I could have never imagined I would live the most horrifying experience of my life during my visit to Glacier National Park. I am nearly blind, i.e. no driver's license, but still wanted to see the west, just didn't know how. I had planned this bike trip for over ten years, while I was in graduate school at USC - Los Angeles. I thought I was in a first-world country, until I ended up in jail because I refused to admit something I had not done and did not give up $75. I was banned from entering Glacier NP and prosecuted to the fullest and sent back to jail, even after it became clear I had not broken the law.
Summary
I came to the US in 1996, to start a Ph.D. in Computer Science at the Univ. of Southern California. After graduating, I finally found enough time to go to all the places I always wanted to go: Yosemite, Yellowstone, Glacier, etc. Being blind of one eye and keeping less than 10% vision on the other, I cannot have a driver's license and had to use a bicycle to travel around. On Memorial Day 2009, I went to Glacier Park to ride my bike on the Going-To-The-Sun road towards Logan Pass. I was, however, intercepted by the rangers; I was harassed, threatened and humiliated. Some other person had guessed I might have stolen his money. Ranger Steve Dodd's strategy was to force me to admit guilty and give up $75 of my money, else he would find some other way to hurt me. I invited them to search through all my gear, but I explained I was not going to admit something I had not done. Consequently, Ranger Dodd, after four hours of unsuccessful search, cited and arrested me for having obtained my disability access pass illegally; if I had been on the road, riding my bike, the last several months and "was not paying any rent, lease or mortgage, I could not claim I was residing in the U.S. and therefore obtained my disability pass illegally". Moreover, the next day, with my release from jail, I was banned from entering Glacier Park, unless it was to attend my court hearing on August 21st. As I complained to Glacier Park for Ranger Steve Dodd's practices, they opposed my motion to the court to remove the ban; they argued I was a threat to the safety of the community. They lied to the court, they wrotefalse reports.... They even used the fact that I had filed a complaint to argue "that made me more dangerous". More disturbing, the judge bought the argument and my motion, as well as my complaint, were dismissed. In July, they presented the evidence against me: the disability pass application form with my signed statement that I am permanently disabled and domiciled in the U.S. Although they could verify the accuracy of both statements with my passport, they asked me for a $500 settlement and, as I refused, continued prosecution. During the summer I went to ride my bike on the Beartooth Hwy and Yellowstone. On my way back for the August 21st court hearing, I traveled to Glacier's eastern side. On August 20th I rode my bike from St. Mary to West Glacier through the 'Sun' road, as I thought I could enter the park if it was to attend a hearing. One ranger saw me near Avalanche around 10:30pm and said he would "tell the judge about my behavior". My lawyer tried to explain that the condition read: "I was not allowed in Glacier park except to attend a court hearing" and that was what I was doing the night before. Judge Robert M. Holter, however, put me again in custody, considering I should have used US-2 instead. The judge had previously dismissed, without reading, my motion to have the case dismissed, as it was served by my lawyer. The next Monday, a higher official at the prosecution decided to finally put an end to all that non-sense and dismissed the charge.
I believe what happened to me was wrong. It is a shame to Glacier National Park, it does not represent the people of Montana and should not be acceptable in a country that takes pride of being the leader of the free world. I hope somebody would do something, so that it does not happen again.
I am looking for a lawyer or any person with legal knowledge that may help me assess my legal options against Ranger Steve Dodd and the corruption in Glacier National Park.
I am also looking for any person in the media that may help me publicly expose Ranger Steve Dodd's practices and the corruption in Glacier National Park, as well as bring some democracy to Montana's legal system (law enforcement, attorneys and judges). I have met truly wonderful people in Montana and they certainly do not deserve authorities of this kind.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Friday, November 6, 2009
Motion to Amend Conditions of Release and Advance Hearing Date
See also:
Defendant Javier Bautista, through counsel, hereby moves, pursuant to Rule 46(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and l8 U.S.C. $3142,1 to amend the conditions of release imposed by the Justice Court of Flathead County, Montana. In addition, in an effort to expeditiously resolve this matter, Defendant moves to advance the arraignment date presently set for August 21, 2009. In support of this motion, Defendant states as follows:
