Monday, June 1, 2009

Innocent Man Told He is Still Unwelcome at Local Community College: When Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely

Hello, fellow activists. And so, today being Monday June 1st, my little 6 month vacation from the campus of Massasoit Community College is over by a couple of days, and I am free to exercise the same rights and access to community resources as any other citizen.

That's what I thought. The following is a piece I have just written recounting yet another episode in this whole ridiculous mess:


Well, it looks like some folks in the local community are not welcome at Massasoit Community College. Mr. Stanley W. Shura, 37, of Abington, MA will have to find another venue to patronize while he does his writing. It appears that, although he has been found guilty of no crime, which, in hindsight, is because he did not commit one, is nonetheless persona non grata by order of Massasoit's uniformed finest.

Mr. Shura, who suffers from Nonverbal Learning Disability and is taking medication to help deal with this and a comorbid anxiety disorder, has been essentially labelled a criminal for making the mistake of opting on half a dozen occasions over the course of a year, to snooze in his car rather than drive in a condition of drowsiness and compromised attentional and executive functioning facility.

Before he was ever arrested, Shura was even informed by another MCC police officer that he wasn't technically doing anything wrong by his having fallen asleep in his car, even on campus and until after it had officially closed.

He further argued, that he was given the no trespassing notice only after he was arrested, by one officer Christopher O'Sullivan, for violating the terms OF THAT NOTICE.

When he attempted to explain his difficulties with the MCCPD's continued ambiguity and deliberately imprecise nature of this whole prosecution earlier today, one smarmy and rude sergeant Anne Holland retorted "What part of 'not to enter Massasoit property' don't you understand?'

Mr. Shura asked "So how long does this apply, then? I thought that the 6 months had passed and that I was free to exercise the same rights as anybody else."

Sergeant Holland asked Mr. Shura "What exactly do you want to do here?".

Shura replied that he enjoys using their library, mainly to write. Holland snapped back, well you can use the Brockton Public Library, then.

I suppose that is true. I also suppose it's true of anybody else who has made the mistake of bringing their bodies (or their business) to Massasoit Community College. Mr. Shura has stated that he enjoys the academic atmosphere, and that it is conducive to better and more productive writing. In other words, he wants to use a college to engage in scholarly or literary endeavors.

That is one of the functions a community college is supposed to serve. And the campus police are supposed to ensure order and safety SPECIFICALLY toward that end. But these this sergeant, and apparently much of the whole department, sees the law as a tool to weild to their wants, and feels free to ignore it via their position of authority.

One other officer, among the 4 that were present at the time of Mr. Shura's conversation with Sgt. Holland, said to Shura that he may have other actions pending and that it's 'ex post facto' or whatever, communicated to the affirmative when Mr. Shura realized out loud that at least some members of the department had read or been made aware a piece he wrote recounted this whole affair:

As he exited, Mr. Shura said "So THAT'S what this is about", to which sergeant Holland gave an indignant nod.

Upon his subsequent and immediate visit to Brockton Trial Court to discuss this with probation officer Randolph Horton, Brockton Division, Districut Court Department, Shura was patiently explained that although the case is dismissed, the campus police still have the authority to enforce this no trespass order indefinitely.

An incredulous and confused Mr. Shura stammered a question about how that could be so, and how that could possibly be corrected, a gracious but apparently helpless Horton gave a sympathetic "It's their house".

Now, in full disclosure, if it is not plainly obvious already, Mr. Shura is both the above reported witness/defendant as well as the reporter of this piece. In that spirit, and to utilize the license that is my editorial prerogative, I will close with a few personal comments. First - whatever happened to the separation of powers? While violating Ex Post Facto laws are unconstitutional already, and thus quite egregious enough, that the same body charged with the responsibility to enforce the law apparently also has (or takes) the liberty to interpret and draft it as well! When a cop can issue a no trespass warrent just because he doesn't want somebody on campus, that's way too much power.

When that same cop, and his fellow officers can then bully anybody they want into compliance of such an abuse of power, that is a compounding of the illegality and an utter disgrace to any sense of decency.

P.O. Horton suggested to Mr. Shura that he explain to them what he had just said to him, and what he had tried to get out before being hushed and subverted that night by O'Sullivan, and today by Holland, and that it is in fact up to them, not him, to rescind the no trespass order. It is their prerogative.

"It's their house".

What country are we living in again?? Then again, maybe I shouldn't be getting all indignant about the country. I don't think even the state has any idea of the subersion of law and decency that is happening within THEIR and OUR (that is, we the people's) jurisdiction. Maybe they don't know about this.

Not yet.

Well, this writer, and this community member is not about to attempt to re-acquire his illegally stolen rights by kissing the asses of those who so corruptedly took those rights away.

To O'Sullivan, and to Holland, and to any other officer complicit in this charade and transgression of basic justice, you are charged with the responsibility to enforce and UPHOLD the laws prescribed by the people. You are not above them.

You absolutely will be held to account.


Seriously, folks. Are we supposed to yield to the rule of man, or the rule of LAW? Our forefathers have already answered. So must we!

No comments:

Post a Comment