Notice the date I first contacted him. He failed to come through with his promises that he could have the Feds investigated.
I am not or have never been an aggressive person. Well maybe a little 25 years ago when I had a nip or two. But I am the type if I don’t agree with someone I keep it to myself. I am not confrontational. I will take the short end of the stick every time to keep the peace. This case is more than I can handle. I promised myself I will not be the only victim of this brutal attack. I will invoke my 2nd amendment right. I don’t know when. I just know that I cannot allow for my dad to have served on a Destroyer in the South Pacific taking on bombs and kamikaze pilots thinking he was fighting for the freedoms of his countrymen.
Ironically he spent his career working as the Street Commissioner of a larger neighboring town. His father’s career was also working for the neighboring city. I know the duties and responsibilities a city MUST provide its residents. One of them being nobody has the right to do anything to another persons property. Trespass enforce would have solved this problem from the get go. This was a conspiracy against my rights. Deprivation of Rights under color of law and torture from chemical warfare.
A nonconforming use is generally defined as a land use or structure that was legal when established but does not conform to the standards of the current zoning ordinance. The term “nonconforming use” actually covers several situations, including nonconforming uses, lots and structures.
Preexisting land uses that do not conform to current zoning are not favored. The ultimate goal of zoning is to achieve uniformity of property uses within each zoning district. At the same time, landowners have made investments in their businesses and buildings, and it would be unfair — not to mention illegal in some states — to require immediate termination or removal. Rather than require the immediate elimination of these preexisting uses, the zoning ordinance will outline a set of conditions for the continued existence of nonconforming uses.
Although state courts apply different interpretations to local zoning codes regarding nonconforming uses, the expansion, enlargement or intensification of a nonconforming use in almost all cases can be regulated or prohibited.
Resumption of a nonconforming use or structure after it has been destroyed may be prohibited in some states. In other states the right to reestablish the nonconforming use exists. Zoning ordinances traditionally have set a specific threshold– for example, a percentage of assessed value — for defining what constitutes destruction, and courts generally defer to the stated threshold. Again, the principle is to allow landowners to continue to reap the benefits of investments made in their properties. If those investments have been destroyed, however, the community may or may not have an obligation to allow a landowner to reinvest in a use prohibited by current zoning.
To prevent nonconforming uses from becoming blighted properties, zoning codes generally do allow for routine maintenance and repair, so long as such activities do not constitute expansion or enlargement.
Once a nonconforming use has been abandoned, its resumption can be prohibited. Most ordinances state a time period, usually six months to a year, that creates a presumption of abandonment if the property is not used for that period. Some states do not allow just a passage of time to establish abandonment. The issue of what constitutes abandonment is one that is generally the subject of much state court case law, with some courts requiring that an “intent to abandon” be shown before the nonconforming use is considered to be terminated. The intent to abandon may be something like a list of criteria, in the zoning ordinance, from which “abandoned” is established from a preponderance of facts about the particular situation.
Gary D. Taylor, Iowa State University
Saturday, June 30, 2012
Constitutional Rights, Bullying , Terrorist Acts, Discrimination
I am an innocent victim of your War on Drugs. Share this with your colleagues and your assistant in your local office who frankly couldn’t have care less that I was being poisoned by toxic chemical applied to my property for the sole purpose to cause me physical harm not excluding death if that were the consequences.
I will never forget her comment after I repeatedly called desperate for intervention, “something will come along”. Two years later and on my deathbed she, Penny, as I recall was her name, assured me “something will come along”.
I am victim of crimes against humanity in the State of Iowa, in the County of Lee. I am angry. I want you to demand some answers from these local Government authorities to the questions I have been oppressed from asking.
You have made it clear that you are Federal, well sir the State is under the Federal authorities. In fact I was advised by the State Attorney General that they could only get involved if a case was referred to them by the County Attorney. the following is just a minute accounting of the brutality I suffered. There are numerous participants that I have not mentioned. The constant use of massive amounts toxic chemicals as a weapon is nothing short of attempted murder.
I understand you may not like my tone in this letter, let me assure you it is not my character to assert a tone of anything but pleasant. You must understand that I believe I am the only person in this Nation that has endured this degree of brutality and disregard of the law by those who I pay to enforce the law.
I am sending the following brief to all media and and sources available. Not one single person beside myself and this neighbor mentioned in the following letter know the whole story and events that took place. But there are many witnesses and documents that together can not be disputed as to the credibility that what seems to unbelievable to be true these people treatment of me was pure evil. Sir, I am not a liar, I am not a cheat, and I am not a thieve. I will take a lie detector test any time. They have defamed my character to the highest degree, when asked about the situation they would avoid any discussion by saying “oh she’s crazy”.
To Whom it may Concern,
I have literally been oppressed from presenting the facts, getting any answers to my questions pertaining to the indisputable evidence proving criminal acts, ethical violations of several high ranking City and County officials. I deserve answers. I deserve an investigation.
I was victimized by these individuals for 5 years. I am innocent of any crime, There is no evidence that I was ever involved in any illegal drug activity. The evidence, proves the highest ranking County officer knowingly made false allegations over the police radio associating me a family member who has prior convictions. I can prove this officer was well aware that his statement was false by information on a copy of a search warrant that I am in possession of. I have had no personal association with this family member since 1992. This is a well known fact by many people.
I and other neighbors can testify that I was under surveillance (their term) by this County officer 24/7. The hours he spent watching me knowing that there was no just cause most likely cost the taxpayers a considerable amount of money. His behavior is defined as stalking. I found it kind of humorous early on simply because he and I both knew everything he was saying about me was completely false, he was taking the facts completely out of context as the documents prove. The last 12 months his behavior frightened me, he became more irate, and his lies more extreme in content. Then at age 42 he suddenly retired. I have heard that there were undisclosed ethical circumstances for his sudden early retirement. Many citizens find retiring suddenly at 42 unusual and believe the facts behind this should be disclosed but the County Attorney will do whatever it takes to protect his highest ranking officer, personal friend and closest working colleague for over 2 decades.
Why am I under surveillance by a County officer when I live in the City? I and other neighbors can testify that I was under surveillance (their term) by this County officer 24/7. The hours he spent watching me knowing that there was no just cause most likely cost the taxpayers a considerable amount of money. His behavior is defined as stalking. I found it kind of humorous early on simply because he and I both knew everything he was saying about me was completely false, he was taking the facts completely out of context as the documents prove. The last 12 months his behavior frightened me, he became more irate, and his lies more extreme in content. Then at age 42 he suddenly retired. I have heard that there were undisclosed ethical circumstances for his sudden early retirement. Many citizens find retiring suddenly at 42 unusual and believe the facts behind this should be disclosed but the County Attorney will do whatever it takes to protect his highest ranking officer, personal friend and closest working colleague for over 2 decades.
An investigation into the County Attorney’s history will show that he has repeatedly used his position to provide protection from prosecution for family members who have repeated meth, illegal drug and other criminal offenses. The general public is not aware this is repeated behavior by the CA ignoring the rule of conflict of interest because some of the individuals are blood and carry the same last name, other immediate family last names differ because they are step- relatives. The County Attorney stated in an email to me that he sent an officer to investigate. None of my witnesses were ever interviewed. The officer that he sent to my house stated that he was only at my house to question me about giving the neighbor the finger.
The motive according to the evidence I have of this high ranking officer who initiated verbal attack on me was to defame my character, other City and County law enforcement officers, along with City officials and the general public who did not know me personally to disregard general procedure and duty of appointed officials to address and answer a citizen complaint? My initial concern was a drainage issue that devalues my property value $8,000 and damaged my foundation when this guy redeveloped his property.
