Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- emails [2018/04/11 02:06] – created Manager
+++ emails [2020/04/29 05:49] (current) – add robots meta Manager
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 ====== E-mails ======
-I put togethor a collection of e-mails that I believe to be relevant to the case. Most, if not all of these e-mails, are from my McNeese e-mail account, kday@mcneese.edu, and are of the public domain as by law. E-mails from any other account of mine are released under the open documentation license.
+I put togethor a collection of e-mails that I believe to be relevant to the case. Most, if not all of these e-mails, are from my McNeese e-mail account, kday@mcneese.edu, and are of the public domain as by law. E-mails from any other non //@mcneese.edu// account are released under [[copyrights|Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)]].
 Many of these e-mails are from my own records and were cached by my e-mail client. The e-mail client left a mess of the naming structure and I have had to mass re-name the files for simplicity. This resulted in the e-mails (numerically speaking) being not in any intended order.
@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 **Summary:**\\
-A discussion between Kevin Day and Robert Spinks with Kevin Day trying to ask for reasons for Bar Order so that it can be appealed and Robert Spinks not giving any reasons (beyond vague statements) and outright assuming the e-mail to be the bar order appeal (despite the [[barorderpolicy2016|university bar order policy]] stating that the appeal had to be presented and received //in person//.
+In my e-mail, I asked why the Bar Order was issued incorrectly, improperly filled out, if I had violated some law, or if I had any form of disruptive behavior.
+I also pointed out that I **notably** lacked any history or any complaints against me that could be offered as any credible evidence that I would be of any threat to anybody.
+Robert Spinks responds stating that he reviewed the issuance of the Bar Order and found that it was justified and that I should contact Human Resources to clear up the reasons. He further mentioned that they try to be proactive. He follows up stating that since the title of Kevin's e-mail had the word "Appeal" in it, then it must be an appeal (despite the [[barorderpolicy2016|university bar order policy]] stating that the appeal had to be presented and received //in person//). He then denied the appeal citing no futher evidence provided.
+===== Conversation: Follow up on items and the Bar Order =====
+**E-mails:**
+  - [[@/documentation/emails/email-0267.eml|Kevin Day to Charlene Abbott (CC: Michael Snowden)]]
+  - [[@/documentation/emails/email-0268.eml|Charlene Abbott to Kevin Day (CC: Michael Snowden)]]
+  - [[@/documentation/emails/email-0269.eml|Kevin Day to Charlene Abbott (CC: Michael Snowden)]]
+  - [[@/documentation/emails/email-0270.eml|Charlene Abbott to Kevin Day (CC: Michael Snowden)]]
+**Summary:**\\
+In my e-mail, I am talking about how they did not return all my items to me (thus they are missing). I also bring up how the [[unlawfulbarorder|unlawful bar order]] is issued against me without any explanation. I am left only with assuming that that [[recordings#stan_hippler_-_2017_06_07_0806|Stan Hippler is baselessly accusing me of supporting chemical terrorism]]. I also point out that the [[unlawfulbarorder|unlawful bar order]] is being issued in a discriminatory manner.
+Charlene responds to me about the missing items finally being returned. (except for the black mousepad, that I own, which is never returned to me). Charlene then tells me in the next e-mail to come pick up the items.
+I respond to Charlene, telling her that I will come over and also drop of the DVD rom of [[recordings|audio recordings]] as evidence.
+{{htmlmetatags>
+metatag-robots=(index,follow,archive)
+}}