unlawfulbarorder
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
unlawfulbarorder [2018/04/11 03:20] – Manager | unlawfulbarorder [2020/04/29 05:52] (current) – add robots meta Manager | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
File: Add file here once an electronic copy is made (private information blacked out). | File: Add file here once an electronic copy is made (private information blacked out). | ||
- | On July 18, 2017, Robert Spinks, University Chief of Police, **unlawfully** issued a //Bar Order// to me on the premise of pre-crime. I, having never gotten angry, never attacked anyone, never threatened anyone, never had bad conduct, have had consistent exceptional [[annualperformancereview|exceptional annual performance reviews]], have had great working relationship with all employees, staff, and even students (with exception to Patrick Eustis, who had issues with me but not the other way around), have no history of aggression, and never have been arrested for any crime, am somehow considered (according to Robert Spinks) have a potential for committing some sort of crime. | + | On July 18, 2017, I believe |
The //Unlawful Bar Order// was issued to me at my home after I walked to my apartment next to campus, without causing any incidents. An officer, whose name is unknown to me, issued me the //Unlawful Bar Order// and when I asked what the reasons for he stated that **&&" | The //Unlawful Bar Order// was issued to me at my home after I walked to my apartment next to campus, without causing any incidents. An officer, whose name is unknown to me, issued me the //Unlawful Bar Order// and when I asked what the reasons for he stated that **&&" | ||
Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
===== Break Down of Robert Spink' | ===== Break Down of Robert Spink' | ||
See: [[emails# | See: [[emails# | ||
+ | See: [[emails# | ||
<quote Robert Spinks, July 18, 2017> | <quote Robert Spinks, July 18, 2017> | ||
Line 44: | Line 45: | ||
- When my position was terminated, I **immediately walked** home without incident. | - When my position was terminated, I **immediately walked** home without incident. | ||
- I never had any complaints against my conduct, had any conduct issues, or have I been told I did anything wrong. | - I never had any complaints against my conduct, had any conduct issues, or have I been told I did anything wrong. | ||
- | - Charlene Abbott, from Human Resources, directly told me (before I even sent the first e-mail) that bar orders are not issued and she didn't know what this was about. | + | - Charlene Abbott, from Human Resources, directly told me (before I even sent the first e-mail) that bar orders are not issued |
- Charlene Abbott told me that this has nothing to due with HUman Resources or my terminated and Robert Spinks says the opposite? One of these two **must** be lying. | - Charlene Abbott told me that this has nothing to due with HUman Resources or my terminated and Robert Spinks says the opposite? One of these two **must** be lying. | ||
Line 52: | Line 53: | ||
- It does not fall into the University Policy, I have done nothing nor have I been told I did anything. | - It does not fall into the University Policy, I have done nothing nor have I been told I did anything. | ||
- "take time to refocus"? | - "take time to refocus"? | ||
- | - As [[recordings# | + | - As [[recordings# |
- | - %%We try to be proactive%%. What? so Pre-crime is now legal? Because I **might** do something (despite having | + | - %%We try to be proactive%%. What? so Pre-crime is now legal? Because I **might** do something (despite having |
<quote Robert Spinks, July 18, 2017> | <quote Robert Spinks, July 18, 2017> | ||
Line 60: | Line 61: | ||
- I am being denied my rights because I informed on the ADA violations, security violations, etc.. committed by Patrick Eustis? | - I am being denied my rights because I informed on the ADA violations, security violations, etc.. committed by Patrick Eustis? | ||
- | - This is a **violation** of my civil liberities | + | - This is a **violation** of my civil liberties |
<quote Robert Spinks, July 18, 2017> | <quote Robert Spinks, July 18, 2017> | ||
Line 84: | Line 85: | ||
- I don't know what I supposedly did to even defend against. | - I don't know what I supposedly did to even defend against. | ||
- I have no history of any incidents, how do you show evidence of a history other than stating "see I have no history" | - I have no history of any incidents, how do you show evidence of a history other than stating "see I have no history" | ||
- | - Provide a " | + | - Provide a " |
<quote Robert Spinks, July 18, 2017> | <quote Robert Spinks, July 18, 2017> | ||
Line 92: | Line 93: | ||
- What information? | - What information? | ||
- Can Robert Spinks not see how I asked what the reasons were? Not saying? Probably because there is no reason. | - Can Robert Spinks not see how I asked what the reasons were? Not saying? Probably because there is no reason. | ||
- | - Wait..." | + | - Wait..." |
+ | - I never received any charges or complaints filed against me stating I did anything wrong. | ||
<quote Robert Spinks, July 18, 2017> | <quote Robert Spinks, July 18, 2017> | ||
Line 98: | Line 100: | ||
</ | </ | ||
- | - Wait what? High Security? What High Security? Web Programming is **high | + | - Wait what? High Security? What High Security? Web Programming is **high |
- If he is referring to having electronic access (that is disabled upon termination) is somehow justification for physically barring me from the University and All activities? | - If he is referring to having electronic access (that is disabled upon termination) is somehow justification for physically barring me from the University and All activities? | ||
- So...I can be dangerous at a McNeese hosted piano recital because I had access to a computer system? what? | - So...I can be dangerous at a McNeese hosted piano recital because I had access to a computer system? what? | ||
- Even if I did something electronically (which I never would and never did) a Bar Order does not do anything whatsoever to stop digital attacks and does not, in any way, apply to the scope of a computer. | - Even if I did something electronically (which I never would and never did) a Bar Order does not do anything whatsoever to stop digital attacks and does not, in any way, apply to the scope of a computer. | ||
- The Bar Order does not prohibit electronic access. | - The Bar Order does not prohibit electronic access. | ||
+ | - I never had any keys to the server room and the only keys I had were turned in to Charlene Abbott immediately upon termination so I cannot be of any physical threat to any //secured// room. | ||
<quote Robert Spinks, July 18, 2017> | <quote Robert Spinks, July 18, 2017> | ||
Line 110: | Line 113: | ||
- So I cannot defend myself from people who are committing fraud and are lying about me. | - So I cannot defend myself from people who are committing fraud and are lying about me. | ||
- Candace Townsend is one of the Senior Staff who may be involved in the Whistle blowing retaliation as defined in my Discrimination Complaint. | - Candace Townsend is one of the Senior Staff who may be involved in the Whistle blowing retaliation as defined in my Discrimination Complaint. | ||
- | - I cannot trust Senior Staff because I have reason to believe they are committing fraud and are retailing against me for effectively blowing the whistle against Patrick Eustis, who, if my memory is correct, | + | - I cannot trust Senior Staff because I have reason to believe they are committing fraud and are retailing against me for effectively blowing the whistle against Patrick Eustis, who, if my memory is correct, works directly under Candace Townsend. |
+ | {{htmlmetatags> | ||
+ | metatag-robots=(index, | ||
+ | }} |
unlawfulbarorder.txt · Last modified: 2020/04/29 05:52 by Manager