Did I mention there was a suspicious fire that destroyed the existing home? Did I mention the Chief of Police felt it was suspicious and felt and investigation was needed. Did I mention the Chief was told an investigation was not necessary, that they (the fire dept) had taken care of it. Did I mention out of umpteen firemen on the dept. only 4 were on the seen at this fire. There are always more than needed at any fire. Did I mention that the firemen that were present were the Mayor (seller of the property), the building inspector(who refused to speak to me about the drainage issue) and the new neighbor(purchaser of property, brother of the County cop with the apparent vendetta against me) and Jake, junior member of the dept. and son of the building inspector. It was a conversation of the facts of events several days after the fire that both Jake and I realized we without a doubt had witnessed an arson. Jake’s dad and the other 2 had always presented himself as such fine servants of the community.
Did I mention the neighbor is also on the City Council?They have committed what is probably the most severely punishable crime ever happen in this town of 900. Jake testimony which I will not disclose is by far the most compelling evidence of all. Every neighbor on the block approached stated they felt it was intentional. I did not question any of them as to the reason behind their thoughts.
According to witnesses (some being police officers that do know me personally) This County officer verbally assured City officials, City police officers, and one other County deputy for sure that I was going to get busted for drugs. What type of drugs I do not know. I assume pot. I stated that I knew for sure one other County deputy was convinced I was going down. This officer and I have a mutual friend. One afternoon after the friend left my house after a visit this deputy pulled him over and stated “that house you just left is going to get busted”. I thought the officer had mistaken my house for a house on the next block that did get busted. I knew for a fact that I wasn’t doing anything to get busted for.
I am not a writer, I have a GED. I quit high school in 11th grade because I was terrified that speech was a require class and I get so nervous that I literally can not stand up and talk to people I don’t know. My cheek starts twitching, that’s just me. Maybe because I was bullied by big brother, I don’t know.
I will take the short end of the stick every time to avoid and confrontation. I bought my property in 1995, raised a son to be a fine productive member of society with no financial or emotional support from his father whom I was married to for 13 years. Never questioned my ability to use my talent to pay my bills and support myself and acquire the American Dream.
I had much more success in doing so depending on myself than with a husband. I rebuilt the existing home on my property and rebuilt the garage into an upholstery shop. I had an outstanding reputation for the quality of my work and was never without a job on deck. I am self taught at many skilled crafts. I chose upholstery so I could work from home as my son a had rare serious health condition from the age of 6 through young adulthood.
I am writing this in part due to the media attention to bullying that has been so relevant lately. I am well educated as to the duties and responsibilities of Cities to the citizens and the procedures that citizens are to follow when an issues arises pertaining to new construction and property redevelopment. My Grandfather and father both were employed by a neighboring City. My father’s position was titled Street Commissioner, this was in the 60-80s. This was also the time when States, Counties and Cities adopted the uniform building codes.
These codes are now international and have been for quite some time. One of the main purposes for these codes is to minimize the number of lawsuits filed by neighbor against neighbor. The position of Street Commissioner has now been phased out and larger Cities use City Planners to oversee property issues. Smaller Cities as mine appoint a council member to be building administrator. The administrator has specific duties to ensure building codes are compiled to by the builder the first step is for the administrator to issue a permit. The builder signs the permit prior to any work to be done. The builder notifies the administrator when t the project is complete. The administrator goes to the property and physically measures, checks a list of things to ensure the builders has complied to all regulations. If the project is compliant the administrator signs the permit. If the project is not compliant the administrator does not approve (sign) the permit until the property is brought up to code. The administrator signs the permit and then issues a certificate of occupancy. Residents are then free to move in an live happily ever after…..
- Did I mention that the permit for the neighbors property was signed by the administrator but not the builder?
- Did I mention that the neighbor admitted to applying chemicals to my property without my knowledge?
- Did I mention the City applied chemicals to my property without my knowledge or without a licensed applicator to do so? Or without following the EPA rules for posting and every other rule regulated by the EPA?
- Did I mention that I developed a severe skin condition from the chemicals?
- Did I mention that when I requested both parties not to apply anything to my property they became more aggressive?
- Did I mention that my entire body was raw, I could not bare to wear clothes for the entire 2 years this continued on a weekly basis?
- Did I mention that I was so sick that the pastor of the church went to City hall to make a payment on my water bill and the clerk told her that the payment had to come out of my pocket?
A civil court judge told him that I had the right to enjoy my property. He physically enter my property accompanied by a cop and moved some landscape timbers I had place in a desperate attempt to kept the chemicals off me. The County Attorney told me he frankly didn’t care.
I am now physically disabled. I live in a 12′ camper that I borrowed from a friend behind my sons house. My credit score when this began was 760. Now I can’t even open a checking account to deposit my $660 p/m SSI disability check. I have a 3 year backlog of work from when I first got sick.
Oh yeah this neighbor sued me in civil court for loss of enjoyment of his property. Then he offered me 2 ridiculous out of court settlements. To sum it up. I am a victim of bullying. I have been tortured and the condition is chronic.
I need some answers to why this happened. I have information that the public has the right to know about the Lee County Task Force, County Attorney, Retired Officer, Psychopath Council member and criminal city officials. Are you or your colleagues scared to ask questions or are you reporters of the news?
9-1-2005 Boatner was not shown this letter. The majority of the content is false. The State drainage laws require that no property redevelopment can increase storm water runoff to a neighboring property than prior to the redevelopment. The drainage should have been established according to State law by the City building administrator before redevelopment began. This property was already described as legally non conforming when Conlee purchased it.. No new structures larger that the existing structures footprint. The mayor acknowledges his know this law on public record. Narcissistic personality disorder all over this letter..
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.
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?
My local government officials assisted one of their own in applying glyphosate to my side of our 300′ common boundary. This behavior continued for over five years. I verbally requested this neighbor to stop because I felt it was causing a rash on my shins. He refused to stop. I requested the City police chief to file a trespassing complaint against this neighbor. He refused advising that he did not want to make this neighbor mad. I requested the County Attorney to file a trespassing complaint against this neighbor he advised that he did not file neighbor against neighbor complaints. His double standard is indisputable because I was criminally charged multiple time by the State based on fabricated laws. I was criminally charged by the city multiple time by the city based on fabricated ordinances. While I was trying to defend my person and my property the “rash” had progressed into a full body severe skin condition. I hired an attorney to sue the City for my damages. The city is liable because they issued fraudulent building permits to this neighbor. The building administrator refused his duty to address my complaints in regard to the nuisance drainage causing adverse effects to my property and significant loss of value. The fact that the Mayor sold this legally nonconforming lot to this neighbor provides an existing conflict of interest. The building administrator refusing to address my concerns was replaced by the Lee County Detective and brother of this neighbor. He had no jurisdiction or authority to act as a building administrator. A field investigation was done by the proper authority. The investigator advised me when he saw my skin condition that he knew what was causing it. I did not inquire because I had already use the process of elimination and determine the glyphosate had to be the cause of my condition. My attorney failed to file the complaint against the city, he failed to inform me that he did not file the complaint. This neighbor filed a frivolous complaint against me alleging “loss of enjoyment to his property”, he had no concern that he had been applying chemicals to my property knowing it was causing me health problems. The judge in the civil case cited my right to use my property as I wished. That order was violated without hesitation. The County Attorney and the Detective had a special relationship for 17 years working hand in hand creating a conflict of interest. I contacted US Senator Charles Grassley, he advised me that he would request and inquiry of my case to the FBI. Grassley advised me that the FBI would contact me. I waited for five years. No FBI contacted me. By this time my condition had progress to the degree that I felt my life was in danger. I contacted Senator Grassley again and he requested a second inquiry into my case, he advised me again that the FBI would contact me. He advised me to be patient, it takes time. I felt that ten years of waiting for intervention, suffering severely everyday was not acceptable. I had no protection of the law, this neighbor had a motive to eliminate me from my property and a County Deputy that have ultimate respect for stop at my house advising me that this neighbor had no intention of stopping with the chemicals until he acquired my property. I have followed all the standard procedures to remedy this situation. The government has not, they have fully partnered with this neighbor/council member in violation my rights. I am requesting a legitimate review of the evidence I have collected throughout this taking of my private property by using chemicals as a weapon to cause my person and my property harm.