1. The Defendant is being charged with "Misappropriation of Property and Services' pursuant to 36 C.F.R. $ 2.30(a)(3).
2. The government's basis for this charge is discussed in the attached brief.
3. On May 26, 2009, the Defendant appeared without counsel before the Justice Court of Flathead County, Montana for his Initial Appearance. The presiding Justice of the Peace released the Defendant upon execution of a bond in the amount of $200.00. The Justice of the Peace also imposed five conditions on release, including that "Defendant shall not enter Glacier National Park except to make Court appearances or for purposes of employment."
4. By law, a judicial officer "shall order the pretrial release of [a] person. . . subject to the least restrictive further condition, or combination of conditions, that such judicial officer determines will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of any other person and the community . . . ." 18 U.S.C.$ 3l42(c)(l)(B) (emphasis added.)
5. As discussed in more detail in the attached brief, the condition that restricts the Defendant from entering Glacier National Park does not serve to assure the appearance of the Defendant at future proceedings, nor is it necessary for the safety of any person or member of the community. The Defendant is not being charged with a dangerous crime, nor has he ever been charged with a dangerous crime.
6. By statute, a "judicial officer may at any time amend [an] order to impose additional or different conditions of release." l8 U.S.C. $ 3142(c)(3).
7. Because the condition barring the Defendant from entering Glacier National Park is not the least restrictive condition necessary under 18 U.S.C. $ 3l42(c)(l)(B), the Defendant requests that this condition be removed.
8. In addition the Defendant seeks to expeditiously resolve this matter. The Defendant's arraignment is presently set for August 21, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. To allow for quick disposition of this matter, the Defendant requests that his date be advanced as the Court's schedule permits.
9. The government has been contacted regarding this motion and has stated its opposition to amending the conditions of release.
WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated herein and in the attached brief in support of this motion, the Defendant respectfully requests that (1) the conditions of release be amended to remove any restriction on entering Glacier National Park and (2) that the next hearing date be advanced to the earliest practicable date.
DATED this 11th day of June 2009.
BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO AMEND CONDITIONS OF RELEASE AND ADVANCE HEARING DATE
Defendant Javier Bautista, through counsel, hereby submits the following brief in support of his motion, pursuant to Rule 46(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and 18 U.S.C. $3142, to amend the conditions of release imposed by the Justice Court of Flathead County, Montana and to advance the arraignment date presently set for August 21, 2009.
This action arises out of Mr. Bautista's use of an allegedly incorrect park pass to enter Glacier National Park. Mr. Bautista is legally blind as a result of cataracts and optic nerve damage that occurred in 1998. He now has less than ten percent vision in one eye, and is blind in the other eye. A particular park pass, called the "AccessPass," is made available for free to individuals with permanent disabilities. By comparison an "AnnualPass" is $35.00. Mr. Bautista applied for and obtained an Access Pass from the U.S. Forest Service after presenting proof of his permanent disability.
The government alleges that Mr. Bautista was ineligible for an Access Pass because he is not a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident. Therefore the government has charged Mr. Bautista with "Misappropriation of Property and Services" under 36 C.F.R. $2.30(a)(3). This regulation prohibits:
Obtaining property or services offered for sale or compensation by means of deception or a statement of past, present or future fact that is instrumental in causing the wrongful transfer of property or services, or using stolen, forged, expired revoked or fraudulently obtained credit cards or paying with negotiable paper on which payment is refused.
36 C.F.R. $ 2.30(a)(3). Mr. Bautista did not obtain an Access Pass through deception or other wrongful conduct, and will plead "Not Guilty" to the government's charges. On May 26, 2009, Mr. Bautista appeared without counsel before the Justice Court of Flathead County, Montana for his Initial Appearance. The presiding Justice of the Peace released Mr. Bautista upon execution of a bond in the amount of $200.00. However, the Justice of the Peace also imposed five conditions on release, including a condition that "Defendant shall not enter Glacier National Park except to make Court appearances or for purposes of employment.' Mr. Bautista challenges the propriety of this condition and requests that it be removed.
