroyed my life? You know and I know the only resolution I have available for justice to be served. The media has much responsibility for the mass shootings we hear of in today’s world. I can testify that these random shooters are not mentally ill. They have been violated to the degree that they will not allow to be disrespected for one more minute. That is what the media should be reporting before it comes to this extreme.

I have pleaded with the media to publish my story. The local editor has been sent the evidence as it took place by me. He stated that my case looks cut and dry. He is right there is no reasonable justification for the criminal offenses that have been committed against me. But he will not publish my story because he has a good relationship with the County Sheriff and does not want to put that in jeopardy. Should I happen to decide I will not go one more minute being disregarded and disrespected to be a human being I am certain that this local editor will withhold the evidence that has been submitted to him by me.

Protecting corrupt government officials is not in the best interest of them. It takes a tragedy and still they are protected from being exposed as the animals they have become.

The buck stops here. https://poisonedbymyneighborfromhell.com terrorist governments using chemical weapons against civilians happening in the USA today. But don’t tell the general public. Let them put themselves in a life threatening situation, that is in the best interest of all involved, right?

Give me my day in court or an AR-15.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

18 U.S. Code § 229.Prohibited activities

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

(1)to develop, produce, otherwise acquire, transfer directly or indirectly, receive, stockpile, retain, own, possess, or use, or threaten to use, any chemical weapon; or

(2)to assist or induce, in any way, any person to violate paragraph (1), or to attempt or conspire to violate paragraph (1).

(b)Exempted Agencies and .—

(1)In general.—

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

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

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

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

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

(1)takes place in the United States;

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

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

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

18 U.S. Code § 229A. Penalties

(a)Criminal Penalties.—

(1)In general.—

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

(2)Death penalty.—

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

(b)Civil Penalties.—

(1)In general.—

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

(2)Relation to other proceedings.—

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

(c)Reimbursement of Costs.—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(b)Procedures.—

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

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

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

(2)Temporary restraining orders.—

(A)In general.—

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

(B)Warrant of seizure.—

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

(C)Applicable procedures.—

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

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

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

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

(d)Destruction or Other Disposition.—

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

(e)Assistance.—

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

(f)Owner Liability.—

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

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

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

18 U.S. Code § 229D. Injunctions

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

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

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

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

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

18 U.S. Code § 229F. Definitions

In this chapter:

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

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

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

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

(2)Chemical weapons ; convention.—

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

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

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

(4)National of the united states.—

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

(5)Person.—

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

(6)Precursor.—

(A)In general.—

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

(B)List of precursors.—

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

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

(A)Peaceful purposes.—

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

(B)Protective purposes.—

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

(C)Unrelated military purposes.—

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

(D)Law enforcement purposes.—

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

(8)Toxic chemical.—

(A)In general.—

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

(B)List of toxic chemicals.—

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

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

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

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

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

 

TOTAL DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS Section II

TOTAL DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS Section II

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NOTICE OF CLAIMANTS INTENT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Federal civil rights violations fall into several categories:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So how many citizens have been eliminated from their private property by local government officials using glyphosate as a weapon, unlawfully applied to your property?