A legitimate investigation would have determined it was not the city that applied the chemicals to the city easement. It was in fact my neighbor/city council member who took it upon himself to act as a city street department employee. This report was done after three years of the chemical being applied to my 300′ common boundary with this “above the law” neighbor/ council member. The city is liable because they issued fraudulent building permits. But the personal financial gain of the Mayor from selling this otherwise worthless non conforming property was more important that protecting the rights of this resident.
PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT – EQUAL RIGHTS
First Time Passed H.J.R. 13
A JOINT RESOLUTION proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Iowa
relating to the equality of rights of men and women under the law.
Be It Resolved by the General Assembly of the State of Iowa:
Section 1. The following amendment to the Constitution of the State of Iowa is proposed.
Section 1 of Article I of the Constitution of the State of Iowa, is amended to read as
RIGHTS OF PERSONS. Section 1. All men and women are, by nature, free and equal,
and have certain inalienable rights – among which are those of enjoying and defending
life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining
safety and happiness.
Sec. 2. The foregoing amendment to the Constitution of the State of Iowa is referred to
the General Assembly to be chosen at the next general election for members of the General Assembly and the Secretary of State is directed to cause the same to be published for
three consecutive months previous to the date of that election as provided by law.
|songboat <firstname.lastname@example.org>||Aug 19, 2018, 12:33 AM|
You have never looked into the financial records of Conlee and the County Attorney or my attorney or any of the rest of this criminal enterprise, have you? I told you that Mark Conlee’s personality disorder would not allow for him not to keep a record of who he payed off. It the linked case is Federal then why would my case be exempt? My case also falls into the guidelines of violation of international human rights crimes I have been told.So I would think there would be many allegations like mine. If there is no Federal law to hold City and Countys accountable for using chemicals to force you from your property and they happen to have a conflict of interest with the local officials, but the local officials instead of recognizing the conflict, they use the situation for personal gain. Hey, I read about conflict of interest on the FBI website. Why is my case not within the guidelines for Federal conspiracy against rights and deprivation of rights under color of law? By rights I mean my rights given by Amendments 4, 7,8, 14
The FBI is the primary federal agencyresponsible for investigating allegations regarding violations of federal civil rights statutes. These laws are designed to protect the civil rights of all persons—citizens and non-citizens alike—within U.S. territory. Using its full suite of investigative and intelligence capabilities, the Bureau today works closely with its partners to prevent and address hate crime, human trafficking, color of law violations, and Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act violations
Color of Law Violations Preventing abuse of this authority, however, is equally necessary to the health of our nation’s democracy. That’s why it’s a federal crime for anyone acting under “color of law” to willfully deprive or conspire to deprive a person of a right protected by the Constitution or U.S. law. “Color of law” simply means the person is using authority given to him or her by a local, state, or federal government agency.
The FBI is the lead federal agency for investigating color of law violations, which include acts carried out by government officials operating both within and beyond the limits of their lawful authority. Off-duty conduct may be covered if the perpetrator asserted his or her official status in some way. Those violations include the following acts:
Excessive force: In making arrests, maintaining order, and defending life, law enforcement officers are allowed to use whatever force is “reasonably” necessary. The breadth and scope of the use of force is vast—from just the physical presence of the officer…to the use of deadly force. Violations of federal law occur when it can be shown that the force used was willfully “unreasonable” or “excessive.” chemical weapons would fall under this catagory
False arrest and fabrication of evidence: The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right against unreasonable searches or seizures. A law enforcement official using authority provided under the color of law is allowed to stop individuals and, under certain circumstances, to search them and retain their property. It is in the abuse of that discretionary power—such as an unlawful detention or illegal confiscation of property—that a violation of a person’s civil rights may occur. Fabricating evidence against or falsely arresting an individual also violates the color of law statute, taking away the person’s rights of due process and unreasonable seizure. In the case of deprivation of property, the color of law statute would be violated by unlawfully obtaining or maintaining a person’s property, which oversteps or misapplies the official’s authority. This happened multiple times in my case, This is the most personally offensive action against me in my opinion.
Failure to keep from harm: The public counts on its law enforcement officials to protect local communities. If it’s shown that an official willfully failed to keep an individual from harm, that official could be in violation of the color of law statute. This one is a given. Did you look at the affects the chemicals had on my skin? The scars that I will carry with me on my arms the rest of my life. Nobody protected me from harm. You have the evidence that proves this without a doubt.
Title 42, U.S.C., Section 14141 makes it unlawful for state or local law enforcement agencies to allow officers to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives persons of rights protected by the Constitution or U.S. laws. This law, commonly referred to as the Police Misconduct Statute, gives the Department of Justice authority to seek civil remedies in cases where law enforcement agencies have policies or practices that foster a pattern of misconduct by employees. This action is directed against an agency, not against individual officers. The types of issues which may initiate a pattern and practice investigation include:
- Lack of supervision/monitoring of officers’ actions; City of Montrose and Lee County Ia
- Lack of justification or reporting by officers on incidents involving the use of force; Lee County Sheriff’s Dept. and City of Montrose Police Dept.
- Lack of, or improper training of, officers; and Lee County Sheriffs Dept. and City of Montrose Police Dept
- Citizen complaint processes that treat complainants as adversaries. City of Montrose, Lee County sheriff dept, State of Iowa prosecuting attorney for Lee County
ADDRESSING POLICE MISCONDUCT LAWS ENFORCED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Federal laws that address police misconduct include both criminal and civil statutes. These laws cover the actions of State, county, and local officers, including those who work in prisons and jails. In addition, several laws also apply to Federal law enforcement officers. The laws protect all persons in the United States (citizens and non-citizens).
It is a crime for one or more persons acting under color of law willfully to deprive or conspire to deprive another person of any right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. (18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242). “Color of law” simply means that the person doing the act is using power given to him or her by a governmental agency (local, State, or Federal). A law enforcement officer acts “under color of law” even if he or she is exceeding his or her rightful power. The types of law enforcement misconduct covered by these laws include excessive force, sexual assault, intentional false arrests, or the intentional fabrication of evidence resulting in a loss of liberty to another. Enforcement of these provisions does not require that any racial, religious, or other discriminatory motive existed. What remedies are available under these laws? Violations of these laws are punishable by fine and/or imprisonment. There is no private right of action under these statutes; in other words, these are not the legal provisions under which you would file a lawsuit on your own.
Federal Civil Enforcement
“Police Misconduct Provision”
This law makes it unlawful for State or local law enforcement officers to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives persons of rights protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. (42 U.S.C. § 14141). The types of conduct covered by this law can include, among other things, excessive force, discriminatory harassment, false arrests, coercive sexual conduct, and unlawful stops, searches or arrests. In order to be covered by this law, the misconduct must constitute a “pattern or practice” — it may not simply be an isolated incident. The DOJ must be able to show in court that the agency has an unlawful policy or that the incidents constituted a pattern of unlawful conduct. However, unlike the other civil laws discussed below, DOJ does not have to show that discrimination has occurred in order to prove a pattern or practice of misconduct. What remedies are available under this law? The remedies available under this law do not provide for individual monetary relief for the victims of the misconduct. Rather, they provide for injunctive relief, such as orders to end the misconduct and changes in the agency’s policies and procedures that resulted in or allowed the misconduct. There is no private right of action under this law; only DOJ may file suit for violations of the Police Misconduct Provision.
