In this case the County Attorney could not be more involved with enabling violations of these codes. He recently retired. I pray that the new County Attorney stands beh
703.4 Responsibility of employers. An employer or an employer’s agent, officer, director, or employee who supervises or directs the work of other employees, is guilty of the same public offense committed by an employee acting under the employer’s control, supervision, or direction in any of the following cases:1. The person has directed the employee to commit a public offense.2. The person knowingly permits an employee to commit a public offense, under circumstances in which the employer expects to benefit from the illegal activity of the employee.3. The person assigns the employee some duty or duties which the person knows cannot be accomplished, or are not likely to be accomplished, unless the employee commits a public offense, provided that the offense committed by the employee is one which the employer can reasonably anticipate will follow from this assignment.[C79, 81, §703.4]
703.1 Aiding and abetting. All persons concerned in the commission of a public offense, whether they directly commit the act constituting the offense or aid and abet its commission, shall be charged, tried and punished as principals. The guilt of a person who aids and abets the commission of a crime must be determined upon the facts which show the part the person had in it, and does not depend upon the degree of another person’s guilt.[C51, §2928; R60, §4668; C73, §4314; C97, §5299; C24, 27, 31, 35, 39, §12895; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75, 77, §688.1; C79, 81, §703.1]
703.2 Joint criminal conduct. When two or more persons, acting in concert, knowingly participate in a public offense, each is responsible for the acts of the other done in furtherance of the commission of the offense or escape there from, and each person’s guilt will be the same as that of the person so acting, unless the act was one which the person could not reasonably expect to be done in the furtherance of the commission of the offense.[C79, 81, §703.2]Referred to in 717A.3A
703.3 Accessory after the fact. Any person having knowledge that a public offense has been committed and that a certain person committed it, and who does not stand in the relation of husband or wife to the person who committed the offense, who harbors, aids or conceals the person who committed the offense, with the intent to prevent the apprehension of the person who committed the offense, commits an aggravated misdemeanor if the public offense committed was a felony, or commits a simple misdemeanor if the public offense was a misdemeanor.[C51, §2929; R60, §4669; C73, §4315; C97, §5300; C24, 27, 31, 35, 39, §12896; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75, 77, §688.2; C79, 81, §703.3; 1981 Acts, ch 204, §1]Referred to in 717A.3A
703.4 Responsibility of employers. An employer or an employer’s agent, officer, director, or employee who supervises or directs the work of other employees, is guilty of the same public offense committed by an employee acting under the employer’s control, supervision, or direction in any of the following cases:1. The person has directed the employee to commit a public offense.2. The person knowingly permits an employee to commit a public offense, under circumstances in which the employer expects to benefit from the illegal activity of the employee.3. The person assigns the employee some duty or duties which the person knows cannot 703.5Liability of corporations, partnerships and voluntary associations.1. A public or private corporation, partnership, or other voluntary association shall have the same level of culpability as an individual committing the crime when any of the following is true:a. The conduct constituting the offense consists of an omission to discharge a specific duty or an affirmative performance imposed on the accused by law.b. The conduct or act constituting the offense is committed by an agent, officer, director, or employee of the accused while acting within the scope of the authority of the agent, officer, director or employee and in behalf of the accused and when said act or conduct is authorized, requested, or tolerated by the board of directors or by a high managerial agent.2. “High managerial agent” means an officer of the corporation, partner, or other agent in a position of comparable authority with respect to the formulation of policy or the supervision in a managerial capacity of subordinate employees.[C79, 81, §703.5]2013 Acts, ch 30, §261be accomplished, or are not likely to be accomplished, unless the employee commits a public offense, provided that the offense committed by the employee is one which the employer can reasonably anticipate will follow from this assignment.[C79, 81, §703.4]
704.4 Defense of property. A person is justified in the use of reasonable force to prevent or terminate criminal interference with the person’s possession or other right in property. Nothing in this section authorizes the use of any spring gun or trap which is left unattended and unsupervised and which is placed for the purpose of preventing or terminating criminal interference with the possession of or other right in property.[C51, §2774; R60, §4443; C73, §4113; C97, §5103; C24, 27, 31, 35, 39, §12922; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75, 77, §691.2(2); C79, 81, §704.4]