By law, a judicial officer "shall order the pretrial release of [a] person. . . subject to the least restrictive further condition, or combination of conditions, that such judicial officer determines will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of any other person and the community . . . .' l8 U.S.C. $ 3l42(c)(l)(B) (emphasis added).
Prohibiting Mr. Bautista from entering Glacier National Park does not serve to further assure his appearance at further proceedings. Furthermore, Mr. Bautista has not been charged with a dangerous crime, and has never been charged with a dangerous crime. Therefore, the restriction on entering Glacier National Park is not necessary for the safety of any person or member of the community.
The prohibition on entering Glacier National Park is wholly unnecessary for any purpose - much less the least restrictive condition that should be imposed to ensure Mr. Bautista's appearance or the safety of others. See 18 U.S.C. $ 3l42(c)(1)(B). Upon purchasing a park pass, there is no legitimate basis to prohibit Mr. Bautista from entering Glacier National Park.
Statute provides that "[t]he judicial officer may at aoy time amend the order to impose additional or different conditions of release." 18 U.S.C. $ 3l42(c)(3). Because the challenged condition is not the least restrictive condition necessary under 18 U.S.C. $ 3l42(c)(l)(B), Mr. Bautista requests that it be removed. To impose this condition without legal basis would violate Mr. Bautista's constitutional rights.
In addition, Mr. Bautista seeks to expeditiously resolve this matter. The arraignment is presently set for August 21, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. However, to allow for quick disposition of this matter, Mr. Bautista requests that his arraignment date be advanced as the Court's schedule permits.
For the reasons stated above, Mr. Bautista respectfully requests that his conditions of release be amended to remove any restriction on entering Glacier National Park. Further, Mr. Bautista requests that his next hearing date be advanced to an earlier date, if possible.
DATED this 11th day of June 2009.
- Government's Response to Motion to Amend Conditions of Release and Advance Hearing Date
- Reply to Government's Response to Motion to Amend Conditions of Release and Advance Hearing Date
- False Government Allegations to the Court
- Order from the Court Denying Motion to Amend Conditions of Release and Advance Hearing Date
Defendant Javier Bautista, through counsel, hereby moves, pursuant to Rule 46(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and l8 U.S.C. $3142,1 to amend the conditions of release imposed by the Justice Court of Flathead County, Montana. In addition, in an effort to expeditiously resolve this matter, Defendant moves to advance the arraignment date presently set for August 21, 2009. In support of this motion, Defendant states as follows:
1. The Defendant is being charged with "Misappropriation of Property and Services' pursuant to 36 C.F.R. $ 2.30(a)(3).
2. The government's basis for this charge is discussed in the attached brief.
3. On May 26, 2009, the Defendant appeared without counsel before the Justice Court of Flathead County, Montana for his Initial Appearance. The presiding Justice of the Peace released the Defendant upon execution of a bond in the amount of $200.00. The Justice of the Peace also imposed five conditions on release, including that "Defendant shall not enter Glacier National Park except to make Court appearances or for purposes of employment."
4. By law, a judicial officer "shall order the pretrial release of [a] person. . . subject to the least restrictive further condition, or combination of conditions, that such judicial officer determines will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of any other person and the community . . . ." 18 U.S.C.$ 3l42(c)(l)(B) (emphasis added.)
5. As discussed in more detail in the attached brief, the condition that restricts the Defendant from entering Glacier National Park does not serve to assure the appearance of the Defendant at future proceedings, nor is it necessary for the safety of any person or member of the community. The Defendant is not being charged with a dangerous crime, nor has he ever been charged with a dangerous crime.
6. By statute, a "judicial officer may at any time amend [an] order to impose additional or different conditions of release." l8 U.S.C. $ 3142(c)(3).
7. Because the condition barring the Defendant from entering Glacier National Park is not the least restrictive condition necessary under 18 U.S.C. $ 3l42(c)(l)(B), the Defendant requests that this condition be removed.
