Letter to US Senator Charles Grassley and Congressman Dave Loebsack staff

My responses claim the statute of limitations has expired. I am requesting you go back through our previous correspondences and review what you have advised me of this entire time. You advised me to be patient that the FBI would contact me. I waited patiently as you advised for 5 years.  I contacted you again and you graciously submitted another request for an inquiry, advising me throughout the next 5 years to be patient, you said “it takes time”. The FBI never contacted me now for ten years. The FBI was negligent. The FBI had the responsibility to contact me.   When finally I contacted the local FBI myself, he him hawed around taking 14 months to come to my home specifically to review the hard copy evidence. Upon arrival he advised me that he was not going to review any documented evidence. He instead determined no federal law has been violated based on hearsay from the sheriff to a third party. I have evidence to prove the sheriff knowingly made false statements about what took place. I have evidence that proves the sheriff has a conflict of interest with the opposing party. That is why I asked for an independent investigation. I am not responsible for the statute of limitations expiring, in fact the statute has not expired considering the government’s negligence and fraudulent actions against me in the taking of my property without just compensation. I see no where the violation of the Federal bill of rights has an expiration date, in fact the 5th amendment states that private property is never to be taken without just compensation. Senator Grassley needs to demand an investigation into the negligence of the FBI in this case, I have never slacked off what I know to be the Federal government’s duty to prosecute corrupt public officials. Has a bribe been paid, no doubt. SA Thomas Reinwart refused to look into the financial record, interview witnesses or provide any type of competent investigation. Hearsay is not evidence, point blank. They say the lowest scoring agents of a graduating class are place in the areas of the lowest criminal events. I can only speculate that SA Reinwart was of the lowest scoring graduates. He knew when he arrived at my home the decision he was going to make based on hearsay as the sheriff had already given his false information to the third party.

Two hours after SA Reinwart left my home I received a letter in the mail from Wash DC headquarters that Reinwart had determined no violation of Federal law had occurred. It is not possible for him to come to my home, submit a report to Washington and had the determination sent back to my from Washington DC two hours after he left my home. This is a blatant violation of the public’s trust and only encourages local government that they can get away with crimes against humanity or any other violation guarantees of individual rights. It is not acceptable.

Senator Grassley would not approve of this type of behaviour from a Federal agent. My Constitutional Rights are just a relevant as those who violated those rights by the forceful taking of my private property using chemicals as a weapon. Please step up and demand the law to actively competently investigate the evidence and defend my individual rights as if they were your own.  This is not an option, Constitutional rights are mandatory to be upheld. The criminal offenses committed against me ar serious. From the issuing of the fraudulent building permits to the use of glyphosate that resulted in life long health effects I will suffer. Senator Grassley and Congressman Dave Loebsack please represent you constituents.

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.

An example of criminal acts investigated by the FBI. There has been no investigation into my allegations. They can’t because my evidence is indisputable.

This is not the case in Montrose, Lee County, Iowa when the corruption is committed against a single middle-aged female.

Does Iowa Attorney General have a Public Integrity Unit. No authority will respond to any of my questions.

Any officials who turns a blind eye is guilty of committing the crime themselves.

“Public safety officials who accept bribes and ignore their duties undermine safety for everyone,” said Schuette.  “Detroit needs more safety, not less, and that starts with public officials doing their job instead of lining their pockets.”

The case originated from an investigation by the FBI-Led Detroit Area Public Corruption Task Force in collaboration with the Michigan Attorney General’s Public Integrity Unit.

“When public officials abuse their positions of trust for personal gain, they will be held accountable for their criminal acts,” said Paul M. Abbate, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI Detroit Field Office. “The FBI and its law enforcement partners on the Detroit Area Public Corruption Task Force are fully committed to ensuring our citizens are served by the honest government they deserve.”

“Public corruption at any level will not be tolerated.  Public employees who are in charge of the community’s welfare must be held to a higher standard and when those employees jeopardize the safety of Detroiters for their own personal gain then they must suffer the consequences.  The bribery convictions of the city of Detroit Inspectors should be an example that crime in the city of Detroit does not pay,” said James E. Craig, Detroit Chief of Police.

Criminal cases remain pending against five current and former Detroit Building Safety Engineering and Environmental Department inspectors Schuette charged in August 2013 for allegedly accepting bribes in exchange for ignoring their duty to enforce city building, zoning, electrical, and plumbing codes. Schuette filed felony bribery charges against current and former inspectors Eric Miller, 50, of Detroit, John Jones, 54, of Detroit, Bob Watson, 52, of Dearborn, and Kenneth Russ, 53, of Detroit, and Moreno Taylor, 53, of Livonia.

crime (krim) n. ca.1920. An unethical or immoral act against one’s fellow man.

Author’s note:  There has never been a review of the evidence. Clearly the Mayor had a financial gain, there has never been an investigation into the financial records of the conspirators who clearly violated my Constitutional Rights on this maniac’s behalf. I have hard copy evidence that will prove every perp in this case has no credibility. They have all lied and knowingly made false statements, fraudulent ordinances and fabricated laws to bring frivolous criminal charges against me.  

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

Statute of Limitations

For those of you that suggest the statute of limitations has expired in regards to my case.