706.1 Conspiracy.1. A person commits conspiracy with another if, with the intent to promote or facilitate the commission of a crime which is an aggravated misdemeanor or felony, the person does either of the following: a. Agrees with another that they or one or more of them will engage in conduct constituting the crime or an attempt or solicitation to commit the crime’s. Agrees to aid another in the planning or commission of the crime or of an attempt or solicitation to commit the crime.2. It is not necessary for the conspirator to know the identity of each and every conspirator.3. A person shall not be convicted of conspiracy unless it is alleged and proven that at least one conspirator committed an overt act evidencing a design to accomplish the purpose of the conspiracy by criminal means.4. A person shall not be convicted of conspiracy if the only other person or persons involved in the conspiracy were acting at the behest of or as agents of a law enforcement agency in an investigation of the criminal activity alleged at the time of the formation of the conspiracy.[C51, §2758, 2996; R60, §4408, 4790; C73, §4087, 4425; C97, §5059, 5490; C24, 27, 31, 35, 39, §13162, 13902; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75, 77, §719.1, 782.6; C79, 81, §706.1]1987 Acts, ch 129, §1
706.2 Locus of conspiracy. A person commits a conspiracy in any county where the person is physically present when the person makes such agreement or combination, and in any county where the person with whom the person makes such agreement or combination is physically present at such time, whether or not any of the other conspirators are also present in that county or in this state, and in any county in which any criminal act is done by any person pursuant to the conspiracy, whether or not the person is or has ever been present in such county; provided, that a person may not be prosecuted more than once for a conspiracy based on the same agreement or combination.[C79, 81, §706.2]
706A.2 Violations.1.Specified unlawful activity influenced enterprises. a. It is unlawful for any person who has knowingly received any proceeds of specified unlawful activity to use or invest, directly or indirectly, any part of such proceeds in the acquisition of any interest in any enterprise or any real property, or in the establishment or operation of any enterprise .b. It is unlawful for any person to knowingly acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise or real property through specified unlawful activity .c. It is unlawful for any person to knowingly conduct the affairs of any enterprise through specified unlawful activity or to knowingly participate, directly or indirectly, in any enterprise that the person knows is being conducted through specified unlawful activity .d. It is unlawful for any person to conspire or attempt to violate or to solicit or facilitate the violations of the provisions of paragraph “a”, “b”, or “c”.2.Facilitation of a criminal network. It is unlawful for a person acting with knowledge of the financial goals and criminal objectives of a criminal network to knowingly facilitate criminal objectives of the network by doing any of the following: a. Engaging in violence or intimidation or inciting or inducing another to engage in violence or intimidation .b. Inducing or attempting to induce a person believed to have been called or who may be called as a witness to unlawfully withhold any testimony, testify falsely, or absent themselves from any official proceeding to which the potential witness has been legally summoned. c. Attempting by means of bribery, misrepresentation, intimidation, or force to obstruct, delay, or prevent the communication of information or testimony relating to a violation of any criminal statute to a peace officer, magistrate, prosecutor, grand jury, or petit jury. d. Injuring or damaging another person’s body or property because that person or any other person gave information or testimony to a peace officer, magistrate, prosecutor, or grand jury. e. Attempting to suppress by an act of concealment, alteration, or destruction any physical evidence that might aid in the discovery, apprehension, prosecution, or conviction of any person. f. Making any property available to a member of the criminal network. g. Making any service other than legal services available to a member of the criminal network. h. Inducing or committing any act or omission by a public servant in violation of the public servant’s official duty. i. Obtaining any benefit for a member of a criminal network by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representation, promises, or material omissions. j. Making a false sworn statement regarding a material issue, believing it to be false, or making any statement, believing it to be false, regarding a material issue to a public servant in connection with an application for any benefit, privilege, or license, or in connection with any official investigation or proceeding.