Let me tell you how many. NONE. So this FBI agent refused to review my evidence, never checked financial record to see if a bribe has been paid. I believe an investigation into the financial records would show a bribe being taken in the amount of $4000.00. The Assistant US Attorney advised me that no matter what the evidence proves he will use attorney discretion and not prosecute corrupt local officials who used chemical weapons to eliminate me from my private property. He also advised that unless this trespasser states that he intentionally used chemicals to harm me, he would not prosecute. The evidence shows he admits that he applied chemicals to my property, in violation of a civil court order and the medical records show the chemicals caused me serious injury. Who in the hell do they think they are to have the authority to violate a civil court order. Who the hell do they think they are to violate my Constitutional right to private property. Senator Grassley has been advising me since 2007 to be patient, the FBI would contact me, he said. It takes time. Senator Grassley did this over a period of ten years. Clearly if he would not have assured me that there would be a competent investigation I would have found other sources. Senator Grassley don’t be telling your constituents that you can assist with authorities representing Federal law because in this case you have only clearly misunderstood the significance of this violation of Constitutionally guaranteed right to enjoy private property. Somebody needs to pay attention because if you think that I am willing to take this on the chin you better think again. I don’t calm down with everyday that passes, I get more angry. I am pissed off why would you assume my evidence does not fall within the guidelines for public corruption. John Kaufman continued to advise me that you are not an attorney. Well this is so simple to recognize as being a terrorist act that you do not need to be a damn attorney. What happened to the evidence I sent per your special instructions to Penny. Had you of acted on that at that time I would still have my home, business and property. I have asked John multiple times. He simply says that would be to difficult to access. Well this is my life and I believe my freedoms are equally important as you all do. Do not ignore me Senator Grassley I will am not going anywhere until I am confident that you know the facts of this case. You should just go ahead and contact me now so we can get on with this. If not you will succumb to bad karma spirits. You can’t treat a human being like this government, your government has done to me. It is a violation of international law. It is a  crime against humanity. You were on that committee when this began and you don’t know what laws you were representing? The actions against me can be considered nothing less that war crimes. Everyone of you took an oath to uphold the Constitution. Everyone of you recognize that using chemical weapons is a war crime. Everyone of you that turn a blind eye instead of looking into my allegations are guilty of committing war crimes. And you have no compassion for committing these crimes against a fellow American? And the victim is what we are seeing as becoming the typical person attacked being a single middle aged female. You would not commit these acts against a man because a man would defend his property by taking up arms. I would have if you would not have continued to assure me that the FBI would investigate. You find me one other case with these circumstances, a person’s private property is taken control of by a neighbor using chemicals as a weapon with intent to eliminate that person. You find a case and I will go away. You will not find a case with these circumstances because every reasonable person knows it is illegal to trespass on the private property of another. Why was I denied filing a trespassing complaint. I have a list of these charges in this county but I was denied by the city and county attorney. Bullshit. You have to attack a single middle aged woman that has more dignity in her little finger that you have in your entire corrupt bodies. Get freshened up on your hate crimes because I can feel any compassion I have had for fellow man has dissipated. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FkbzNnnPg4

I am so pissed off today. Violations of multiple Federal laws. Investigate this evidence for crying out loud. I couldn’t make this stuff up.

 

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 as they are required to do. I reached out after ten years of severe suffering, my life forever change 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 to determine 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. https://poisonedbymyneighborfromhell.com

 

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

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

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

Rights content written by Linda R. Monk, Constitutional scholar

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

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

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

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

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

My site is https://poisonedbymyneighborfromhell.com                     

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

Are private property right Federally protected rights?

I have asked this question before and have gotten few responses. I can only take the silence of opinions as a “yes” private property rights are Federally protected. I have been advised to get a private attorney. I want to ask why would I need a private attorney when a violation of Federal law is to be investigated and prosecuted by the Federal authorities.

One other question I previously asked was, “does an AUSA have the authority to violate a civil court order with no type of court proceeding”? Again I have to assume that the silence of opinions would concur “no”. An AUSA does not have the right to use attorney discretion to violate a civil court order.

So I understand that the Federal authorities have knowingly made false statements to me. An investigation cannot be concluded using hearsay evidence, and private property cannot be taken without just compensation, as that is a violation of Federal law.

SA Calvin Shivers signed the letter stating that a prior investigation had determined no violation of Federal law has occurred, Shivers has not contacted me, he has avoided me. Why wouldn’t a Federal officer want the facts about any case before he would sign a letter based on hearsay. Have some dignity to you position officers. You are employeed to represent the citizens, not the blue wall of silence. Seems like a bunch of cowards if confronted individually. I have some facts that need to be reviewed and until I am confident the facts have been reviewed I will continue to defend my right to be protected from harm. There are many violations of Federal law that have occurred at the hands of my local government officials. The fact that hearsay was taken as evidence and that hearsay was given no less than from a law enforcement imposter is more reason to question the honesty of this law enforcement officer, I have already submitted clear evidence that this cop has a conflict of interest with the party that used chemical weapons to force me from my property.  They have taken everything I owned. My home, business, property and health. They have taken any quality of life I had planned for my golden years. There is no doubt that Federal laws have been violated. I do not expect anyone to offer an opinion as to why the Feds would not be the proper agency to prosecute, ssshhh don’t expose public corruption, it only a pr tactic on their website. This government would not exist and thrive without a supporting group of thieves protecting self serving colleagues. https://poisonedbymyneighborfromhell.com