8. In addition the Defendant seeks to expeditiously resolve this matter. The Defendant's arraignment is presently set for August 21, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. To allow for quick disposition of this matter, the Defendant requests that his date be advanced as the Court's schedule permits.
9. The government has been contacted regarding this motion and has stated its opposition to amending the conditions of release.
WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated herein and in the attached brief in support of this motion, the Defendant respectfully requests that (1) the conditions of release be amended to remove any restriction on entering Glacier National Park and (2) that the next hearing date be advanced to the earliest practicable date.
DATED this 11th day of June 2009.
BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO AMEND CONDITIONS OF RELEASE AND ADVANCE HEARING DATE
Defendant Javier Bautista, through counsel, hereby submits the following brief in support of his motion, pursuant to Rule 46(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and 18 U.S.C. $3142, to amend the conditions of release imposed by the Justice Court of Flathead County, Montana and to advance the arraignment date presently set for August 21, 2009.
This action arises out of Mr. Bautista's use of an allegedly incorrect park pass to enter Glacier National Park. Mr. Bautista is legally blind as a result of cataracts and optic nerve damage that occurred in 1998. He now has less than ten percent vision in one eye, and is blind in the other eye. A particular park pass, called the "AccessPass," is made available for free to individuals with permanent disabilities. By comparison an "AnnualPass" is $35.00. Mr. Bautista applied for and obtained an Access Pass from the U.S. Forest Service after presenting proof of his permanent disability.
The government alleges that Mr. Bautista was ineligible for an Access Pass because he is not a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident. Therefore the government has charged Mr. Bautista with "Misappropriation of Property and Services" under 36 C.F.R. $2.30(a)(3). This regulation prohibits:
Obtaining property or services offered for sale or compensation by means of deception or a statement of past, present or future fact that is instrumental in causing the wrongful transfer of property or services, or using stolen, forged, expired revoked or fraudulently obtained credit cards or paying with negotiable paper on which payment is refused.
36 C.F.R. $ 2.30(a)(3). Mr. Bautista did not obtain an Access Pass through deception or other wrongful conduct, and will plead "Not Guilty" to the government's charges. On May 26, 2009, Mr. Bautista appeared without counsel before the Justice Court of Flathead County, Montana for his Initial Appearance. The presiding Justice of the Peace released Mr. Bautista upon execution of a bond in the amount of $200.00. However, the Justice of the Peace also imposed five conditions on release, including a condition that "Defendant shall not enter Glacier National Park except to make Court appearances or for purposes of employment.' Mr. Bautista challenges the propriety of this condition and requests that it be removed.
By law, a judicial officer "shall order the pretrial release of [a] person. . . subject to the least restrictive further condition, or combination of conditions, that such judicial officer determines will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of any other person and the community . . . .' l8 U.S.C. $ 3l42(c)(l)(B) (emphasis added).
Prohibiting Mr. Bautista from entering Glacier National Park does not serve to further assure his appearance at further proceedings. Furthermore, Mr. Bautista has not been charged with a dangerous crime, and has never been charged with a dangerous crime. Therefore, the restriction on entering Glacier National Park is not necessary for the safety of any person or member of the community.
The prohibition on entering Glacier National Park is wholly unnecessary for any purpose - much less the least restrictive condition that should be imposed to ensure Mr. Bautista's appearance or the safety of others. See 18 U.S.C. $ 3l42(c)(1)(B). Upon purchasing a park pass, there is no legitimate basis to prohibit Mr. Bautista from entering Glacier National Park.
Statute provides that "[t]he judicial officer may at aoy time amend the order to impose additional or different conditions of release." 18 U.S.C. $ 3l42(c)(3). Because the challenged condition is not the least restrictive condition necessary under 18 U.S.C. $ 3l42(c)(l)(B), Mr. Bautista requests that it be removed. To impose this condition without legal basis would violate Mr. Bautista's constitutional rights.
In addition, Mr. Bautista seeks to expeditiously resolve this matter. The arraignment is presently set for August 21, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. However, to allow for quick disposition of this matter, Mr. Bautista requests that his arraignment date be advanced as the Court's schedule permits.