706A.2 Violations.1.Specified unlawful activity influenced enterprises. a. It is unlawful for any person who has knowingly received any proceeds of specified unlawful activity to use or invest, directly or indirectly, any part of such proceeds in the acquisition of any interest in any enterprise or any real property, or in the establishment or operation of any enterprise. b. It is unlawful for any person to knowingly acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise or real property through specified unlawful activity. c. It is unlawful for any person to knowingly conduct the affairs of any enterprise through specified unlawful activity or to knowingly participate, directly or indirectly, in any enterprise that the person knows is being conducted through specified unlawful activity. d. It is unlawful for any person to conspire or attempt to violate or to solicit or facilitate the violations of the provisions of paragraph “a”, “b”, or “c”.2.Facilitation of a criminal network. It is unlawful for a person acting with knowledge of the financial goals and criminal objectives of a criminal network to knowingly facilitate criminal objectives of the network by doing any of the following: a. Engaging in violence or intimidation or inciting or inducing another to engage in violence or intimidation. b. Inducing or attempting to induce a person believed to have been called or who may be called as a witness to unlawfully withhold any testimony, testify falsely, or absent themselves from any official proceeding to which the potential witness has been legally summoned. c. Attempting by means of bribery, misrepresentation, intimidation, or force to obstruct, delay, or prevent the communication of information or testimony relating to a violation of any criminal statute to a peace officer, magistrate, prosecutor, grand jury, or petit jury. d. Injuring or damaging another person’s body or property because that person or any other person gave information or testimony to a peace officer, magistrate, prosecutor, or grand jury. e. Attempting to suppress by an act of concealment, alteration, or destruction any physical evidence that might aid in the discovery, apprehension, prosecution, or conviction of any person. f. Making any property available to a member of the criminal network. g. Making any service other than legal services available to a member of the criminal network. h. Inducing or committing any act or omission by a public servant in violation of the public servant’s official duty. i. Obtaining any benefit for a member of a criminal network by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representation, promises, or material omissions. j. Making a false sworn statement regarding a material issue, believing it to be false, or making any statement, believing it to be false, regarding a material issue to a public servant in connection with an application for any benefit, privilege, or license, or in connection with any official investigation or proceeding.3.Money laundering. It is unlawful for a person to commit money laundering in violation of chapter 706B.4.Acts of specified unlawful activity. It is unlawful for a person to commit specified unlawful activity as defined in section 706A.1.5.Negligent empowerment of specified unlawful activity. a. It is unlawful for a person to negligently allow property owned or controlled by the person or services provided by the person, other than legal services, to be used to facilitate specified unlawful activity, whether by entrustment, loan, rent, lease, bailment, or otherwise. b. Damages for negligent empowerment of specified unlawful activity shall include all reasonably foreseeable damages proximately caused by the specified unlawful activity, including, in a case brought or intervened in by the state, the costs of investigation and criminal and civil litigation of the specified unlawful activity incurred by the government for the prosecution and defense of any person involved in the specified unlawful activity, and the imprisonment, probation, parole, or other expense reasonably necessary to detain, punish, and rehabilitate any person found guilty of the specified unlawful activity, except for the following: (1) If the person empowering the specified unlawful activity acted only negligently and was without knowledge of the nature of the activity and could not reasonably have known of the unlawful nature of the activity or that it was likely to occur, damages shall be limited to the greater of the following: (a) The cost of the investigation and litigation of the person’s own conduct plus the value of the property or service involved as of the time of its use to facilitate the specified unlawful activity. (b) All reasonably foreseeable damages to any person, except any person responsible for the specified unlawful activity, and to the general economy and welfare of the state proximately caused by the person’s own conduct. (2) If the property facilitating the specified unlawful activity was taken from the possession or control of the person without that person’s knowledge and against that person’s will in violation of the criminal law, damages shall be limited to reasonably foreseeable damages to any person, except persons responsible for the taking or the specified unlawful activity, and to the general economy and welfare of the state proximately caused by the person’s negligence, if any, in failing to prevent its taking. (3) If the person was aware of the possibility that the property or service would be used to facilitate some form of specified unlawful activity and acted to prevent the unlawful use, damages shall be limited to reasonably foreseeable damages to any person, except any person responsible for the specified unlawful activity, and to the general economy and welfare of the state proximately caused by the person’s failure, if any, to act reasonably to prevent the unlawful use. (4) The plaintiff shall carry the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the specified unlawful activity occurred and was facilitated by the property or services. The defendant shall have the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence as to circumstances constituting lack of negligence and on the limitations on damages in this subsection.1996 Acts, ch 1133, §27; 1998 Acts, ch 1074, §33Referred to in 706A.3, 706A.4
708.4 Willful injury. Any person who does an act which is not justified and which is intended to cause serious injury to another commits willful injury, which is punishable as follows:1. A class “C” felony, if the person causes serious injury to another.2. A class “D” felony, if the person causes bodily injury to another.[C51, §2577, 2594; R60, §4200, 4217; C73, §3857, 3875; C97, §4752, 4771, 4797; S13, §4771; C24, 27, 31, 35, 39, §12928, 12934, 12962; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75, 77, §693.1, 694.6, 697.2; C79, 81, §708.4]99 Acts, ch 65, §5, 2013 Acts, ch 90, §184 Referred to in 80A.4, 702.11
The FBI’s Norfolk Division announced a new effort to get the community’s help keeping a close tabs on publicly elected officials.
