I was banned for 12 months from a state office building for allegedly making a "terroristic threat" — something I did not do.

Gomez

Gomez

New Member
Jurisdiction
Texas
My Question: can anyone reading this post offer me some insight and/or legal options I can take in regard to this incident?

What Happened: Around two months ago I visited a state agency regarding an issue I was having. All told, I visited on three different occasions, trying to resolve an ongoing problem I was having, and by my third visit determined that I was getting absolutely nowhere. Finally, I asked if there was not someone "higher up" that I could contact to see if they could sort this issue out. But all I was given was the same standard contact number which only led me back to where I had originally started: where I was subjected once again to a long laundry list of telephone menu "options" - none of which could put me in contact with anyone who could properly assist me.

And though I was respectful at all times when dealing with first this employee and then that one, I reemphasized to whomever would listen that I needed to speak with someone "higher up". However, I was told there was no one.

Fast Forward: a week or so later: a knock came at my door and standing there was a USPS postal delivery person, saying he has a Certified Letter for me- one that I needed to sign for. I did, and he left. The Certified Letter said that I had been given a "12 month ban" from the state agency office - which is just a single-story building in the town where I live. However, the Certified Letter had come from my state's capital city - and not from the town where I live.

CERTIFIED LETTER DELIVERY.png

The one page letter gave no reason as to why I had been banned. So, a few days later I emailed the "litigation department" at this state agency and was emailed back that (incredible as it sounds) the attorney refused to provide the reason why - only that I had been banned for 12 months.

Question—Can they do this? With no explanation given? Impose a year-long penalty upon me without clearly stating what I had done? Something that they refuse to state, either verbally or in writing? To my way of thinking, this is clearly a violation of my rights as a citizen. But then, maybe they (being the State) can do whatever they please nowadays with little to no consequence.

Anyway, I would appreciate a fresh set of eyes and ears to weigh in on this - and possibly offer some suggestions as to how I might sort this out.

Thanks.
 
Gomez said:
Fast Forward: a week or so later: a knock came at my door and standing there was a USPS postal delivery person, saying he has a Certified Letter for me- one that I needed to sign for. I did, and he left.
Click to expand...
There is no LEGAL requirement that mandates a person MUST sign for and accept a certified or registered piece of "snail mail". You could have told the carrier, "Sorry, please send the letter back to the sender, please".


Gomez said:
The Certified Letter said that I had been given a "12 month ban" from the state agency office - which is just a single-story building in the town where I live. However, the Certified Letter had come from my state's capital city - and not from the town where I live.
Click to expand...

Obviously your actions were reported to that higher authority you were seeking, who eventually decided not to allow your outbursts to continue by banning you from the facility. Nothing odd, mystical, or confusing about the outcome, resulting from your Hijinks and Shenanigans.

The geographic source of the letter isnt relevant.


Gomez said:
The one page letter gave no reason as to why I had been banned. So, a few days later I emailed the "litigation department" at this state agency and was emailed back that (incredible as it sounds) the attorney refused to provide the reason why - only that I had been banned for 12 months.
Click to expand...

Nothing confusing about your question being ignored. You aren't a member of the judiciary. You're just a citizen of the country, residing in Texas. By the way, as a former presiding judge in a prior life, if I had behaved as you described, I'd have simply, silently accepted the banning I earned.

I wasn't involved in your little escapade. Even I know WHY you're banned, and for what reason. HINT=Annoying, aggravating, exciting, intimidating others very often results in the perpetrator being assaulted, removed on the spot by law enforcement and served with "criminal trespass documents".

