刑事犯罪就是一场闹剧而已

Room 227为公共开放区域，没有锁门，2015年7月2日Ms. Bowman在4点钟说我不是OU人员，不能使用Room 227或者其他开放区域：The reason that I can not use the ARC open space is that I am not affiliated with OU. 
 

在我给她解释了我的情况后，她说如果任何教授允许我使用他们的区域，"it is up to them"，只要我能得到许可。我还和她证实了一遍，“do you mean that I can study here if I get permision?”，她说“yes, you can if you can get permission, but I doubt it”.

 

2015年7月2日6点30分我给工程学院的Dean Irvin发了email之后，便看到了Dr. Coschigano，询问Dr. Coschigano我能否在她办公室门外的桌子上准备论文，并告诉她我是密苏里大学的博士生。她很奇怪，说ARC有很多开放区域，人人都能用。。。我告诉她说“I was told that I can not use the publicly open space because I am not affiliated with OU. In order to use the ARC, I must get permission”. Dr. Coschigano可能认为门口桌子不适合学习，告诉我说跟我来我们有一个会议室（Room 303），夏天基本空着，你可以在这里准备论文。她给我开了门，并且留了门以便我使用。

 

2015年7月6日早，打扫卫生的人吧会议室的门锁了，我一早去的时候无法进入，所以便去找Dr. Coschigano，但是她不在办公室，碰巧Dr. Aili Guo的办公室就在斜对面，我自我介绍了一下自己，并如实相告，她为我开了门，并且说今后要用Room303，可以找她，但是她周二要门诊，如果她碰巧不在，可以找Dr. Coschigano。。。

 

另外，2015年7月7日，在接到工程学院信件时，我分别与4点5点回信告知我得到了教授许可，“please let know if there is any problem”，我并没有得到任何答复。至于说prohibition，那是在2015年7月9日HR发信给ARC，要求员工不要给予许可。在此之前，根本没有任何valid prohibition，除了一个conditional prohibition： I can not study in the ARC publicly open space because I am not affiliated with OU, but I can work in the non-publicly open space if I can get permission from the faculty

 

以上在法庭上都得到证实：看一下Ms. Bowman的10：24 AM的报警记录，再看一下她的荒谬逻辑，以及她和警察的撒谎，看一下Public defender's office 调查证明Ms. Bowman 和图书馆偷书人员connected。。。如果我有罪，为什么他们要撒谎，为什么要制造我是中共间谍谣言误导陪审团。。。

 

有几个问题： 

1. Can university faculty and staff arbitrarily tell people not to study in public spaces?

The ARC is well known to be open to the public, as the Dean from the Engineering department stated in the police report that the ARC is open to the public 24/7.

 

2. Does behaving in accordance with rules and directions constitute a crime?

Even if the ARC were not a public space, Ms. Bxxxxx from the College of Engineering stated on July 2, 2015 that once I got permission from the OU faculty I could study at the ARC. I did get permission from two professors on July 2 and July 6, 2015. Both of them stated clearly during the jury trial of Sept. 29, 2015 that they opened the door to Room 303 for me, they gave permission for me to study there, and they had authority to do so.

 

3. Regardless of this, which does the U.S. constitution deem a crime, (1) my study in the area of College of Medicine with permission from College of Medicine professors, or (2) the report from the College of Engineering staff to the police with biased and misleading information that resulted in my arrest, criminal charge, dismissal from my doctoral program, and illegal immigration status…?

 

During the jury trial of Sept. 29, 2015, Ms. Bxxxxx told lies and denied her statement about my ability to study at the ARC under the precondition of getting permission from OU faculty. The policemen from OUPD told lies and said that I did not show them the permission email on the day of my being arrested. Even with their lies ignored, does a person’s use of the area with permission from authorized agents constitute a crime?

 

4. It is uncontroverted that authorized agents, two professors from the College of Medicine, gave me permission to use ARC Room 303. Against the manifest weight of evidence and in the absence of sufficient evidence, is a criminal-trespass conviction still valid when I had expressed permission to be where I was from authorized agents?

 

最后再看看上诉法庭的如何扭曲事实、滥用逻辑，一切答案尽在其中！