Educate yourself on this brutality that took place is southeast Iowa and nobody raised an eyebrow. https://poisonedbymyneighborfromhell.wordpress.com/
This was done on behalf of one man who redeveloped his legally nonconforming property into illegally nonconforming property. The building permits issued are illegal. Applying chemicals to the property of another person is illegal. I repeatedly requested the City and County Attorney to file a complaint on my behalf. I was repeatedly denied my right to file a criminal complaint. The existing conflict of interest was just to extreme for any of these officials to follow the law. This is a conspiracy deprivation of rights under color of law. In order for him to legally plat it on the County map he had to acquire ownership of my property. He used chemical warfare to accomplish his agenda. This was intentional to cause me bodily harm or death, defined by law as attempted murder Poisoned by my Neighbor from Hell is a partially compiled web site blog. There are many more criminal offenses committed against me that I have yet to post. Any public exposure is welcome. They know I have the evidence or I am sure a defamation of character complaint would have been filed against me. They have file many frivolous complaints on Mark Conlee’s behalf. I admit I did give him the finger. that is not a crime Mr, Short,
Did you know that occupying on private land protected by Property rights is considered a trespass? The law will find you guilty and can send you away for a couple of months or pay some hefty fee you’ll probably regret. So to avoid such a debacle, here are some facts about property rights and trespassing
Did you know that occupying on private land protected by Property rights is considered a trespass? The law will find you guilty and can send you away for a couple of months or pay some hefty fee you should know about.
What Constitutes a Trespass?
If you physically cross the boundary into someone else’s property, that’s a trespass. Property intrusion will either be on the land itself, above the surface or below the surface as well. So if you dig your way past someone’s property boundary or fly a plan or drone above the ground, you have already trespassed.
Intentional or Unintentional?
Intentional trespassing is when a person willingly crosses the boundary to someone’s property. It doesn’t matter whether the individual didn’t have the intention or clue they are trespassing; such an act warrants the property owner to seek action against the intruder. On the other hand, there is unintentional trespassing, which is when the intruder accidentally enters the property when it wasn’t their intention to. Such an act will be considered malicious only if it causes any harm to the property owner or anything confined within the said property.
Entering without Permission
The property owner may license an individual to enter the land when they please. However, the land owner has the right to revoke that license/permission after which it will be considered a trespass if the individual continues to occupy the land. Where the land owner does not withdraw the license, a trespass will be recorded when the individual stays in the land after expiry of their license. If the individual exceeds the agreement stated on the license, it is considered a trespass as well.
Entering without Privilege
This is a law that grants an individual, say the police, right to enter the property without the owner’s consent. This is usually to curb a nuisance or perceived harm within the property to retrieve someone else’s property on the land or to perform any duty mandated by the law.
This is generally the scope that entails Property Rights and Trespassing. Follow us at The Judge’s Chamber: Law Blog for more tips on legal rights.
I am not a doctor, but this was more than an allergic reaction CLICK LINK BELOW
List of witnesses that when reviewed by my attorney he was impressed as none of these individuals were connected. The relationships between the witnesses on my behalf could not be more compelling. The conspirators couldn’t have more of a ladder of conspiracy based on the conflict of interest a that was ignored by these individuals for the purpose of my neighbor being allowed to poison ny with chemicals. The building officials should have or may have advised him his blueprints for the property was non compliant to State building law.
