Oppressive behavior District Court Security - George Gaman

Virginia A. Philips

Courtroom 8A, 8th Floor

350 West 1st Street

Los Angeles, CA 90012

12/27/2017

On the week of December 15th, 2017, I paid a visit to the US district court which is located at 312 N Spring Street, Los Angeles California, 90012. A process I have been doing for the pass two and a half years, on a weekly basis. On this occasion while clearing security, I asked the security person (Court Security) if it was ok for me to take my pepper sauce into the court house. The reason why I asked him this question, the content of the product was stored in a glass bottle.

I am aware that some institution do not allow glass bottle in their facility, because it has the potential to be used as a weapon if broken a sharp edge tool, and or a missile. I also had two bottles of water stored in the outside pocket of my bag. The security said he will like to see the hot sauce. So I took out the hot sauce and place it in a container where it could be visible to the Court Security. 

After showing him my ID, he asked me to put some of the hot sauce on my skin and taste it with my tongue. Of course I did not comply with his instruction, because I know that hot sauce are a skin irritant and can cause painful severe irritation. Another thing is, such can be easily be transferred to one’s eyes. This instruction alone let me know that he was just making things up. For one thing, This is a procedure that is use when a prisoner in the custody of some law enforcement authority is allowed the privilege of consuming food commodity from an outside source. I was not at the court to see a prisoner, I was there to do business at the clerk’s office.

Then he asked me to take a sip of the water, I asked him why am I required to take a sip of the water, for after coming to this facility for the past two years and a half, I always have water with me and I was never asked to consume my water for any purpose.  In offering an explanation the Court Security (Court Marshall) said, it is to ensure that no one bring into the court any explosive, such as nitro. I also know his explanation is a silly one because, Nitro cannot be contained in low grade glass battle, and it surely cannot be placed in low grade plastic battles which are used to store retail battle water. There is no known explosive that can be safely stored in such low grade cheap commercial containers However, I was in a hurry, and was not in a mood to get into an argument that will reach as far as summoning the supervisor to deal with the situation. So I sip the water and went along my way.

In the two and a half years of visiting the 9 Circuit office, especially the District court office, which I do on an average of once a week; I was never asked and I have never seen anyone asked to consume their water as a prerequisite to clearing security.

I know this will happen again, because I have recognized a pattern in the treatment that is dispensed to black people, especially those who are not formally dressed and may be construed to be a lawyer of some other person of societal importance. This is not the first time; I have had such encounter at that office.

As a result I did not due diligence, I went to the District Court website just to verify a change in their security police. Because I know it is the custom of such agencies to publish any such change in operational policies if such police is going to directly impact the public while they conduct business at their facility. The idea is not to inconvenience the general public but to make the place safer for all of the stake holders; the users of the facility. I also know it is against the police of the District Court to have its staff, be it security, clerical or judiciary staff to profile any member of the public who uses its facility as a litigant in a case, a witness or a prisoner, or a court officer and discriminate against those people base of what every profile picture was created for the victim of negative treatment, poor attitudinal behavior etc. This is not only immorally and ethically wrong it is also illegal.

On Tuesday 19^th , December 2017, at 3:35 P.M. I visited the US District Court once again, I took my time and I began to prepare to clear security, take my electronic, out of my bag, get out my identifications, etc. While I noticed there were one official court security at the post and there were two private securities from a private security firm Paragan Private Security firm manning the scanning machine. Because I was expecting a replete of the previous week’s shenanigans, I decided to observe all of their actions covertly. I notice the Court security officer summon the fellow who was operating the scanning conveyer machine, and whispered to him. I suspected what he had whispered to the Paragen security. 

So I patiently waited, to take a stand and to get some clarity to this profiling and discriminatory treatment. It was then the instruction came you have to drink some of the water, in order to pass security. I told him I am not drinking any of the water, because It is not a requirement to pass security, and I quickly asked him why do you want me to drink some of my water. He did not know the answer to the question and he quickly called the regular court security to deal with the matter.