Amendment 5
– Protection of Rights to Life, Liberty, and Property

No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

I see no reference to a statute of limitations in private property taken without just compensation. In fact it is NEVER to be taken without just compensation. Any untimeliness in my case is due to the negligence of the government officials who have been involved in my case. That is aside from the time in which I was blind and unable to defend myself. The entire amendment had been violated in my case. No justice, no accountability to date. I will not be the only victim in this case, I promise these rights do and will apply to me as they do to every other citizen. https://poisonedbymyneighborfromhell.com

18 U.S.C. § 229 – U.S. Code: the violation of Federal law that should ensure justice is finally served

Letter sent to the City of Montrose by the State of Iowa agency in charge of Environmental violations. The City followed no laws that are in place to protect all living things from toxic chemicals. This letter was sent to the Street Dept Director at the time. There had never been any chemicals applied anywhere in town except the cemetery by city employees. These chemicals were applied precisely on the city’s easement on my property. Not an inch past my boundary or an inch short of my boundary.  Only after Mark Conlee was elected to city council were chemicals applied to the easement.

warning to City of Montrose unlawful application of toxic chemicals


warning to City poison

warning to City poison


Conlee had applied chemicals to my side of our 300′ common boundary the year prior to this. He continued to apply chemicals to my side of the boundary this year and for three years after that. Five years straight I was intentionally exposed to chemicals. I complained to the city. I complained to County attorney Mike Short. Short advised me that Mark  Conlee “said”, “he only applied it to the bottom of his side of the fence. Both the city and county attorney had the same reason not to file a criminal complaint against Conlee. They didn’t believe neighbors filing complaints against neighbors was a good thing to do. I was criminally charged by the City and the State on complaints based on “Mark Conlee said” all charges against me were dismissed.  Doesn’t the county attorney know that hearsay is not evidence? Mark Conlee “said” many false statements throughout this attack against my person and my property.

Intentional glyphosate poisoning

chemicals applied to my side of the 300′ common boundary

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.

Iowa Code Sec. 237. Section 729.5, Code 2013, is amended to read as follows: 729.5 Violation of individual rights — penalty. 1. A person, who acts alone, or who conspires with another person or persons, to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate or interfere with any citizen in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to that person by the constitution or laws of the state of Iowa or by the constitution or laws of the United States, and assembles with one or more persons for the purpose of teaching or being instructed in any technique or means capable of causing property damage, bodily injury or death when the person or persons intend to employ those Fri Nov 08 16:03:04 2013 59/65 CH. 90 60 techniques or means in furtherance of the conspiracy, is on conviction, guilty of a class “D” felony. 2. A person intimidates or interferes with another person if the act of the person results in any of the following: a. Physical injury to the other person. b. Physical damage to or destruction of the other person’s property. c. Communication in a manner, or action in a manner, intended to result in either of the following: (1) To place the other person in fear of physical contact which will be injurious, insulting, or offensive, coupled with the apparent ability to execute the act. (2) To place the other person in fear of harm to the other person’s property, or harm to the person or property of a third person. 2. 3. This section does not make unlawful the teaching of any technique in self-defense. 3. 4. This section does not make unlawful any activity of any of the following officials or persons: a. Law enforcement officials of this or any other jurisdiction while engaged in the lawful performance of their official duties. b. Federal officials required to carry firearms while engaged in the lawful performance of their official duties. c. Members of the armed forces of the United States or the national guard while engaged in the lawful performance of their official duties. d. Any conservation commission, law enforcement agency, or any agency licensed to provide security services, or any hunting club, gun club, shooting range, or other organization or entity whose primary purpose is to teach the safe handling or use of firearms, archery equipment, or other weapons or techniques employed in connection with lawful sporting or other lawful activity

About Kevin VanderSchel AUSA for the Southern District of Iowa.

Here is an example of how well FBI SA and the AUSA reviewed my evidence. In this letter the AUSA claims that most of the activity occurred 2003-2005. It is well documented that 2003-2005 is when the City allowed for the non compliant to State building code structures built on Mark Conlee’s nonconforming lot to be built. If they would have actually reviewed my evidence, instead of asking that I tell them this complex story they would have discovered the chemical warfare started in 2005-2010, during that time I was unable to get any protection of the law, there was a civil trial that the court ruled in my favor, however Conlee would not comply with that court order and the chemical attack continued on a weekly basis. There is nothing in this letter that is based on the facts the evidence supports. VanderSchel has advised that he has reviewed my website. He could not have mistaken the timeline if he actually had reviewed it. VanderSchel the chemical poisoning began in 2005. Are you being intentionally negligent? I also advised you that when I was forced to flee from my property because I could get no law enforcement to stop this man from applying the toxic chemicals to my property, the full body skin condition was so severe it was unbearable to wear clothes, I was blind, and I was homeless for the following 4 years. So that takes us up to 2014 before I was able to make contact with anyone who has the duty to protect my Constitutional Rights. SA Reinwart does not know that private property rights are Federally protected rights. He does not seem to know about any Federal laws except hate crimes. He did not review my evidence, He did not interview any of my witnesses, he did not interview my Drs., he did not interview the perps or he could have easily charged them with lying to the Feds. You tell me Mr. VanderSchel just what did SA Reinwart do to investigate my allegation. You claim that the statute of limitations had expired between 2013 and 2016, am I responsible to make Reinwart investigate in a timely fashion? I couldn’t even get him to review the hard copy evidence which was the purpose for him to come to my home 16 months after I contacted him. I had previously contacted a female agent from the Hiawatha division and was waiting some time for her to respond as she advised she would, finally I telephoned the number I had previously contacted her with, Reinwart answered and advise that she had been transferred. Is it my responsibility to call and check if an agent has been transferred? I have not read that as a standard procedure for complainants. Not to mention my emails to the Omaha division, and telephone calls to the Washington DC headquarters. I have gone above and beyond reasonable efforts to contact an FBI agent. Senator Grassley advised me in 2009 that an agent would be contacting me. I waited 10 years then I got impatient. Its not as if I have physically recovered from the chemicals illegally applied to my property without any protection of the law and my private property rights for those significant 5 long years.

Letter from Kevin VanderSchel claiming statute of limitations has expired.