For the reasons stated above, Mr. Bautista respectfully requests that his conditions of release be amended to remove any restriction on entering Glacier National Park. Further, Mr. Bautista requests that his next hearing date be advanced to an earlier date, if possible.
DATED this 11th day of June 2009.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Order from the Court Denying Metion
See also:
Before the Court is Defendant Javier Bautista's Motion to Amend Conditions of Release and Advance Hearing Date and the United States' Response. Defendant seeks to remove the condition set by Justice of the Peace Ortley that he "shall not enter Glacier National Park except to make court appearances or for purposes of employment.' Defendant also seeks to advance his appearance, currently scheduled for August 21, 2009.
First, Defendant has not shown that there is any new information, that was not known to him at the time of his initial detention hearing before Justice of the Peace Ortley, that has a material bearing on the issue of his conditions of release. See 18 U.S.C. S 3142(f).
Absent this showing, he is not entitled to a new detention hearing. Id. Further, the facts left out of Defendant's brief, but offered by the United States, show that the condition in question is necessary to ensure the safety of the community.
Second, Defendant's currently scheduled hearing date is the first available date in Glacier National Park. It w1ll not be advanced.
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Defendant's Motion to Amend Conditions of Release and Advance Hearing Date iS DENIED.
2. Defendant's appearance remains scheduled for Friday, August 21, 2009 at 9:00 in West Glacier, Montana.
DATED this 30th day of June, 2009.
See also:
- Motion to Amend Conditions of Release and Advance Hearing Date
- Government's Response to Motion to Amend Conditions of Release and Advance Hearing Date
- Reply to Government's Response to Motion to Amend Conditions of Release and Advance Hearing Date
- False Government Allegations to the Court
- Order from the Court Denying Motion to Amend Conditions of Release and Advance Hearing Date
Before the Court is Defendant Javier Bautista's Motion to Amend Conditions of Release and Advance Hearing Date and the United States' Response. Defendant seeks to remove the condition set by Justice of the Peace Ortley that he "shall not enter Glacier National Park except to make court appearances or for purposes of employment.' Defendant also seeks to advance his appearance, currently scheduled for August 21, 2009.
First, Defendant has not shown that there is any new information, that was not known to him at the time of his initial detention hearing before Justice of the Peace Ortley, that has a material bearing on the issue of his conditions of release. See 18 U.S.C. S 3142(f).
Absent this showing, he is not entitled to a new detention hearing. Id. Further, the facts left out of Defendant's brief, but offered by the United States, show that the condition in question is necessary to ensure the safety of the community.
Second, Defendant's currently scheduled hearing date is the first available date in Glacier National Park. It w1ll not be advanced.
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Defendant's Motion to Amend Conditions of Release and Advance Hearing Date iS DENIED.
2. Defendant's appearance remains scheduled for Friday, August 21, 2009 at 9:00 in West Glacier, Montana.
DATED this 30th day of June, 2009.
See also:
- Motion to Amend Conditions of Release and Advance Hearing Date
- Government's Response to Motion to Amend Conditions of Release and Advance Hearing Date
- Reply to Government's Response to Motion to Amend Conditions of Release and Advance Hearing Date
- False Government Allegations to the Court
- Order from the Court Denying Motion to Amend Conditions of Release and Advance Hearing Date
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Ray of Hope Homeless Shelter Incident
For a grown up adult, to give any kind of serious consideration to the 'Ray of Hope Shower' incident is not a good indication of his/her intellectual level. I really believe it is a waste of time to talk and read about it. However, in order to not allow any margin for speculation, I decided I will clarify what happened at Ray of Hope.
I stayed at the Ray of Hope Shelter about a couple of weeks. The shelter is meant for homeless individuals, yet I am not homeless. The shelter does not have any ttime-limit like most other homeless shelters, however, they expect their homeless residents to keep an active job search. I was, however, spending most of my time in the library, working on the internet, instead of looking for a job. They did not like that.