When confronted by why do you want me to drink some of the water and it is not a prerequisite to enter the facility he said it is our policy. I then asked well if it is a policy where can I see this policy. He said it is not written. I immediately informed him that if it is not written then it is not a policy. And I further said it is the policy for such institution to publish for the public information, any new police that will have a direct impact upon the general public using the facility. For the simple fact it is not the agencies and or institution’s objective to become a nuisance to the general public, but to facilitate fast and efficient access to the facility and its services.

I then request to see the supervisor, so while I was standing there two armed men dressed in the uniform of the court security along with four armed Paragon security came to the security check in area. One of the men introduced himself as the supervisor George Gamman, attempt justify why I should take a drink of the water. He said It is the policy of the court, I challenged him that it is not the policy, then I asked him to show or tell me where I can view this policy. He to declared that it is not a written policy.

I took the time and rationally informed him that any such policies that affects the general public are always published for the information of the public, especially when such will directly affect the general public. At this time George Gamman said I am making things up.  Security officer Gamman does not know me, why would he think I will be making up, a common practice that is a part of: federal, state, county and city protocol. I could not help it that my knowledge on these issues are more advance that the knowledge of George Gamman.

However it is common knowledge that such policies are written and published for public information and these policies are normally passed down to staff in written directive. This way the staff and the public will be on the same page as it relates to expectation when accessing the services needed. This new and rogue enforcement cannot be common practice because it have not been common enough to be implemented one time in the pass two and a half years I have been visiting that facility. According to the court website which deal with security: https://www.courts.ri.gov/PublicResources/PDF/Court_House_Rules.pdf. Retail bottle water is a safe product that can be taken into the court and members of the public who are so entering should not be harass by the security neither the court Marshall nor Paragon Security ass it related to such. This type of behavior is not only prejudicial it is oppressive, an abuse of power and highly unethical.

Because certain profiled people are targeted for difficult treatment one are left to wonder; what is the underlining motive behind such behavior.

1.    Could it be the initial the type of intimidation that precedes a shake down?

2.    Could this be a tactic that is use to dissuade certain people from coming to the court and thus prevent them from taking legal steps against certain people.  As a favor or paid execution.

Whatever the underlying animus of these men are; these types of behaviors are dangerous and are unfriendly to certain demographic and could become a deterrent in the pursuit of Justice within certain demographic and certain people with poor experience with law enforcement and uniform authority.

However, George Gamman was encouraged by a second Court Security, who appeared to have something to prove who threaten to throw my stuff out of the court because I was not moving too fast enough for him. Even in the light I was the only person who was at the security check point for the entire duration of the scene.

Court Security Officer Supervisor Gamman insisted that I will not be entering the court unless I clear security; what he was really saying was, I will not be allowed into the District Court unless I comply with their unlawful demand on me. It is ironic that the authority who are qualify to make decision after careful study as to what conditions are consider safe for all involved, meaning court staff and the public and to facilitate a quick and productive visit to the court are made complex by the lowest ranking in the order of court authority, are compromising the years of hard work and causing a bad reflection on the federal court system.

The question the authority must ask is how you translate Security office George Gaman’s actions. I will say here, the bottle water which was the reason for the whole fiasco is not a new invention, and it is commonly used none nutritional but essential food item. I am sure that powers that be, (the professional in their field), who were given the task, to ensure the safety of the people using the Federal/District Court, employed their skills, training, good judgment and common sense, in coming up with the list of prohibited items, and the understanding of how certain things work and the improvement of technology were able to take item off of the list when they did not pose an immediate or a general threat to the safety of all, did not see it fit to have commercial retail bottle water on the list of prohibited items. 

What the officer did in denying me my rights to enter the facility and to use the service at the facility was to say to those people; they do not know what they were doing and he, George Gaman is more qualified, and better trained in their field of training and expertise than they are and therefore, she is the only official authority there is and he in her assumed role has the power to make the rules, policies and law and enforced them at his pleasure and delight. And no one can hold her accountable.

I hope that the court authority will see it fit, to stamp out any such oppressive behavior and arrogance that undermine those who were assigned to be the administrative and brain guardian of the facilities and those who work and visit the facilities.

Sign.    Allan H. F. Palmer

Cc. David L. Harlow