Evidence that was withheld or suppressed by City officials and Lee County attorney that proves ethical and criminal offenses have been committed against me.Evidence that was withheld or suppressed by City officials and Lee County attorney that proves ethical and criminal offenses have been committed against me. Evidence that was withheld or suppressed by City officials and Lee County attorney that proves ethical and criminal offenses have been committed against me.
Suppressed and previously withheld from the civil case Conlee vs Boatner EQEQ
These individuals were intended to be witnesses in a case that should have been titled Boatner vs. City of Montrose, Ia, that is what Steve Swan was hired to do, that complaint was never filed. Steve Swan assured me that he filed the complaint against the city several times,it was he that advised me that we would sue both parties, the city and Mark Conlee. I was well aware that the liability was that of the city, Steve Swan was aware of that also. I met with him the first time so I could question his knowledge of the law pertaining to property redevelopment, legally nonconforming properties and the duty a city must provide for the residents. He was overpaid according to his own documented statements of evidence. Steve Swan was intentionally negligent, no attorney could pass the bar showing the skills he showed throughout this untimely process. Lee County Attorney Michael Short sent a deputy to investigate a complaint made by Mark Conlee against me, claiming he was concerned that there may be a conflict of interest. My witnesses were never interviewed by the City of Montrose Police Dept or Lee County Sheriff’s Dept. Mark Conlee make multiple false police reports against Boatner. Conlee was never concerned of being held accountable by the City of Montrose or Lee County Attorney Michael Short for his many criminal offenses including contempt of court. They fully participated in every action he requested, legal or illegal, nobody showed any concern for the law that they were violating by participating.
Documented evidence proves Lee County Attorney Michael Short advised Boatner that he would need and independent investigation. I am not certain what County Attorney Short meant by “an independent investigation”. Due to the fact that none of my witnesses were ever interviewed in what would be considered a typical investigation. I stated that I wanted an investigation I am still today patiently waiting to hear from Lee County Attorney Short as the the results of his independent investigation.
My witnesses took the stand to testify on my behalf in a civil suit Mark Conlee filed against me. Conlee vs Boatner EQEQ 004043 cause of action, loss of enjoyment to his property. They were not question by Steve Swan. My first witness was a former tenant of the Conlee property, well aware of the existing berm and the fact that when it rained the berm held back the stormwater from my property causing the front yard of Conlee property to retain a small pond. Swan never asked him any questions. I asked him why he didn’t question that witness about the berm. Steve Swan advised me that the judge uses his own common sense. In the previous criminal cases against me I never had to speak a word as the evidence was undeniable. Had Steve Swan submitted the written affidavits and photo evidence that supported my allegations. Unfortunately Steve Swan was to incompetent to file a complaint against the liable party, the City of Montrose, question the witnesses who should have been viewed as experts in their field, notify me in a timely manner that a decision had been made.
My initial complaint was in regard to this issue. To end up being poisoned by chemicals illegally applied to my property because the City and County officials had a conflict of interest with this illegally nonconforming owner/builder/redeveloper who was issued illegal building permits is unprecedented. It was the chemicals that nearly cost me my life. I could control the stormwater within my rights to defend my property. This man was angry that the officials could not control what I did legally on my own property. I could not control the chemicals, the fact that this man was allowed to do this knowing it was causing me physical harm and the officials dismissing the act as he had the right. That makes this a Federal Constitutional Rights case. The perps are the CIty and County officials who had the duty to protect my Right to enjoy my own property and my Right to Equal Protection of the Law.
- Defamation of Character
- Conflict of Interest
- Violation of Jurisdictional Authority
- Knowingly Made False Statements
- Psychopathic Stalking
Bob Conlee has been employee by the Lee County Sheriff’s since graduating high school in early 1970’s. I recall that there was one requirement that Bob could not pass. That was the height required for all officers to be considered for employment. The sheriff’s dept changed their policy at that time on behalf of Bob Conlee. Bob spent his entire career as a Lee County Law Enforcement Officer beginning as a deputy.
Feb. 3, 2005 Deputy Bob Conlee was promoted to Detective for Lee County Sheriffs Office . At that time Lee County Detective Bob Conlee used his position to misrepresent his authority to become personally involved in a complaint Boatner had with his brother, Mark Conlee and the City of Montrose, Ia. Detective Bob Conlee Had no jurisdiction in the City of Montrose. If he did there was an existing conflict of interest due to Mark Conlee being his blood brother.
