Motion to dismiss case No. # CC42,6033015

The defendant moved a motion for the court to dismiss this case No. # CC42,6033015 of the following grounds:

1.     Insufficient allegations to prove the charge

2.     Reason for disputes (The oral or dental hygiene tool) impeded the defendants’ rights to enter into and upon federal property

3.     U.S Marshall Service personnel and the Paragon Security personnel actions were not in keeping with their professional authority.

4.     The actions of the Security Detail were in violation with the law they were enforcing.

5.     Federal Law prohibits Discrimination by employees upon federal property.

Factual back Ground

The defendant goes to the Federal Building in question on a regular basis to conduct business. On the day in question the defendant went to the said building, the defendant clear security, the security took offence and decided that the defendant will not be permitted to enter the Federal Building with an oral or dental hygiene kit he had in his possession. The said kit was stored in the package where in, the product it was purchases. The Defendant respectfully in his conduct and conversation pleaded with the security providing oral reason why they should allowed him to enter with the said commodity. Activities which resulted in this case.

Argument in support of the Motion to dismiss Case No. # CC42,6033015

Point 1 - Insufficient allegations to prove or substantiate the charge.

This charge was taken from the piece of law that governs antisocial or disruptive behavior upon a federal property. It is taken from 102-74-390 which clearly states that.

“All person entering or on federal property are prohibited from loitering, exhibiting disorderly conduct or exhibiting other conduct on the property that is:

(a)  Create Loud and unusual noise or nuisance.

(b) Unreasonably obstruct the usual use of entrance, foyers, Lobbies, corridors, offices, elevator, stairways of parking lot.

(c)  Otherwise impede or disrupt the performance of official duties by government employees.

(d) Prevent the General public from obtaining the administrative service provided on the property in a timely manner”

It is interesting that the defendant was charged with sec. (d) of this piece of legislation, which according to this law cannot and is incapable of support any charge on its own. It is important to note; in order for any person to be found in violation of and is therefore charge with section (d) of this law, that individual must also be in of violation of section (a), (b) and or section (c); It is totally impossible for any individual to prevent patron to any Federal facility, from obtaining service in in a timely manner unless that individual was a nuisance as is out lined in section (a), of the law; thus creating some unreasonable obstruction to one of the name facility as outlined in section (b), or to have behaved in such a manner that the person come up with some creative way outside those mentioned in sections: (a) (b) to impede and or disrupt the official duties of Government employee.

It important to note, in the written evidence presented, none of the witness which includes the members of the US Marshall Service and the employee of the private security service Paragon Security, give any evidence to suggest that the defendant conduct ever come close to or boarded on anything out lined in section (a), (b) and or (c).

I will also suggest to the court, when the investigating officer reviewed the security surveillance footages, they did not find anything to support this fact. This is so, because, I acted with the highest standard of diplomacy and even when I refused to giving up my rights, as a prerequisite to enter the federal facility with the disputed items. I did not for one moment put off the diplomacy with which I conducted myself.

(e)  Another point I must make here is section (b) of this law have a very important factor is the word “unreasonable” it reads as follows: Unreasonably obstruct the usual use of entrance, foyers, Lobbies, corridors, offices, elevator, stairways of parking lot.

Therefore, it is not totally prohibited for an individual to obstruct the assign part for the conveyance of people when in or on a federal premises, unless such obstruction is reasonable. In this case all of my action was what can be required of a reasonable person. It was reasonable for me not to allow my rights to enter the federal property be denied by some unreasonable security officers it is reasonable for anyone to go in pursuit is rights and to prevent anyone from depriving any such person of their rights. 

Point 2 - Reason for disputes impeded the defendants’ rights to enter into and upon federal property.

The security detail at the federal court, tried to prevent Defendant from entering the Federal building with an Oral Hygiene kit. They claimed it was a weapon. First to begin with the hygiene kit was still in the package in which it was purchase, with a tear in the package which give defendant access to the dental plack removing tool. There was nothing about that package that can and will suggest to a reasonable person and surly not a reasonable trained person that this instrument can be use as a weapon.

When we consider the portion of law that gives the Security officers at a federal property the right to search and remove and request the removal or in some cases deny access to an individual to a federal facility for either knowingly or unknowingly try to take a weapon onto a federal facility. Let us examine the said law.

