A blatant lie told - Los Angeles Public Libraty

Los Angeles , California 90013 Cell:

Director Eva Micnick 

City of Los Angeles Public Library
630 W 5th Street
Los Angeles
California 90013

10/00/2017

Dear ,

Let me take this opportunity to reintroduce myself to you, my name is Allan H. F. Palmer, about a year ago, I submitted to Director Eva Micknick, an emergency plan, which addressed some deficiencies I say in the plan as it was then. I am pleased to have seen some of the recommendation I put forward in that plan was implemented.

It is with regret, that at this time, I come to you having been a victim of the dishonesty of a member of your staff. And I have to do so by filing a complaint against a member of your staff as well as members of the security detail that is assign to the Central Branch of the City Los Angeles public library. On the issue with the unlawful actions taken against me by the security I will be filing a formal report to the relevant authorities soon. 

I will also bring to you some unlawful practice that is currently enforced at the said branch of public library that must be address as soon as possible. Below I will outline in detail along with the legal argument where such is necessary to prove my point. 

On the evening of Thursday 13th October 2016, I was sitting in the Business department of the main branch of the Los Angeles Public Library which is located at the above address, I was sitting against the eastern of the two four feet high partition that ran from north to south. I was sitting on the most southerly end of that partition, with my back to the north and my face to the south, editing a video for one of my video blogs. It was about 6:25 P.M, when I was approached by two members of the Library security detail. 

My head was down and I was focusing on editing a video, which is quite time consuming and detail process. I do not know how long the security was standing there monitoring me before they approached me. However the lead officer, was standing east and to the back of me. As a result, I turn my body to a point where I can conduct a conversation with him.

I was asked if I can hear them, so I took out my ear phones to better hear what they were saying. At this time on the table before me, I had my backpack and a bag with some cereal in it, which I was eating from before I began the video editing process. The snack I had not touch since I began to edit the video. As the security have verified, they did not see me eating. However I was told, a member of staff called and informed them that, I was eating, they also informed me, (the member of staff), that eating in the library is against library policy and advised me to stop eating and I refused to comply with the policy of the library. 

I informed the security, which was not true. I will make it public here now, that I have been spoken to on a few occasion by member of staff, and each time I complied with their request if I was in violation of the library rules, or I respectfully disagree with them, if I did not share their opinion on any matter when they were wrong; and I had on two occasions respectfully, refused to comply with library security when they have stepped outside of the scope of their authority in providing instruction; for to comply with the library security or authority, would have represented a submission of my rights. Which I have no intention of ever doing if it cannot bring about a better or a greater good.

I will say it here, as I said to the security personnel who came to me. Since I sat in that seat, no one came to and spoke to me; except for the security; I was not spoken to by any member of the public, or a member of the staff. The security then informed me that I have to leave the library for the day. I understood that by the nature of the information, I would have been in violation of Library policy. 

I therefore respectfully, informed the security officers that the information they received was false I asked the security officer to verify the validity of the staff claims and my claims with the person who was sitting in the same area where I was sitting; however, they refused to do so. The reluctance of the security to verify the truthfulness of my story was a clear indication that they were not interesting in the truth and justice but was willing to enforce the library rules arbitrarily regardless of the truth. This is not the first time I have seen this happened. I have intervened on behalf of other library patron, when I see their rights were being violated and I was told by security, who was not concerned about getting to the truth of the matter: it is not my business. 

However I was not detoured, by their blatant willingness to ignore the truth and the frivolousness with which the treated they try to treat me and my input. I fearlessly refused to stay out of the incident and I continue to respectfully not creating a distraction to other patron, make my point of the unfairness of the actions that was being taken against the innocent person. 

While I was making my protest with the security, I saw a lady who had a Mohawk haircut and facial hair in the area of her chin. She was identified as the person who spoke to me, I denied the fact that the lady whose name I later found out to be Michael spoke to me. The lady Michael did not spoke to me, it was the first time I was seeing that lady for the entire day, the small exchange between bother of us in the presence of the security, was the first time, in my life, I have ever spoken to the lady: Michael.

As a result of the whole series of events: I took the liberty to respectfully, informed the security, that on principle and not out of disrespect for them and their authority to enforced library rules, which I am happy to comply with, that I am not leaving because, the lady was lying and therefore I am not in violation of the library rules, which prohibits eating and a request to leave if one fail to comply with the warning to desist from eating. 

The lead security officer then informed me that, if I do not leave I will be in violation of section 602.1b and I can be charge for trespassing, I told him that I understand that, but I am willing to go through the process. He then asked me to get up from the seat, I informed him, this has nothing to do with you personally or you guys officer as a security officer, but I am not cooperating with you on a matter of principle. The security officer asked me if I will like to see the library rules, I told him I am pretty much familiar with the rules of the library.

At this point the Security officers went on this radio and called someone. Then a male security officer, of African descent dressed in Library Security Uniform came to the scene, he wore a three stripes chevron on both the upper arms area of his shirt sleeves, I later found out that the security officer’s name was Senior Security Officer (SSO) Bingley. S.S.O Bingley was very professional in his approach. SSO Bingley was standing in a south easterly position, where we were able to establish eye contact. I explained to him what happened, from my prospective. He said he understood but the library rules are the rules. He then warned me, that if I fail to comply and leave the library, I will be contravention of section 602.1b of the penal code, which is trespassing. Which states: 

602.1b Any person who intentionally interferes with any lawful business carried on by the employees of a public agency open to the public, by obstructing or intimidating those attempting to carry on business, or those persons there to transact business with the public agency, and who refuses to leave the premises of the public agency after being requested to leave by the office manager or a supervisor of the public agency, or by a peace officer acting at the request of the office manager or a supervisor of the public agency, is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for up to 90 days, or by a fine of up to four hundred dollars ($400), or by both that imprisonment and fine.