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
and the “OJP Program Statute”
Together, these laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, and religion by State and local law enforcement agencies that receive financial assistance from the Department of Justice. (42 U.S.C. § 2000d, et seq. and 42 U.S.C. § 3789d(c)). Currently, most persons are served by a law enforcement agency that receives DOJ funds. These laws prohibit both individual instances and patterns or practices of discriminatory misconduct, i.e., treating a person differently because of race, color, national origin, sex, or religion. The misconduct covered by Title VI and the OJP (Office of Justice Programs) Program Statute includes, for example, harassment or use of racial slurs, unjustified arrests, discriminatory traffic stops, coercive sexual conduct, retaliation for filing a complaint with DOJ or participating in the investigation, use of excessive force, or refusal by the agency to respond to complaints alleging discriminatory treatment by its officers. What remedies are available under these laws?DOJ may seek changes in the policies and procedures of the agency to remedy violations of these laws and, if appropriate, also seek individual remedial relief for the victim(s). Individuals also have a private right of action under Title VI and under the OJP Program Statute; in other words, you may file a lawsuit yourself under these laws. However, you must first exhaust your administrative remedies by filing a complaint with DOJ if you wish to file in Federal Court under the OJP Program Statute.
Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 prohibit discrimination against individuals with disabilities on the basis of disability. (42 U.S.C. § 12131, et seq. and 29 U.S.C. § 794). These laws protect all people with disabilities in the United States. An individual is considered to have a “disability” if he or she has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, has a record of such an impairment, or is regarded as having such an impairment.
The ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in all State and local government programs, services, and activities regardless of whether they receive DOJ financial assistance; it also protects people who are discriminated against because of their association with a person with a disability. Section 504 prohibits discrimination by State and local law enforcement agencies that receive financial assistance from DOJ. Section 504 also prohibits discrimination in programs and activities conducted by Federal agencies, including law enforcement agencies.
These laws prohibit discriminatory treatment, including misconduct, on the basis of disability in virtually all law enforcement services and activities. These activities include, among others, interrogating witnesses, providing emergency services, enforcing laws, addressing citizen complaints, and arresting, booking, and holding suspects. These laws also prohibit retaliation for filing a complaint with DOJ or participating in the investigation. What remedies are available under these laws? If appropriate, DOJ may seek individual relief for the victim(s), in addition to changes in the policies and procedures of the law enforcement agency. Individuals have a private right of action under both the ADA and Section 504; you may file a private lawsuit for violations of these statutes. There is no requirement that you exhaust your administrative remedies by filing a complaint with DOJ first. It was the misconduct of these officers that causes my disability.
It seems it would be appropriate to bring a complaint in violation of fair housing act, I would need to speak with the US Attorney about this issue;
I have also been advised this case is one of environmental protection violations. This case has some elements of all Federal law violations. If you have read this reply “ok”
You know full well that there are laws that protect citizens from aggressive neighbors. There is no record of a citizen having to shoot a neighbor in the knee caps to keep him from applying chemicals to their property. I would think if all you had to do was apply chemicals to a neighboring property until they have no option of excaping the chemcials except by fleeing, it would be happening everyday. It is not happening everyday, it does not happen everyday and the reason is because it is against the State and Federal law to do anything to the property of another person. They cannot do it and if they do they are subject to arrest by law enforcement. They do not get to continue the terrorist crimes against humanity until the people who are being poisoned flee. It does not happen and It is not going to happen to me. So whoever had the duty to file a trespassing complaint against this neighbor, I want to know right now. Is it the City police chief? Is it the County Attorney? Because I am going to challenge them to a fist fight. How dare they treat me as an undeserving citizen. How dare they use attorney discrection when the acts agaisnt me were life threatening. Kevin Vanderschel I am coming to town and I am going to request that you review the factual evidence, not the hearsay that you have gotten from third parites. If you collude with these local imposters I am going to swing on you. You do not have the right to violate my rights and you do not have the right to allow anyone to get away with intentionally causing me physical harm. I do not care if you can show me where it is written that you do, I am telling you you can find someone else to violated because I am not going to allow you or anyone else to do it to me . You oath or you office, which is it going to me, I am pissed off. I spent the last two years with an FBI agent who is either ignorant to the natural rights given to the people or he simply is protecting those people who gave him false information and he used it as facts. He has lied to you, I can prove it and you are going to give me the opportunity to prove not one of these locals are credible. I think I could take you in a fist fight, I don’t care how big you are. I am bigger because I have not violated anyone, I have not lied to anyone and most of all I have not critially harmed anyone. Be expecting me as I intend to come to your city on business, perhaps we could have lunch, my treat. Have your evidence prepared because I have mine all ready to battle it out, I do not want you on my case. You are not committed enough to your job to represent my case. You have already as much as told me you are going to allow my property to be taken by force and leave me with only the calassed hands from building my home, business and happiness. You should be ashamed to call your self a public servant just as the rest of them are. Collusion comes to mind.
You are here
The Criminal Division is charged with the responsibility of enforcing federal criminal laws in the Southern District of Iowa. The Criminal Division has a total of 24 prosecutors posted across the District–including in the Des Moines headquarters office and in the District’s two branch offices in Council Bluffs and Davenport. These prosecutors work closely with paralegals, legal assistants, victim witness specialists, and others to fulfill these responsibilities, along with a wide variety of federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies and federal grand juries empaneled to investigate violations of federal law.
Terrorism and National Security
The fight against terrorism is the highest priority of the U.S. Department of Justice, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office is dedicated to combating and defeating terrorism. We work with our partners in law enforcement, the intelligence community, the military, and diplomatic circles to investigate, prosecute, disrupt and prevent terrorism. Criminal Division attorneys work with the Anti-Terrorism Advisory Council and an intelligence specialist in pursuing this important mission.
Fraud and CorruptionCriminal Division attorneys investigate and prosecute complex fraud, public corruption, and financial crimes that the federal government is uniquely qualified to handle.
- Criminal Division attorneys participate in a Working Group, along with the office of Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller, to pursue mortgage fraud cases, along with investigating agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Housing and Urban Development–Office of Inspector General, and the FDIC-Office of Inspector General.
- Criminal Division attorneys play a leading role in the Iowa Health Care Fraud Task Force, which identifies cases involving medicaid fraud, insurance fraud, and other types of health care fraud for investigation and prosecution. Federal agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Health and Human Services–Office of Inspector General, as well as the Iowa Attorney General’s Office and state agencies also participate in these efforts.
- Criminal Division attorneys pursue other types of fraud and public corruption cases with these same agencies, as well as with the United States Postal Inspection Service, the Internal Revenue Service–Criminal Investigation, and the United States Social Security Administration–Office of Inspector General, among other agencies.
Narcotics Trafficking and Violent CrimeWorking with both the United States Drug Enforcement Administration and a wide variety of state and local drug enforcement task forces, Criminal Division attorneys investigate and prosecute federal criminal offenses involving the unlawful importation, possession, distribution, and manufacture of controlled substances, including methamphetamine, cocaine, heroin, ecstacy, and marijuana, as well as prescription drug abuse. Criminal Division attorneys also handle cases involving violent crime, such as armed bank robberies, unlawful possession of firearms (as part of the Department’s Project Safe Neighborhoods program), arson, and violent crime associated with narcotics trafficking.