On March 22, 2005 Lee County Detective Bob Conlee arrived at Mark Conlees home in regard to a nuisance drainage issue complaint I had made to Mark Conlee, Mayor Ron Dinwiddie and Council Member/building administrator Mark Holland. The Following day Mark Conlee Hand delivered his response to my complaint. The authority Mark “checked with” is his brother Lee County Detective Bob. Lee County Detective Bob Conlee has no jurisdiction or authority in this matter or any other matter involving the City of Montrose.
Soon after I made my initial complaint to Mark Conlee in regards to the nuisance drainage issue caused by his new illegal property redevelopment Lee County Detective Bob Conlee began to defame my character . By knowingly making false statements, fabricating evidence. His intent was to associate me with a family member, who has in the past got caught with marijuana . I had heard several rumors that he had been defaming my character. Lee County Detective Bob Conlee proved that to me when I heard him ask, over the police radio “are you sure it’s not Melody driving her (family member) truck”? Following up with “he knew I used to drive my family members truck”. He stated that as it was a fact. I and a very credible witness, listed on the “compelling list of witnesses”, both heard this at the same time. Detective Conlee intention was to defame my character on his brother, Mark Conlee’s behalf, to cast an unfavorable opinion of me to the community of Montrose, Ia.
I have had no interaction with my family member since 1995 and anyone who knows me and my family has that knowledge. Lee County Deputy David Hunold responded to a domestic 911 call at that time. Lee County Detective Bob Conlee does know that the only interaction I have ever had with the Lee County Iowa drug task force is one time when I was mistaken for my family members girlfriend. The error was reasonable, I was mistaken for someone else because my truck is the same color as my family members truck. However, my truck is a Ford Ranger, my family members is a Chevy S-10. I was quickly cleared of any involvement by then deputy Bob Conlee’s superior officers at that time. The two senior officers were Tom Crew and Buck Jones. Neither of which I had ever met. I did discover after the fact that they were there to serve a warrant, issued for someone else. The person was expected to be arrive driving my family members gray truck. It had nothing to do with Melody Boatner.
Bob Conlee knew or should have known whose name was on that search warrant . Bob Conlee could and did ID me immediately. Bob Conlee and I had attended the same school from grades 1-12. Bob was 3 or 4 years older than I. We were raise in the same small town of Montrose, Ia. A town when back then everyone knew at least everyone elses name.
I know for a fact that there is no evidence to support Bob Conlee’s allegations. I have never driven my family members truck and I wouldn’t borrow my family members truck. Bob Conlee repeatedly made false statements about me, defaming my character. His intent was to try to associate me with illegal drug activity. Bob Conlee is the criminal in this case, not me!
Could it be possible that Constitutional Rights were violated by local government officials because they were stalling, until I got busted? Based on fabricated statements made by Lee County Detective Bob Conlee? Was the entire community misled to believe that I was going to be busted for illegal drug activity? Are they so simple minded that they do not understand our justice system is based on “innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.” Whether I was involved in illegal activity or not, my right to enjoy my own property, and right to equal protection of the law, were violated. My right to due process was violated. An independent investigation is warranted to find if my right to due process was violated. Was I considered guilty of illegal drug activity based on fabricated evidence perpetrated by Lee County Detective Bob Conlee’s defamation of my character to the general public. Every City of Montrose and Lee County government official who voiced an opinion on Mark Conlee’s behalf by defaming my character are guilty of CONSPIRACY DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW and Terrorist acts using chemical weapons with intent to cause serious injury. Because no one with authority protected my rights. They participated in violating my rights on Mark Conlee’s behalf.
At first it was kind of humorous that Lee County Detective Bob Conlee had me under surveillance and making false statements that I was going to be busted for dope. Simply because it was such an extreme conflicting statement to the fact that I had no interaction with my brother since 1995. But it turned into psychopathic stalking. He had me under surveillance constantly. He was so desperate to follow through with his false statements he followed me on several occasions and knowingly made false statements about those incidents. He has never seen me driving my family members truck, or anything else that associates me with illegal activity of any kind. I confided to friends at that time that I believed if he would have caught me on a gravel road he would have shot me.