(c) This section shall not apply to any of the following persons:

(1) Any person engaged in lawful labor union activities that are permitted to be carried out on the property by state or federal law.

(2) Any person on the premises who is engaging in activities protected by the California Constitution or the United States Constitution.

(d) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to supersede the application of any other law.

I respectfully explain to SSO Bingley, as I did to his junior before he came to the scene of the incident; I will not be giving up my rights, and therefore I will not cooperate with them; because to corporate is to give up my rights. SSO Bingley brought section 602.1b to my attention no less than three times and each time he informed me of the offence I told him the same thing. I am not giving up my rights; I will not be cooperating with you. SSO Bingley then removed a pair of hand cuffs from its holster and asked me to give me your hands. I told SSO Bingley, “I am not cooperating with you”, if you need my hands you have got to take it.” It was then he (SSO Bingley) took hold of my left hand, affecting an arrest and therefore taking away my liberty, he then placed a hand cuff on my wrist restraining me. Immediately I felt someone hold onto my right hand. The officer who held my right hand, held onto my wrist with his right hand and with his left hand he held the area of my elbow. I also felt tow hand under my arm pit area, both officers were in the process of lifting me from my seat. 

I then saw SSO Bingley wave his left hand at them apparently signaling them to stop, it was then both officers release their grip on my hand and my arm. SSO Bingley then told me that he is not here to, and neither is he trying to hurt me. He asked me to help him do his job. Although I knew officer Bingley was acting outside of the scope of his duties. My liberty had already been taken away and I was already in restraints (Handcuffs) even though at this time it was only one hand. 

It was not my intent to resist the security officers; however, I was not going to corporate with them. However both of my hands were placed in hand cuffs, I was escorted in hand cuffs to the first floor and into the security office and place to sit on a bench in an area what I assume was a prisoner holding area. 

This incident was the result of a lie Michael who is a members of your staff told, when she claimed that she have fulfilled her obligation to her duties when she did not. As a result, cause the waste of the security’s time and tremendous inconvenience to me; which resulted in my arrest, restraint and detention. With the lack of care and the liberty: Library employee Michael has with the truth, constitutes the quality of a habitual liar, and as a result I can say with a high degree of certainty, this is not the first time, this member of the staff is accused of lying, by Library patron and it may very well be, that it is not the first time she is accused of lying by member (s) of the Library staff. 

The illegality of the arrest, restraint and the detention.

According to SSO Bingley, I was arrested, restrained and detained on the authority of Section 602.1b of the California penal code, which constitutes trespass: 602.1b Any person who intentionally interferes with any lawful business carried on by the employees of a public agency open to the public, by obstructing or intimidating those attempting to carry on business, or those persons there to transact business with the public agency, and who refuses to leave the premises of the public agency after being requested to leave by the office manager or a supervisor of the public agency, or by a peace officer acting at the request of the office manager or a supervisor of the public agency, is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for up to 90 days, or by a fine of up to four hundred dollars ($400), or by both that imprisonment and fine.

The points to prove that there were an infringement of the law are as follows I must have intentionally not inadvertently interfered with some lawful business carried out by at least one employee at the library. 

1. Or my intentional actions may have obstructed at least one library patron who was carrying on business there.
2. Or my intentional behavior must have been proven to have been intimidating to at least one person conducting business at the library. 

I must have refuse to leave the premises after I have been requested to do so by a peace officer or someone in supervisory capacity or higher. 

I can say with a high degree of surety, that my actions did not fall in to the category of any of those points that qualify a person to constitute trespassing according to section 602.1b. This brings into question a very important point. I will say here that this piece of law do not give the Security officers or the police for that fact, do not have the lawful authority to arrest, restrain and detain any patron for refusing to leave the library under the same circumstance. 

It is important to note that, even the police are not an authority onto themselves and they (the police) are required to enforce the law as it is written, not as they presumed or as the complainant will like them to.

Library Security Officers uses fraud to deprive patron of their rights.

According to the Library rules, there is a set protocol, the security officer (s) is expected to follow, when dealing with a person, who is found to be breaking library rules that do not constitute a crime. And there is also a protocol that should be employed to deal with activities that constitute a crime. If a crime is committed, then the security has the rights to detain the offender until the arrival of the police and the same if a patron, is in violation of sec. 602.1a as is outlined on the end of page 4 and continue on page 5.

However the security officers have not been following that protocol, that make up the library rules and therefore have been heavy handedly been evicting patron from the library especially, if they appear to be homeless, and of African descent. It is a double whammy if the person is African American and appear to be homeless.

Such patron is not given the expected warning to desist from the actions (eating, sleeping etc.) and if the patron, choose to persist in his behavior which is neither, criminal or antisocial but is prohibited by the library; I assume to ensure maximum use is derived from the facility and for the maintenance of an environment that is conducive for the purpose for all patron.

It is incumbent that the Library security officers, understand that they are there to ensure that the library rules and policies are complied with, and they themselves ought to comply with the library rules and policies even in the execution of their duties. 

Personal observation:

The library security is stationed at the library to ensure the safety of patron and staff alike. He is there to enforce the library rules, the security officer is a trained person and therefore is not a Library staff puppet. He has an obligation in the absence of the police to, keep order in the library. 

One of his primary function is to ensure that he listen to both side of the complaint.