Computer Crimes, Child Exploitation, and Human TraffickingCriminal Division attorneys, working with the Iowa Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) and other agencies, prosecute a broad range of computer-related crimes, with special emphasis on crimes that involve the sexual exploitation of children and Internet child pornography, including as part of the Department’s Project Safe Childhood Program. Criminal Division Attorneys, along with victim-witness specialists and others, also work to investigate and prosecute interstate prostitution, human trafficking, the enticement of children across state lines for immoral purposes, and unregistered sex offenders who travel across state lines in violation of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA).
Environmental and Wildlife CrimesCriminal Division attorneys, working with both the Environmental Protection Agency and the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, investigate and prosecute criminal violations of federal environmental laws, including violations relating to the improper disposal and storage of hazardous materials and violations of the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act. Criminal Division attorneys also work with the United States Fish & Wildlife Service in pursing cases involving interstate trafficking in unlawfully taken wildlife and similar crimes.
Immigration Crimes and Program FraudCriminal Division attorneys handle a variety of offenses involving the integrity of government programs, such as those administered by the Social Security Administration, the Small Business Administration, the Veteran’s Administration, and the Railroad Retirement Board. Criminal Division attorneys also work closely with the Department of Homeland Security and its agencies to prosecute violations of the immigration laws, such as visa fraud, alien smuggling, and unlawful reentry to the United States following deportation.
Civil RightsCriminal Division attorneys, together with the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, assess complaints alleging violations of the criminal civil rights laws and, in appropriate cases, conduct grand jury investigations and initiate criminal prosecutions for civil rights violations.
Appellate UnitThe Criminal Division’s Appellate Unit handles the office’s criminal appeals before the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is the federal appellate court with jurisdiction over cases arising from Iowa and several neighboring states. Additionally, the Appellate Unit, in consultation with the Department of Justice, decides when to seek appellate review of trial level rulings adverse to the United States, and coordinates with the Department of Justice if further review of cases arising from the Southern District of Iowa is sought before the United States Supreme Court.
Asset Recovery Team–Forfeiture and CollectionsThe Criminal Division’s Asset Recovery Team supports the prosecution of criminal and civil forfeiture cases and enforces and collects criminal and civil debts, including restitution for victims in criminal cases. In addition to litigating civil forfeiture cases, this team of specialists provides support to Criminal Division attorneys on all criminal forfeiture issues. Forfeiture attorneys and paralegals work with federal law enforcement agencies, assisting their criminal investigations by identifying assets subject to forfeiture and developing evidence for seizure and forfeiture. The team also collects criminal debts, such as fines and restitution orders, and civil debt to federal agencies, such as student loans and federally-guaranteed mortgages, and works with Criminal Division attorneys to identify assets that can be used for restitution to crime victims.
The Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office represents the United States and its departments and agencies at both the trial and appellate levels in civil actions filed in the state and federal courts in the Southern District of Iowa. The activities of the Civil Division include defensive civil litigation, affirmative civil enforcement actions and miscellaneous matters.
The types of defensive cases handled by the Civil Division include tort cases filed against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act; claims against individual employees of the United States alleging constitutional violations (also known as Bivens Actions); discrimination cases brought by federal employees based upon race, color, sex, religion, national origin, disability or age; review of administrative action under the Administrative Procedures Act; and appeals of denial of Social Security disability claims.
Affirmative LitigationThe Civil Division brings civil affirmative actions under the False Claims Act to pursue false claims or fraud against the government, Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act and other statutes designed to enforce civil rights, as well as environmental statutes and other health and safety laws.
Miscellaneous MattersCertain miscellaneous matters are also handled by the Civil Division, including summons enforcement action on behalf of the Internal Revenue Service, subpoenas to federal officials, commercial litigation to collect debts owed the United States and protect the government’s interests in bankruptcy and foreclosure actions.
I have a simple question regarding Federal law. I am requesting opinions and answers from anyone, this is not limited to attorneys.
Trespassing is a criminal offense? True or False
Someone trespasses on your private property, causing damage. You have requested them not to trespass. They continue to trespass and cause damage to your private property. The local law enforcement refuses to issue a criminal complaint on your behalf.
Do you believe these actions are in violation of the 14th Amendment. Is it your opinion that the described actions are in violation of Federal law?
Do you have any references that would support trespassing is not a violation of the 14th Amendment?
Ok, here is the scenario. A city clerk forges information to a building permit that has been of file at City hall for well over a year. The fraud is committed to conflict with information a witness had already confirmed in a letter written by an expert in his field as a the County extension agent. Over time the clerk also altering an ordinance. The clerk also fabricated an ordinance for one specific resident. The victim spoke to the newly elected sheriff about the multiple counts of fraud committed by this city clerk. The sheriff indicated he wanted the victim to receive justice. He advised the victim that he personally warned the city clerk to remove the Cities webpage. This page contained the city council meeting minutes beginning in 2005. The sheriff then advises the victim that he is powerless to intervene in a private issue.
- Is fraud a criminal or a civil offense when committed by a City employee?
- Who has the duty to bring criminal or civil charges against a city clerk who has committed fraud on behalf of another individual.
- Is there any reason to justify keeping this employee on the Cities playroll?
- Is it possible that the sheriff is conspiring to allow this city clerk to get away with committing fraud and forgery due to a conflict of interest?
The motive was to acquire my property as his new redevelopment of an otherwise worthless property was non-compliant to State building codes and he could not get the illegal redevelopment recorded on the County plat map. Having been successful in acquiring my property after 5 years of exposing me to the chemicals, He and those who participated are living large and I suffer from chronic health problems and was homeless for over 3 years and blind.
Here is a general google search for “illegal building permits issued” you will find none that describe a neighbors right to apply chemicals to a neighbor in order to acquire their property to make the illegal redevelopment legal. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Failure to Intervene,
An officer who purposefully allows a fellow officer to violate a victim’s Constitutional rights may be prosecuted for failure to intervene to stop the Constitutional violation. To prosecute such an officer, the government must show that the defendant officer was aware of the Constitutional violation, had an opportunity to intervene, and chose not to do so. This charge is often appropriate for supervisory officers who observe uses of excessive force without stopping them, or who actively encourage uses of excessive force but do not directly participate in them.
Law does not provide for Lee County Sheriff’s Detective Bob Conlee to act as a building official for the city of Montrose. Or for Brent Shipman not to issue a trespassing ticket because “he did not want to make him mad”. Or any other the other officers who were involved or knew about the illegal in the taking of my property using chemicals as a weapon. https://poisonedbymyneighborfromhell.com
via Joint criminal enterprise | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII / Legal Information Institute
Joint criminal enterprise
“Joint criminal enterprise” (“JCE”) is a mode of liability created by judges on the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) that allows the tribunal to bring charges against members of a group responsible for [[wex:war crime][war crimes]] or [[wex:crime against humanity][crimes against humanity]] even if there is no evidence that the particular individuals physically participated in the crimes (see ICTY Appeals Chamber, Milutinovic et al., 21 May 2003). JCE is distinct from the doctrine of conspiracy in American criminal law in that actual perpetration of the acts is required, rather than just a meeting of the minds (Id.).