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

Well I can testify that the chronic skin condition resulting from intentional exposure to glyphosate for an extended period of time is once again seriously severe. I have never been prescribed a higher dose of methotrexate and had the condition to become increasingly severe. I am at the point now that it is unbearable to wear shoes. This pain and severe itching is 24/7. To know that an FBI agent claims to have done and investigation and has found no violation of Federal law based of hearsay stated by the County sheriff to a third party is about to piss me off more than I have ever been pissed on. SA Thomas Reinwart has proven to be incompetent and not qualified to investigate my case. He does not have the knowledge that every reasonable American takes for granted. He does not know that private property rights are Federally protected. His ignorance has proven he had no business being involved in my case that encompassed in violations of Federal laws. His ignorance and incompetence is going to have significant effects to the outcome of this case. Who to whom it may concern that has a connection be it by a third party or via any damn way, needs to extend this message to a high authority. FBI Agent Calvin Shivers signed the most recent letter stating that they have determined no violation of Federal law has occurred, he has completely avoided any contact with me. Tell him he is participating in a crime that is causing serious physical injury to an American citizen. He is knowingly refusing to protect me from harm based on fabricated information. He being the most recent signator of a letter that further violates my individual rights. Has made the choice to protect the blue wall of silence. Do not send any law enforcement to my home, inquiring as to whether I have threatened anyone. Send them to those who have repeatedly attempted to murder me using chemical weapons. It’s in everyone’s best interest. Get these maniacs that have proven to be a danger to society off the streets before they do kill an innocent human being!

Dead End

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

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

Thomas

I am attaching my most recent correspondence with I had with you. I received the letter from FBI JC Hacker yesterday. I searched for this individual and there is no person named JC Hacker listed as an FBI assistant director or anywhere else for that matter. Please explain, as there seems to be a conflict between the two letters.

Regarding the evidence I have sent you clearly shows that the continuing unlawful application of toxic chemicals to my property violates my Federal right to enjoy my property. The fact that the unlawful application of toxic chemicals to my property constitutes a criminal offense of trespassing. Denying my right to file a criminal complaint against this trespasser by the City of Montrose police dept, and the Lee County Attorney clearly violates my Federal right to equal protection of the law. The evidence I have sent you supports two or more people working together to violate my Federal rights to privacy and equal protection supports a conspiracy.

My request for a behavioral analysis is reasonable, who in sound mind continues a criminal act (trespassing in this case) knowing the person that owns the property the chemicals are being applied to believes the chemicals are causing severe health problems? Whose duty is it to protect those rights? Local law enforcement has the duty to protect the rights of the citizens from criminal acts perpetrated against them. In this case intentional acts perpetrated against me.

Who has the duty to assure compliance to State of Iowa building and drainage code? The appointed building administrator. In this case multiple counts of fraud have been committed not only the fraudulent building permits but also the document fraud and fabricated city ordinance perpetrated by the city clerk. Fraud also falling into the criminal offense category. The FBI holds public corruption as of highest priority, including conflict of interest. In this case a conflict of interest is relevant between every actor participating in the personal attack against me and my property.

Apparently you do not agree with my allegations, please explain what it is that I am not understanding as a violation of Federal law.

Regards,

Melody Boatner

 

Reply to me

Reinwart, Thomas J. (OM) (FBI) Thomas.Reinwart@ic.fbi.gov

There is not a conflict.  Thus far, there does not appear to be any Federal criminal law violations which have occurred.  Although there may be some local or state criminal and or civil law(s) which may have violated, we do not investigate those activities.  As previously stated in my email with you,

“You have previously written on numerous occasions explaining you have an abundance of evidence to support your claims of the criminal violations you have researched.  Please bring that information to explain and substantiate your allegations.”

Again, we will not provide any type of profiler or behavioral analysis for you.  This is not going to continue to be debated via email.  I am giving you the opportunity to provide any material you feel has not been provided/explained by you to us in the past to substantiate your allegations.

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

AUSA VanderSchel,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public corruption and civil rights

Corruption

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

Civil Rights

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

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

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

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

Exempted agencies and persons. (b) 

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

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

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

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

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

(1) takes place in the United States;

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

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

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

Chemical Weapons

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

A chemical weapon is:

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

contracting or negotiating for any of the rights enumerated above;

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

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

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

 ARTICLE XIV.

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

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

respectfully,

Melody Boatner

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

You can Sue for Civil rights violations!

Federal or State violations of civil rights or constitutional rights

Attorney General’s guidelines for FBI investigation

Investigations by the FBI are premised upon the fundamental duty of government to protect the public against general crimes, against organized criminal activity, and against those who would threaten the fabric of our society through terrorism or mass destruction. That duty must be performed with care to protect individual rights and to insure that investigations are confined to matters of legitimate law enforcement interest. The purpose of these Guidelines, therefore, is to establish a consistent policy in such matters. The Guidelines will enable Agents of the FBI to perform their duties with greater certainty, confidence and effectiveness, and will provide the American people with a firm assurance that the FBI is acting properly under the law.

What’s the deal here? Are there any areas within the USA that are excluded? Because the SA that investigated my case did not follow anything about these guidelines, nor did he recognize that private property rights were Federally protected. Who doesn’t know that without having been trained to be an FBI agent?