It was also during this time that Lee County Sheriff’s Deputy Dave Hunold pulled over a mutual friend of ours, witness, Hunold pulled him over to warn him that the house he just left, (my house) was going to get busted. I dismissed his allegations due to the fact that Hunold is not on the Drug Task Force, and it is not general procedure for deputy officers to have knowledge of this type of information. If they do I know of no other case where deputies spread the word to the general public. I assumed Deputy Hunold had mistaken my house for one the next block down that had gotten busted. However Bob and Mark Conlee were spewing these lies to the general public with no regard to implicating themselves in unethical and criminal behavior, or anyone else for that matter.Lee County Detective Bob Conlee initiated these falsehoods on his brother’s behalf, I assume Bob was telling Mark not to worry about my nuisance drainage, illegal non conforming property complaint. Probably assuring Mark that he could acquire my property through an asset forfeiture sale when I got busted. Mark was repeating Bobs lies to City of Montrose Chief of Police Brent Shipman, all other local government officials, and to the general public. The evidence will prove Bob and Mark Conlee to be psychopathic pathological liars.
Lee County Detective Bob Conlee was obsessed with proving his falsehoods to be true. He had me under surveillance 24-7 the entire time he had the position titled Lee County Criminal Investigator. There were very few occasions I left my house. One of those times I needed to modify a metal chair frame I was working on. I took the frame to a friends shop to use his chop saw. My friend was at his desk doing paper work, he walked back to where I was and asked what my street address was. I told him. He responded that he had just heard my address mentioned on the police scanner. A few minutes later Bob Conlee came full throttle through the door, he walked back to where I was working, turned around and walked back out the door. He never spoke a word. Apparently he thought he caught me in the middle of some type of illegal activity. When he got back in his unmarked vehicle he again knowingly made a false statement over the police scanner. He stated that my truck was parked in a hidden position between 2 vehicles. The fact is that I had parked next to the owner of the business another individual arrived after I had and parked on the other side of my truck. My truck was between two vehicles but only because the vehicles were parked according to time of arrival taking the next available parking spot. Lee County Detective Bob Conlee knowingly made a false statement that I was hiding my truck. His intent was to defame my character had become criminal harassment by this time. But Lee County Attorney Mike Short has been working side by side with him 18 years, conflict of interest allows for no accountability for any of the many criminal offenses committed against me. Detective Bob Conlee has proven himself to be a pathological liar. Bob Conlee has proven himself to be a pathological stalker. The effect the chemicals Mark Conlee unlawfully applied to my property to my skin were severe. Within a year I was physically unable to wear clothes. I lost my eyesight. I had no quality of life and was completely unable to function.
Another sequence of events that I find suspicious that Bob attempted to “set me up in a drug bust”. I had been living at my property for 15 years. The next block down Rick Hardman had been living for as long as I had been there. I think. We had never had a conversation of any kind, I don’t recall ever speaking to each other. One afternoon I was at the stop sign in front of his house and Rick approached me. He asked me if I wanted to smoke a joint, I politely told him that I did not smoke weed, He proceeded to tell me who was selling dope in town, bla,bla,bla. I went on about my business. Some time later, out of the blue. Rick Hardman knocked on my door. Rick told me that he had some important information that he wanted to give my family member. Rick presented me with an affidavit from the Thomas Greer case. The affidavit was signed by a person unknown to me and was dated years earlier. The content implicated Lee County Attorney being involved with illegal drug activity. The affidavit stated that the signer had worked, delivering cocaine for Lee County Attorney Michael Short. It claimed Michael Short had promised that if the signer ever got caught by law enforcement, Short would step up and use his influence to get any charges dismissed and he would protect this guy from being prosecuted. I told Mr. Hardman that my family member and I had not communicated for years but I would go so far as dial the phone for him if he wanted to talk to my family member. I dialed the number and handed the phone to Rick. I overheard the conversation, Rick confirmed that he would meet my brother and Linger-Longer rest area, for the purpose of giving my family member the information for whatever reason . To my knowledge the meeting did occur. Rick left me a copy of the affidavit, which I still have.
It is reasonable that Bob Conlee was behind Rick Hardman contacting me on these two occasions. There is no other reason after 15 years of being nearby neighbors Rick Hardman would seek me out in regards to illegal drugs. Bob was desperate to make me into the person he had falsely claimed I was, Bob’s commitment to his brother is honorable, his tactics were completely illegal, immoral and violated my US Constitutional Rights, including my right to due process.