This is if the product were used according to the directions, clearly the intentional exposure that I suffered was not according to directions. EFFECTS OF TOXIC CHEMICALS HAVING DIRECT CONTACT WITH MY SKIN
The year 2015 hasn’t been kind to Monsanto. In March, the World Health Organization declared that the company’s flagship product, its herbicide glyphosate or Roundup, is a probable human carcinogen. Increasingly, national health ministries are taking a hard second look at glyphosate’s health and environmental dangers and efforts are underway to ban the herbicide. To protect its citizens, last year the Netherlands, Bermuda and Sri Lanka have either banned or imposed strict limits on Roundup. Last June, France banned its use in gardens. Brazil, Germany and Argentina are considering legislative bans. And this month, California’s environmental protection agency launched plans to label Roundup as a carcinogen.
Glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide in the world today. Over 130 countries currently permit extensive use of the chemical. The US is the largest consumer, using approximately 20% of the world’s Roundup. The latest reliable figures from the US Geological Survey record 280 million pounds of Roundup were used in 2012, nearly a pound for every American. In 2013, gross profit of $371 million on crop chemicals including Roundup climbed 73% due to a 37% increase in sales. That same year Monsanto’s net income rose 22% to $1.48 billion.
Over the years a large body of independent research has accumulated and now collectively provides a sound scientific rationale to confirm that glyphosate is far more toxic and poses more serious health risks to animals and humans than Monsanto and the US government admit. Among the many diseases and health conditions non-industry studies identified Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and autism since Roundup has been shown to instigate aluminum accumulation in the brain. The herbicide has been responsible for reproductive problems such as infertility, miscarriages, and neural tube and birth defects. It is a causal agent for a variety of cancers: brain, breast, prostate, lung and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Other disorders include chronic kidney and liver diseases, diabetes, heart disease, hypothyroidism, and leaky gut syndrome. In addition to lung cancer, glyphosate may be responsible for today’s growing epidemics of chronic respiratory illnesses among farm workers and their families. However, these findings derive from outside the Big Agriculture industry. Private industries routinely defend themselves by positing their own research to refute independent reports. Consequently, for several decades it has been a he-said-she-said stalemate. Monsanto is content with this. It can conduct business as usual, Roundup sales increase, and the debates and media wars continue without government interference. Then who is protecting the public?
Government officials and health regulators more often than not simply ignore these studies even if published in peer-reviewed journals. The bulk are independently funded. Most have been performed in foreign nations and therefore American bias dismisses them outright. Furthermore, Monsanto and other large chemical agricultural companies are quick to counter and discredit adverse scientific findings. The company has the financial means to retain large international PR firms, such as Burson-Marsteller and Fleishman Hillard, consultation firms and think tanks, as well as large armies of hired trolls and academic spokepersons to mobilize damage control upon notice and protect the integrity of Monsanto’s products and public image. It funds and orchestrates self-serving research at universities and research laboratories to increase an arsenal of junk science. And of course it has Hillary Clinton and Bill Gates as its celebrity cheerleaders.
The EPA continues to align itself with Monsanto’s safety claims and limits glyphosate’s risks to kidney, reproductive and carcinogenic damage; and the warning only applies for very long-term exposure to high levels of the toxin. Anything under that is considered harmless. The EPA continues to approve small amounts of glyphosate as safe in drinking water to children. Its safety level is 0.7 ug/L. This was determined back in 1994, and after 20 years of further research into glyphosate’s biomolecular activities and health risks, the level has remained the same.[7,8] A review of existing data sponsored by Moms Across America found that out of 21 drinking water samples analyzed, 13 had glyphosate levels between 0.08 and 0.3 ug/L, well below the EPA’s limit, but significantly above the European Union’s limit of 0.1 ug/L.
While the company manages to successfully dodge scientific research outside its purview, the tables would certainly turn if it could be proven in a court of law that Monsanto has known for decades that glyphosate is one of the most toxic substances ever launched on the public, which adversely affects almost every tissue and cell in a mammal’s body.
Imagine for a minute that evidence emerged to implicate Monsanto on a massive cover-up and manipulation of scientific data from hundreds of research trials. If it were Monsanto’s data indicting itself about glyphosate’s toxicity, and if it can be shown the company falsified, masked or fudged its data to win regulatory approval, it may likely be the largest corporate scandal in history. The question could Monsanto be charged with crimes of omission and more deservingly crimes against humanity?
This scenario may not be fantasy or the wishful thinking of GMO’s opponents. The case has a precedent and has been played out in the courts before. In November 1998, the US government won a judgment against the four largest US tobacco companies: Philip Morris, RJ Reynolds, Brown & Williamson, and Lorillard. The case came to trial after a former vice president of research and development at Brown & Williamson, Jeffrey Wigand, turned whistleblower and revealed that his company concealed the tobacco’s health risks and was making concerted efforts to addict people to smoking. High ranking executives were found to have approved the inclusion of known addictive and carcinogenic chemicals, such as coumarin, in its cigarettes to increase smoking, sales and profits.
Before the trial there had never been a lawsuit lost by a tobacco company because no one could prove with absolute medical certainty that smoking had ever caused lung cancer or emphysema. During Congressional hearings, all seven CEOs representing the four tobacco giants lied under oath stating they had no knowledge about an association between nicotine and brain addiction. Their rationale was that they believed their research data and marketing strategies were protected under propriety secrecy claims and therefore they could avoid conviction. Although FDA scientists possessed all the necessary information that could condemn Big Tobacco’s false claims, the industry relied upon proprietary rules in order to hide behind legal protection. The FDA was silenced and powerless to make the industry’s information public. Consequently it is estimated that millions of people died from a risk that could have been prevented or at least reduced substantially. Instead, the FDA honored the tobacco industry above all human life.
The guilty verdict, which resulted in the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement against the tobacco companies, enforced a minimum $206 billion settlement over a 25 year period. While the majority of payments were to settle 46 states’ Medicaid lawsuits to recover smoking related health costs, the settlement unfortunately exempted the industry from private tort claims. Many critics of the Agreement state that the settlement was too merciful. No tobacco executive went to prison and evidence indicates the industry emerged stronger and consolidated the companies into an ever more powerful cartel.
What busted the tobacco companies was not the scientific evidence piling up outside the industry. Rather it was its crimes of omission about cigarettes’ health risks within the industry. The industry’s own research prosecuted itself. And this is demanded today in order to bring down Monsanto’s chemical regime and to protect populations and children throughout the world.
Perhaps we might want to consider the atmosphere Monsanto faced after it first developed glyphosate in 1973 and prepare for EPA approval for the remainder of the decade.
During the latter half of the 1970s, Monsanto’s leading products were under federal inquiry and public assault regarding safety. Dioxin had been banned. Safety concerns arose over its sweetener saccharin, and cyclamate was removed from the market. The company’s attempts to get it’s new artificial sweetener aspartame confronted obstacles during FDA scientific review. Independent research had shown that aspartame caused brain tumors in mammals. And its best selling herbicide at the time, Lasso, was showing signs of carcinogenicity. Today Lasso is a restricted-use pesticide due to its oncogenicity. With sales falling and future growth under threat, Monsanto faced a desperate need to launch a new and novel flagship product. Monsanto found itself banking its future on its new herbicide glyphosate. As we recently discovered, enormous amounts of research, analysis and hundreds of trials were conducted to learn as much as possible about the compound’s bioactivity in mammals and its potential health risks. All of this research data, studies and reports were subsequently sealed as trade secrets upon submission to the EPA. For over thirty years it has sat in the EPA vaults.
Monsanto has yet to be caught and charged for falsifying scientific data on glyphosate. However on earlier occasions two laboratories Monsanto outsourced research to were caught and indicted. In 1978, the EPA busted Industrial Biotest Laboratories for rigging laboratory results; the company’s executives were found guilty for submitting fabricated data supporting glyphosate positively to the government. In 1991, another firm, Craven Labs, was found guilty on similar charges with 20 felony counts.
