I have continuously asked for confirmation if private property rights are Federally protected Rights. I have gotten no confirmation. I can only assume that they are but nobody wants to admit it.
My neighbor invaded my private property for over five years by applying chemicals on my side only, of our 300′ common boundary. I verbally advised him not to apply anything to my private property on the day I noticed he had done this. That same day I also advised the Chief of Police that I had given my neighbor a verbal notice not to apply anything to my private property and requested an incident report.
The chemicals continued to be applied on my private property by my neighbor without hesitation. I repeatedly requested the incident from the Chief of Police. I received a report 16 months after my first request. That report did not represent what I had advised the neighbor. I refused to take it and advised the Police Chief that it was unsatisfactory. Two weeks later I did receive one that was not as I would have like but it did state some of the facts on it.
The neighbor continued his assault against my person and my private property. I requested the Police chief file a trespassing complaint against him on my behalf. I was advised by the Police chief that he would not file a complaint against my neighbor because he did not want to make him mad.
I confronted the Mayor about the issue. The Mayor advised me that he did not think neighbors filing complaints against neighbors was in anyone’s best interest and refused to manage the Police Chief in following procedure to remedy the situation. The Mayor also had an existing conflict of interest as he was the seller of the property to my neighbor only two years prior. Public record shows the Mayor stated that legally nonconforming property can not have larger structures built on the lots than the existing structures. The Mayor states on public record that the signature of the builder on a building permit alleviates the city from liability. The building permit is not signed by the builder. A double standard was used when I was the victim of my neighbor’s assault.
The building permits issued by the City building administrator are fraudulent. They are not completed as required by the State of Iowa building regulations and the drainage of my neighbors redevelopment of the legally nonconforming lot does not comply with State drainage law. When I requested the city building administrator to address my concerns as standard procedure requires he refused. He did continue to issue fraudulent building permits to this neighbor for his legally nonconforming lot.
Conflicting with the reason the Mayor would not have the police chief to follow the law in issuing a trespassing complaint against my neighbor I was criminally charged multiple times by the city for fabricated laws based on fraudulent ordinances.
A double standard was also supported by the County Attorney when I advised him that my neighbor was applying chemicals to my private property. The County attorney took the same stance as the Mayor. He advised me that he did not allow neighbors to file complaints against neighbors. I was criminally charged by the State for violations of fabricated law. I reported to the County Attorney that the City Clerk had fabricated ordinances anonymously over the telephone. He advised that he had a problem with a clerk that would fabricate ordinances. Only when I arrived at his office, and he realized who the parties were did he no longer have a problem with the city clerk committing fraud.
This type of behavior continued with every authority that I contacted. Including an attorney I hired to file a complaint against the city which he never informed me that he neglected to file. I discovered this when I was served court papers by my neighbor. There was a civil court order citing my right to use my private property as I wished. That civil court order was never complied with by my neighbor or enforced by law enforcement.
The chemicals caused me to suffer severe chronic skin condition that I continue to be treated for by the University of Iowa Dermatology clinic..
For five years I paid the taxes on my private property. The deed was in my name. I had no control what took place on my private property. I was denied protection from harm by law enforcement. I was force to flee from my private property to escape the chemical poisoning. The chemicals caused me to suffer severe chronic skin condition that I continue to be treated for by the University of Iowa Dermatology clinic.. Those who participated in violating my private property rights include but are not limited to the County Sheriff, FBI agent Thomas Rienwart and AUSA Kevin VanderSchel.
Trespassing is a criminal offense. The crime of trespass is commonly found to be charged against individuals in Lee County, Iowa. I was denied that right to protection.
Fraud is a criminal offense. There are numerous individuals who have been charged with fraud in Lee County, Iowa. I was denied that right to protection.
Violations of Federal laws to be prosecuted by the Federal Civil Rights Division
“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  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  of interests; and independently of statute it is strictly a judicial question, and all the circumstances of the case must be taken into consideration. I was denied that right to protection
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.
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:
- 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,
- a munition or device designed to cause death or harm through toxic chemicals that would be released by the device, or
- 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. I was denied that right to protection
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. I was denied that right to protection
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. I was denied that right to protection
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. I was denied that right to protection.