(D) a guest of a tenant of an owner described by Paragraph (A) or (B);
(3) the actor:
(A) carries or stores a firearm or firearm ammunition in the condominium apartment or unit owner's apartment or unit;
(B) carries a firearm or firearm ammunition directly en route to or from the condominium apartment or unit owner's apartment or unit;
(C) carries a firearm or firearm ammunition directly en route to or from the actor's vehicle located in a parking area provided for residents or guests of the condominium property; or
(D) carries or stores a firearm or firearm ammunition in the actor's vehicle located in a parking area provided for residents or guests of the condominium property; and
(4) the actor is not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing a firearm or firearm ammunition.
(f-2) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:
(1) the basis on which entry on a leased premises governed by Chapter 92, Property Code, was forbidden is that entry with a firearm or firearm ammunition was forbidden;
(2) the actor is a tenant of the leased premises or the tenant's guest;
(3) the actor:
(A) carries or stores a firearm or firearm ammunition in the tenant's rental unit;
(B) carries a firearm or firearm ammunition directly en route to or from the tenant's rental unit;
(C) carries a firearm or firearm ammunition directly en route to or from the actor's vehicle located in a parking area provided for tenants or guests by the landlord of the leased premises; or
(D) carries or stores a firearm or firearm ammunition in the actor's vehicle located in a parking area provided for tenants or guests by the landlord of the leased premises; and
(4) the actor is not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing a firearm or firearm ammunition.
(f-3) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:
(1) the basis on which entry on a leased premises governed by Chapter 94, Property Code, was forbidden is that entry with a firearm or firearm ammunition was forbidden;
(2) the actor is a tenant of a manufactured home lot or the tenant's guest;
(3) the actor:
(A) carries or stores a firearm or firearm ammunition in the tenant's manufactured home;
(B) carries a firearm or firearm ammunition directly en route to or from the tenant's manufactured home;
(C) carries a firearm or firearm ammunition directly en route to or from the actor's vehicle located in a parking area provided for tenants or tenants' guests by the landlord of the leased premises; or
(D) carries or stores a firearm or firearm ammunition in the actor's vehicle located in a parking area provided for tenants or tenants' guests by the landlord of the leased premises; and
(4) the actor is not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing a firearm or firearm ammunition.
(g) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the actor entered a railroad switching yard or any part of a railroad switching yard and was at that time an employee or a representative of employees exercising a right under the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C. Section 151 et seq.).
(h) At the punishment stage of a trial in which the attorney representing the state seeks the increase in punishment provided by Subsection (d)(3)(A)(iii), the defendant may raise the issue as to whether the defendant entered or remained on or in a critical infrastructure facility as part of a peaceful or lawful assembly, including an attempt to exercise rights guaranteed by state or federal labor laws. If the defendant proves the issue in the affirmative by a preponderance of the evidence, the increase in punishment provided by Subsection (d)(3)(A)(iii) does not apply.
(i) This section does not apply if:
(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun or other weapon was forbidden; and
(2) the actor at the time of the offense was a peace officer, including a commissioned peace officer of a recognized state, or a special investigator under Article 2.122, Code of Criminal Procedure, regardless of whether the peace officer or special investigator was engaged in the actual discharge of an official duty while carrying the weapon.
(j) Repealed by Acts 2009, 81st Leg., ch. 1138, § 4.


saputo.law

The Texas Criminal Trespass Law | Penal Code §30.05

[Updated with 2024 laws] The article provides a comprehensive legal analysis of the Texas Criminal Trespass law in PC §30.05. Learn more here.
saputo.law saputo.law
 
(1) the basis on which entry on a leased premises governed by Chapter 92, Property Code, was forbidden is that entry with a firearm or firearm ammunition was forbidden;

What in the world does the above reference have to do with my posting???

WHAT FIREARM???
 
Gomez said:
(1) the basis on which entry on a leased premises governed by Chapter 92, Property Code, was forbidden is that entry with a firearm or firearm ammunition was forbidden;

What in the world does the above reference have to do with my posting???

WHAT FIREARM???
Click to expand...
laugh.gif
 
Gomez said:
Question—Can they do this? With no explanation given? Impose a year-long penalty upon me without clearly stating what I had done? Something that they refuse to state, either verbally or in writing? To my way of thinking, this is clearly a violation of my rights as a citizen. But then, maybe they (being the State) can do whatever they please nowadays with little to no consequence.
Click to expand...

The answer to that is that state can do that because it is doing it. If what you really want to know if whether you have any recourse for it — whether any of your rights were violated — then I suggest a visit to a Texas civil rights lawyer would be the place to start with this. You may try suing the state to remove the ban. During the course of the litigation your attorney will seek discovery from the state and that will end up revealing exactly why the ban was issued. But you'd have to spend a lot in legal fees to get there.

Bear in mind something: while you thought that you acted properly at all times while in the building, that may not have been how it appeared to others. Humans have the tendency to see their own actions differently than others do. Usually what they see of themselves tends to be more flattering to them than the reality, especially when emotions are running high. They believe their actions perfectly fine considering their motives and what they know of their situation. The problem is that others cannot read your mind to determine whether your cause is righteous or not. I've seen video of people yelling and otherwise being unpleasant to others. When they are asked about it, they don't remember yelling and being unpleasant. Then when shown the tape, they find themselves surprised at what they see. I don't know if you remember what you did accurately or not. I wasn't there to see what you did. I'm just offering this something to consider.

Other than pursuing your complaint, do you see any real need to go to that government building coming up in the next year? If not, then I suggest you simply let it go and let the year run out. It'll cause you less stress and cost you nothing to do that, and you wouldn't lose anything along the way.

One other question: after your first visit was unsuccessful, why didn't you try to contact the head of the agency involved in writing and/or contact your representive on the elected body that oversees the agency to resolve your issue instead of going back to the same people, who are just going to give you the same answer you got before?
 
Tax Counsel said:
The answer to that is that state can do that because it is doing it. If what you really want to know if whether you have any recourse for it — whether any of your rights were violated — then I suggest a visit to a Texas civil rights lawyer would be the place to start with this. You may try suing the state to remove the ban. During the course of the litigation your attorney will seek discovery from the state and that will end up revealing exactly why the ban was issued. But you'd have to spend a lot in legal fees to get there.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the thoughtful, civil answer - something I did not get in regard to the first response.
 

Share this page

Get a free case review from a lawyer
Back
Top