To this day, Monsanto continues to assert that Roundup is environmentally friendly. We are told it biodegrades rapidly and therefore poses no long-term risks after repeated usage. We are told that the herbicide is ideal for weed control. Throughout the US, it is liberally sprayed on our public parks, school playgrounds, sporting fields, and throughout our lawns and gardens. We are told it doesn’t bio-accumulate in the body’s cells and tissues and is excreted rapidly. We are also told that glyphosate toxicity is dose specific. Only exceedingly high levels of the pesticide pose any serious health risks.
How factual are these claims or are they mere propaganda to obscure scientific truths far more deceptive and sinister? To answer that we would have to know for certain whether or not Monsanto conducted long-term studies on glyphosate that revealed devastating toxic effects on mammal health. We would need evidence that their own data clearly negates their scientific declarations, and that the company intentionally, and with forethought, either distorted or concealed data from federal regulatory officials and the public.
There is now an enormous cache of evidence on both scientific and legal grounds that Monsanto in fact conducted numerous studies in the 1970s and 1980s on glyphosate’s toxicity and health risks and intentionally sealed this research from independent and public review and scrutiny. As with Big Tobacco’s proprietary claims that prevented the FDA from publicly warning Americans about the dangers of smoking, the EPA has sat on Monsanto’s own deleterious data for decades.
Anthony Samsel is an independent research scientist working internationally in the interest of public health and the environment. He is a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists, and a former scientist and consultant at Arthur D. Little, one of the world’s leading management consulting firms. Now retired, Samsel has devoted much of his independent research on Roundup’s toxicological characteristics and bioactivity. Unable to gain access to research reports and data Monsanto submitted to the EPA through FOIAs, he turned to his senator’s office, who assisted in the procurement of studies and reports he sought. Months later he received a hoard of scientific documents, over 15,000 pages worth, covering Monsanto’s complete glyphosate research.
With his co-investigator Dr. Stephanie Seneff at MIT the two have been reviewing Monsanto’s data. Their conclusion is Monsanto’s claims about glyphosate’s safety are patently false. The company has known for almost four decades that glyphosate is responsible for a large variety of cancers and organ failures. Clearly it was for this reason that Monsanto demanded the data and reports to be sealed and hidden from public scrutiny as proprietary trade secrets.
During an exclusive interview on the Progressive Radio Network on September 4, Samsel stated that Monsanto used an industry trick to dismiss evidence about glyphosate’s risks in its own research. “Monsanto misrepresented the data,” says Samsel, “and deliberately covered up data to bring the product [glyphosate] to market.”
In order to minimize and cancel out its adverse findings, Samsel explained that Monsanto had relied upon earlier historical animal control data, toxicological research with lab animals afflicted with cancer and organ failures, and completely unrelated to glyphosate. In some cases the control animals displayed kidney, liver and pancreatic diseases. Many of Monsanto’s own studies required the inclusion of extraneous studies in order to cancel out damaging results. This is not an uncommon industry habit, particularly in toxicological science. It enables corporations to mask undesirable outcomes and make claims that observable illnesses and disease are spontaneous occurrences without known causal factors. Frequently, Monsanto would have to rely on three external control studies to negate the adverse effects of a single one of its own. Samsel found other incidences in Monsanto’s data where 5, 7 and in one case 11 unrelated studies were necessary to diminish the severity of its own findings. In effect, glyphosate received licensure based upon a platform of junk tobacco science. By ignoring cause and effect relationships behind the onset of multiple cancers and other life-threatening diseases throughout many of its research trials, Monsanto engaged in a radical scientific denialism that has since raked in tens of billions of dollars.
But the cache of Monsanto documents, after Samsel’s and Seneff’s review, reveals much more that we should be worried about.
In addition, Monsanto’s studies included doses from low to high range. Samsel observed that low glyphosate doses were equally if not more toxic than higher doses. The company later discontinued low dose trials, relying only on higher levels because it is customarily assumed to have greater toxicological risks. Samsel’s observation has recently been confirmed by a study published in the August issue of the Environmental Health Journal by scientists at Kings College London and the University of Caen in France. The two year study found that glyphosate administered at an ultra low dose of 0.1 ppb (the EU’s safety limit) in drinking water altered over 4000 gene clusters in the livers and kidneys of rats. These alterations, the study reports, “were consistent with fibrosis, necrosis, phospholipidosis, mitochondria membrane dysfunction and ischemia.” Consequently low doses of Roundup are far more toxic than US EPA limits.
During its years investigating glyphosate’s bioactivity, Monsanto conducted hundreds of trials on mice, rats, beagle dogs, rabbits and other life. Among the many cancers and diseases Monsanto’s own research found associated with glyphosate are:
• Adenoma cancer in the pituitary gland
• Glioma tumors in the brain
• Reticular cell sarcomas in the heart
• Malignant tumors in the lungs
• Salivary mandibular reticular cell carcinoma
• Metastatic sarcomas of the lymph gland
• Prostate carcinoma
• Cancer of the bladder
• Thyroid carcinoma
• Adrenal reticulum cell sarcomas
• Cortical adenomas
• Basal cell squamous skin tumors
In female mammals there were cancers of the lung, liver, thymus, stomach, bladder adrenal glands, ovaries, colon, uterus, parathyroid and mammary glands.
Samsel and Seneff also noticed that Monsanto had conducted many long-term studies, as much as two years, on mice and rats. When Gilles-Eric Seralini and his French team reproduced and extended the length of Monsanto’s 3-month GMO maize rat-fed study for the life of the animals, they observed profuse cancer and tumor development started after the 4th month of the study. Monsanto continues to stand by its 3-month study as sufficient proof of GM maize’s safety. Yet the thoroughness and variety of Monsanto’s research operations should give strong reason to suspect that Monsanto has likewise conducted long term studies and knows all too well the deleterious effects of its pesticides, herbicides and genetically modified crops.
One of Monsanto’s claims is that glyphosate doesn’t bio-accumulate in tissues, rapidly bio-degrades and is excreted from the body readily. Contrary to this claim, Monsanto carried out meticulous studies to determine levels of accumulation and the organs, tissues and cells glyphosate reaches. Glyphosate was radio labeled with carbon 14 and given in 10 mg doses to seven groups of animals, male and female. After only 24 hours, the toxic chemical was found in the lungs and all body fluids: lymph, blood, urine and cerebral spinal fluid. Glyphosate also accumulated in the bone by 30 ppm and in the bone marrow by 4 ppm. Monsanto’s studies were comprehensive. It found an accumulation of the chemical in red cells, thyroid, uterus, colon, testes and ovaries, shoulder muscle, nasal mucosa, heart, lung, small intestine, abdominal muscle and the eyes.
Samsel and Seneff noted that the bioaccumuilation in the pancreas was not reported. Why would such meticulous efforts be made to measure radio labeled carbon 14 laced glyphosate levels in all the other organs, tissues and bodily fluids and then ignore the pancreas? The scientists believe this was deliberate.
Samsel notes that glyphosate does a “particular number on the lungs.” According to a 2014 report by the National Cancer Institute, lung cancer rates have been declining. The decline is largely due to the national decrease in smoking. However, other lung cancers such as adenocarcinomas are on the rise. The NCI is unable to account for this anomaly. Yet the Institute is not considering that Americans are increasingly being exposed to glyphosate in their food, water and environment?