Bob Conlee retired from the Lee County Sheriff’s Dept. in the spring of 2007. I suspect Bob was given an option. He could choose to retire or be terminated due to his corrupt, criminal, and unethical actions against me personally. Bob Conlee conspired with Mark Conlee to deprive me of my U.S. Constitutional Right to enjoy my own property. It is unreasonable to believe that Bob Conlee chose to retire in spring of 2007, after only 2 years getting promoted to Criminal Investigator. I recall an article in the local newspaper in which Bob stated that he did not need the insurance due to his wife’s coverage. Bob’s age at retirement was, I believe, in his early 50’s. With 17 years of service, Bob Conlee’s salary was $39,949.00 when he retired in 2007. I was told he took a job changing tires at a business in Donnellson soon after he retired, I do not know if this is true. Bob took a full time job as bus driver for Central Lee Community School District, to my knowledge he is still employed at that job. The average pay for a school bus driver in Iowa is $26,000. That in itself doesn’t seem reasonable. Does a reasonable person retire early, than take a full time job that pays significantly less money than his previous job. Not to mention the notoriety and influential power behind holding the top law enforcement position in Lee County, Ia. I researched some interesting financial information that is public record. On September 23, 2009 Robert Conlee’s property was repossessed. A FORECLOSURE AGAINST Bob Conlee FOR $88,063.39, PLUS INT AT 7.68% PER ANNAM ON PRINCIPAL OF $85,619.06 FROM 8/2/2012 PLUS COSTS, ATTORNEY FEES, ABSTRACTING FEES IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,801.00 was settled on August 3, 2012. A reasonable person does not retire from his career early, only to have his property repossessed. I am not buying that story for a minute. I find it much more reasonable to believe that Lee County Investigator Robert (Bob) Conlee chose to take a forced resignation rather than be terminated from his job as Lee County Investigator. A Federal investigation is warranted to uncover the truth and hold those who conspired to cover his behavior accountable for conspiracy deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law.
He knowingly made false statements, defamation of character. He violated my Constitutional Right to enjoy my property under color of law. Bob Conlee misrepresented himself as having the authority of City of Montrose Building administrator when he had no jurisdiction to act as any type of authority in the City of Montrose. Had he had any authority he still would have been in violation of rules of ethics due to conflict of interest as Mark Conlee is his blood brother. Bob Conlees criminal acts against me were malicious with intent to harass, cause me financial and emotional harm. Bob Conlees behavior is not that of a reasonable person in a high ranking position of law enforcement would do. Bob Conlee conspired to deprive me of my US and State Constitutional Right to enjoy my own property and equal protection of the law.
Daily Gate City Sep 18, 2013 ■ Approved the contracts of Robert Conlee, transportation associate, $14.80 per hour;
Daily Democrat Feb 22, 2016 – Approved the resignation of Bob Conlee – Transportation Associate effective 6/30/2016.
A Federal investigation is warranted into these allegations of Conspiracy Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law.
TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242
- Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
- For the purpose of Section 242, acts under “color of law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official’s lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.
- The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.
I know of no other case in which a City clerk has admitted to committing document fraud, fabricated city ordinances, knowingly make false statement and demanded payment on a past due account MUST be paid directly from the pocket of the resident the past due account is in. This is enough evidence to support conspiracy with intent to cause me financial harm. The fraud was made known to the Lee County attorney and his response was that “he” would decide who gets prosecuted in Lee County. This supports my allegations that Lee County Attorney conspired with City of Montrose officials in allowing Mark Conlee force me from my property. Not to mention the conflict of interest existing between Lee County Michael Short and Lee County Detective Bob Conlee’s career long relationship.
It is worth noting that there is a conflict of interest existing between city clerk Celeste Cirinna and the Lee County FEMA officer, Steve Cirinna is the husband of clerk Cirinna. Steve Cirinna would have been the expert for me to contact. It is FEMA that puts out a handbook in which the following page is directly from. There is a copy of this manual at Montrose City Hall. Homeland Security also handles terrorism, so that was not an option for me either.
I am not an attorney but I comprehend the offenses committed against me as described in the following link.