Differences

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

--- unlawfulbarorder [2018/04/11 03:48] – [Break Down of Robert Spink's E-Mail Response] Manager
+++ unlawfulbarorder [2018/06/17 19:56] – Manager
@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 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 Robert Spinks, University Chief of Police, **unlawfully** issued a //Bar Order// to me, Kevin Day, on the false 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.
 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 **&&"..this is not normal.."&&** and he could not provide any reason for its issuance. This confused and scared me. Not only was I confused about my termination, I was now being treated as a criminal. But for what reasons? I had no idea and neither did the officer who delivered the //Unlawful Bar Order//. The //Unlawful Bar Order// is particularly confusing because it is improperly filled out and the fields for explaining the reason for the bar order where left empty.
@@ Line 45: / Line 45: @@
   - 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.
-  - 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 in this way and she didn't know what this was about.
   - 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 53: / Line 53: @@
   - It does not fall into the University Policy, I have done nothing nor have I been told I did anything.
   - "take time to refocus"? Refocus about what? I'm not angry, I have no clue what is going on.
-  - As [[recordings#termination_-_2017_07_18_0904|witnissed by Charlene Abbott]], I never once got angry and I had no clue that anything was even wrong until my surprise termination.
+  - As [[recordings#termination_-_2017_07_18_0904|witnessed by Charlene Abbott]], I never once got angry and I had no clue that anything was even wrong until my surprise termination.
-  - %%We try to be proactive%%. What? so Pre-crime is now legal? Because I **might** do something (despite having obsolutely no history or evidence for that matter)? Since when is a person treated as a criminal without ever having committed any crime nor never having threatened anyone?
+  - %%We try to be proactive%%. What? so Pre-crime is now legal? Because I **might** do something (despite having absolutely no history or evidence for that matter)? Since when is a person treated as a criminal without ever having committed any crime nor never having threatened anyone?
 <quote Robert Spinks, July 18, 2017>
@@ Line 61: / Line 61: @@
   - 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 in accordance to **42 U.S.C. Section 1983**.
+  - This is a **violation** of my civil liberties in accordance to **42 U.S.C. Section 1983**.
 <quote Robert Spinks, July 18, 2017>
@@ Line 85: / Line 85: @@
   - 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".
-  - Provide a "buffer or cooling off period"? From What? walking home? Again, my supposed //dangerous// behavior was [[recordings#termination_-_2017_07_18_0904|witnissed by Charlene Abbott]] (and recorded). Yes..talking calmy is certainly dangerous. Asking what is going on and why things are happening is just criminal (fyi: the previous two sentences are satire).
+  - Provide a "buffer or cooling off period"? From What? walking home? Again, my supposed //dangerous// behavior was [[recordings#termination_-_2017_07_18_0904|witnessed by Charlene Abbott]] (and recorded). Yes..talking calm is certainly dangerous. Asking what is going on and why things are happening is just criminal (fyi: the previous two sentences are satire).
 <quote Robert Spinks, July 18, 2017>
@@ Line 93: / Line 93: @@
   - What information?
   - Can Robert Spinks not see how I asked what the reasons were? Not saying? Probably because there is no reason.
-  - Wait..."feeling for safety?", so I feel harassed by Patrick Eustis and get ignored by senior staff...and that is okay, but suddenly and inexplicably somebody else feels for their safety and thenwith no apparent reason there is a problem. This is blatant discrimination.
+  - Wait..."feeling for safety?", so I feel harassed by Patrick Eustis and get ignored by senior staff...and that is okay, but suddenly and inexplicably somebody else feels for their safety and then with no apparent reason there is a problem. This is blatant discrimination.
+  - I never received any charges or complaints filed against me stating I did anything wrong.
 <quote Robert Spinks, July 18, 2017>
@@ Line 112: / Line 113: @@
   - 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.
-  - 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, very conveniently works directly under Candace Townsend.
+  - 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.