18 USC 930 – (a)  Except as provided in section (d) whoever knowingly possesses or cause to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon, in a federal facility, (Other than a federal Court Facility) or attempt to do so shall be fined under this title of imprisoned not more than one year or both.

It is important to note that the law which gives the Court security details the authority to act is specific and it state the type of weapon that is prohibited, “dangerous weapon”, this is to say that not all weapons are prohibited, but dangerous weapons. It is also important to note that this piece of law went as far as to qualify dangerous weapon in when they said “any firearm or other dangerous weapon.”  Meaning that any Firearm or other weapon that is capable of doing or causing a high level of injury and or death with a simple intentional or accidental use in the same manner a firearm does.

There are tons of basic everyday weapon, that can be qualify as dangerous weapon from a pocket knife to a pair of scissors and the list goes on. It is also important that the California law in its effort to describe weapon add a clause “capable of being used as a weapon”. If left alone this will encompass all most everything from a basic ink pen, to a chair, however there is another clause that qualify this, which is; has a history of being used as a weapon. This clause makes all of the difference. I need not elaborate any further but I will end this section by saying, there was nothing in the Oral or dental hygiene kit that met the litmus test of being a weapon and there was nothing dangerous about anything in the kit.

Point 3- U.S Marshall Service personnel and the Paragon Security personnel actions were not in keeping with their professional authority.

The conduct of the Security detail at the federal building in question leaves much to be desired. It was hard to tell, these are men who were trained, and was entrusted with such a serious responsibility. It is highly realistic for anyone with their right mind, who are preforming their duties, taking into consideration the piece of law they are given to work with 18 USC 930, to take a look at the oral or dental Hygiene utensils and conclude that, it is a dangerous weapon and cannot enter into the Federal facility. The defendant hereby conclude that the Security detail had ulterior motives, that such motives trumped their professionalism. Motives that cause them to be blind to their training, professionalism, and sound judgment; and this was evident in their actions. 

Point 4 - The actions of the Security Detail were in violation with the law they were enforcing.

The actions of the security detail put them in violation of the very law they were attempting to enforce, for that law was and is clear. It is a law that is gear to make the Federal premises a place that is safe and conducive for staff to work, as well as a place where the general public to do business and have that assurance that they are safe. This is a balancing act for the authorities, for in order to accomplish this, the authority  walked carefully and properly measured the thin line in order to avoid become an inconvenience to the general public; thus preventing harmless, basic inconsequential tools and or instrument hence the law.  This made it easy for the security at Federal facility, because the authority have taken the guess work out of their assignment and lay down the law if followed will prevent any such conflict.

18 USC 930 – (a)  Except as provided in section (d) whoever knowingly possesses or cause to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon, in a federal facility, (Other than a federal Court Facility) or attempt to do so shall be fined under this title of imprisoned not more than one year or both.

In trying to enforce the above piece of law, the Security detail was in violation of the said section of law. As I said earlier, the operative word in this law is not weapon but “dangerous” and this weapon does not meet litmus test for a weapon which is as out lined above: capable of being used as a weapon - has a history of being used as a weapon.

The tool in question is not capable of being use as a weapon, and does not have a history of being use as a weapon. Therefore, the Security detail behavior was in contradiction to the law they were pretending to up hold.

Point 5 - Federal Law prohibits Discrimination by employees upon federal property.

The actions of the security are reflective of those actions that are protected under the FR 102-74-445, which clearly states: “Federal agencies must not discriminate by segregation or otherwise, against any person or persons because of race, creed, religion age, sex, color, disability or national origin.

One will asked oneself, had it been a lawyer, in my situation, or a Caucasian person, would they have been met with the same childish resistance that I was met with and have been meeting with on my weekly visit to the Federal facility in question. I hereby declare no. I have been going to that facility on a weekly basis for about two years and I have seen many thing; However, I will say this, the security rarely every have a confrontation with any one visiting that facility, but they always have a problem with me. It is important to note that from my experience the people I have seen using that facility are Caucasian, who always get a quick entrance.

We must also remember that: FR 102-74-445 prohibits discriminatory practice on federal property and this includes racial profiling.

CONCLUSION

It is because of the above listed and outlined reason why the defendant in this case is requesting that this court dismissed. The defendant hopes that the court will see the legal moral and ethical value in the above presentation and therefore cause this matter to be immediately dismissed.

Dated this 20^th  day of April, 2018