Skip to main content

The Law from Which Defendant Allan H. Palmer was Charged

Titls 4 C/R 102-74-390 

“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”

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Attorney General Reference (Constitution Question) Act. - The Study

            Drocker Street                                                                                  Cell: Los Angeles                                                                        ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Critical observation in the conduct of the prosecutions Objections to dismiss.

            US Prosecutor Miri Song  Here we have a case that was brought before the United States District Court, by federal authorities, against a pro se (Self Represented) defendant. For the United States Government there were three practicing lawyers; their names are it appear on the Objection to the motion to dismiss: Nicola T Hanna , who was responsible for prosecuting this case in the court; Laurance Middleton, and Miri Song . Upon reading the prosecution witnesses written statement, I could see that there was no evidence sufficient for the prosecution to convinced the court that I was guilty of committing the alleged offence. As a result the pro se defendant researched, and prepared, submitted and served on the prosecuting team a motion to dismissed, the matter base of valid legal grounds (Motion to dismissed). As a result the prosecution team which is made up of three train and practicing lawyers, stepped outside the scope of their ...
Post a Comment
Read more

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 decide...
Post a Comment
Read more