During the PRN interview, Dr. Seneff stated that the pancreas may be driving glyphosate to gather in the lungs. The pancreas is responsible for the release of the enzyme trypsin. which in turn infiltrates the lungs. A study published by Brazil’s Universidade Federal de Santa Maria in the medical journal Ciencia Rural measured glyphosate’s reactivity with digestive enzymes including trypsin. Trypsin activity was found to increase in parallel to higher glyphosate concentrations. Seneff suggests that this may be contributing to the increase of glyphosate in the lungs that is contributing to the dramatic rise in COPD and asthma conditions, as well as lung cancers.
The occurrence of cataracts is rising rapidly, particularly in Mid-Western states such as ND, SD, NB, IA, KS, and MO. According to Prevent Blindness America’s statistics, 17% of adults over 40 years have cataract problems. The NIH projects the rate will reach nearly 40% by 2030. Monsanto’s study showing glyphosate activity in the eye may be contributing to this epidemic. Dr. Seneff stated that the eye’s exposure to sunlight reacts with glyphosate residue thereby potentially making the chemical more toxic. Farmers often apply glyphosate on crops when it is warm, moist and when there is plenty of sunlight in order for the chemical to activate more effectively. These are similar conditions to our eyes during the day.
Monsanto’s research was not limited solely to the Roundup compound. It also performed extensive research on glyphosate’s individual metabolites, the intermediate molecules that result after Roundup’s breakdown through metabolic reactions. Many of these metabolites are every bit as toxic as glyphosate. All the glyphosate metabolites in solutions fed to rats were measured before and after feeding. One of Samsel’s more disturbing discoveries was that levels of the metabolite N-Nitrosoglyphosate (NNG) were found in higher concentrations in the rats’ feces and urine excretions than the original amount in the feeding solutions. NNG is a known carcinogen and endocrine disruptor. Samsel postulates that our own body’s natural nitrous acid reacts immediately with glyphosate, without requiring a catalyst, to produce NNG. Both the EPA and the World Health Organization acknowledge that NNG is present in glyphosate during the manufacturing process. The agencies therefore have established safety limits for NNG. However, for any endocrine disruptor, there is no realistic safety limit because such chemical disruptors destroy cells on a molecule to molecule basis.
Nitrous acid naturally occurs in the colon, urinary tract and skin tissue. According to the CDC, skin cancer is the most common form of cancer in the US, and affects more men than women. The Skin Cancer Foundation estimates that “each year there are more new cases of skin cancer than the combined incidence of cancers of the breast, prostate, lung and colon.”[18,19] Basal cell and squamous cell carcinomas are the two most common forms, both which have been identified by Monsanto with glyphosate exposure, particularly in males. When glyphosate reacts in the skin along with nitrous acid the metabolites NNG contributes to skin melanomas. Other chemicals are added to Monsanto’s Roundup to increase its effectiveness such as the surfactant POEA (polyethoxylated tallow amine), which also increases its toxicity.
We don’t pay enough attention to these other ingredients, Samsel states, because the EPA permits Monsanto to add anything it wants to enhance Roundup’s potency while identifying these substances innocuously as “inert.” When Monsanto convinces the public that glyphosate breaks down quickly, we are not told that the compound’s metabolic byproducts are equally toxic.
Therefore Anthony Samsel’s unprecedented discovery and review of Monsanto’s actual scientific and toxicological data of Roundup has provided us with information that warrants a thoughtful pause. Samsel and Seneff cover the subject in more detail in a new peer-reviewed paper titled “Glyphosate Pathways to Modern Diseases IV: Cancer and Related Pathologies.” The paper has been approved for publication in October.
During recent years dozens of states are submitting bills to label GMO foods. These food crops are heavily laced with glyphosate residue. Not only GM crops, but even non-GM produce are sprayed with Roundup. According to the Organic Consumers Association, non-organic and non-GM foods such as wheat, barley, oats, flax, peas, lentils, beans and sugar cane are also being sold to farmers “as a dessicant, to dry out all their crops so they could harvest them faster.” Monsanto, Dupont, Syngenta, Grocery Manufacturers of America and other agro-chemical companies are aggressively combating labeling efforts. The Big Ag lobby is today pushing for a national bill to prevent GMO labeling that would supersede individual state’s rights. We can only wonder what the voting outcome in California, Colorado, Washington and Oregon may have been had Monsanto’s own research been made available to the media and public. Is it therefore not time for full Congressional hearings to learn the truth once for all and make the disclosure of Monsanto’s Roundup research public for all?
Richard Gale is the Executive Producer of the Progressive Radio and a former Senior Research Analyst in the biotechnology and genomic industries. Dr. Gary Null is the host of the nation’s longest running public radio program on nutrition and natural health and a multi-award-winning director of progressive documentary films, including Seeds of Death about GMOs and Poverty Inc. More at the Progressive Radio Network
 Daniel Cressey. “Widely Used Herbicide Linked to Cancer” Nature. March 25, 2015
 RT (Russian TV). “California EPA mulls labeling Monsanto’s Roundup as being ‘known to cause cancer” September 6, 2015 https://www.rt.com/usa/314544-california-epa-glyphosate-carcinogenic/
 Alexis Baden-Mayer, “Monsanto’s Roundup. Enough to Make You Sick” Organic Consumers Association. January 21, 2015
 Mary Ellen Kustin. “Glyphosate Is Spreading Like a Cancer Across the U.S.” Environmental Working Group. April 7, 2015
 Jack Kaskey, “Monsanto Raises Forecast as Profits Tops Estimates on Corn” Bloomberg Business, April 3, 2013. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-04-03/monsanto-raises-forecast-as-profit-tops-estimates-on-corn-seed
 Alexis Baden-Mayer, op.cit.
 Environmental Protection Agency “Glyphosate Fact Sheet” http://www.epa.gov/safewater/pdfs/factsheets/soc/tech/glyphosa.pdf
 Environmental Protection Agency. “Basic Information about Glyphosate in Drinking Water”
Zen Honeycutt, Henry Rowlands, Lori Grace. “Glyphosate Testing Full Report: Findings in American Mothers’ Breast Milk, Urine and Water,” Moms Across America. April 7, 2015 http://www.momsacrossamerica.com/glyphosate_testing_results
 “Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement,” Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_Master_Settlement_Agreement
 “Monsanto Timeline of Crime 1901-2014” Children of Vietnam Veterans Health Alliance. February 16, 2015. http://covvha.net/monsanto-1901-2014-timeline/
 EPA, “Glyphosate Fact Sheet” op cit.
 Interview with Anthony Samsel and Stephanie Seneff. Gary Null Show, Progressive Radio Network. Broadcast on September 4, 2015. http://prn.fm/the-gary-null-show-09-04-15/
 Mesnage R, Arno M, Costanzo M, Seralini G-E, Antoniou M., “Transcriptome profile analysis reflects rat liver and kidney damage following chronic ultra-low dose Roundup exposure” Environmental Health 2015, 14:70 doi:10.1186/s12940-015-0056-1
 “Lung Cancer Fact Sheet.” American Lung Association. http://www.lung.org/lung-disease/lung-cancer/resources/facts-figures/lung-cancer-fact-sheet.html
 Salbero I, Pretto A, Machado da Silva V, Loro V, Lazzari R, Baldisserotto B. “Glyposate on digestive enzymes activity in piava (Leporinus obtusidens). Cencia Rural Vol. 44 no. 9. September 2014.
 “Vision Problems in the US,” Prevent Blindness America. http://www.visionproblemsus.org/cataract/cataract-map.html
 Skin Cancer Foundation. “Skin Cancer Facts.” http://www.skincancer.org/skin-cancer-information/skin-cancer-facts
 “Skin Cancer Statistics,” Centers for Disease Control. http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/skin/statistics/
 Alexis Baden-Mayer, op cit.