Aaron, one of my roommates, got the idea that he would leave the fan on during the night, because the noise helped him sleep. After a few nights I asked Aaron if he would mind to keep the fan low, as the noise would not let me sleep. He declined. Few days later, at 4am in the morning, I thought I would turn off the fan, as I could not sleep. I understood Aaron would not need the fan anymore at 4am. Aaron, however, got mad at me. A couple of days later he told Rick, the shelter's manager, I never shower. That night Rick told me: "it had come to his attention that I had not showered since the day I came to the shelter". I protested that was ridiculous, I was showering on a daily basis, certainly more ofter than most other residents. Three days later, at 10pm, when it was time to go to bed, Rick told me I had to shower. I did not understand him very clearly, I was not sure of what he said, but I clarified I had already showered that morning. He left without any further explanation. Just in case, before going to bed, I decided to go to the bathroom and clean up. I cleaned up my upper body. Then I went to bed. As I was in bed, Rick came to tell me I had to leave, because he had given me until 10:30pm to shower and I had not. Rick left the room immediately and went downstairs. I put my clothes back on and went downstairs to find some explanation. Rick repeated I had to leave because I would not obey.I clarified that I was showering on a daily basis, I had showered that morning and I had cleaned up after he told me... Then the owner's son came to say the arguments was over and I had ten minutes to pack and leave or he would call "the cops". I explained him it would be impossible for me to pack all my gear in ten minutes; it normally takes me a couple of hours and now the lights were off and everybody was sleeping in my room. He replied I now had 9 minutes. As I protested, he kept counting: 8, 7, 6, 5... As I knew I had not done anything wrong, I had nothing to fear from the police, I suggested he call the police right away; that will allow me get an explanation and have some reasonable person hear me. They then hesitated about calling the police; but I insisted.
When the officers arrived I explained them my problem. The officers patiently listened to me as well as the owner's son. Once we both finished, the officers asked if I would be allowed to stay if I shower. They had to look for Rick to answer, since Rick had gone downstairs to avoid getting involved. Rick stated that the rules say I would be allowed to stay as long as I shower. The officers then asked me if I would accept to shower. I insisted I had never had any problem to do so. Finally the officers left, I went back to the shower, went to bed and left the Ray of Hope shelter the next morning.
The above description is the treuth about the "Ray of Hope Shower Incident". The couple of weeks I stayed at the Ray of Hope Homeless Shelter in Kalispell were horrible. Most of the shelter's personnel were truly horrible people: the owner, Peggy, her son, Rick degrade the shelter's residents as normal form of treatment. The humiliation I suffered was no exception. That is the treatment most other residents were and are receiving. As Kevin, some other resident, said, the atmosphere at the shelter was like walking on egg shells. you had to watch anything you say, anything you do, because they were "giving you shit" at all times. There is no doubt in my mind that if anybody has any reason to complain is me, not the shelter. It really pisses me off that, after the humiliation and degradation I suffered at the Ray of Hope Homeless shelter, the government even manipulated the story and used it to attack me.
I stayed at the Ray of Hope Shelter about a couple of weeks. The shelter is meant for homeless individuals, yet I am not homeless. The shelter does not have any ttime-limit like most other homeless shelters, however, they expect their homeless residents to keep an active job search. I was, however, spending most of my time in the library, working on the internet, instead of looking for a job. They did not like that.
Aaron, one of my roommates, got the idea that he would leave the fan on during the night, because the noise helped him sleep. After a few nights I asked Aaron if he would mind to keep the fan low, as the noise would not let me sleep. He declined. Few days later, at 4am in the morning, I thought I would turn off the fan, as I could not sleep. I understood Aaron would not need the fan anymore at 4am. Aaron, however, got mad at me. A couple of days later he told Rick, the shelter's manager, I never shower. That night Rick told me: "it had come to his attention that I had not showered since the day I came to the shelter". I protested that was ridiculous, I was showering on a daily basis, certainly more ofter than most other residents. Three days later, at 10pm, when it was time to go to bed, Rick told me I had to shower. I did not understand him very clearly, I was not sure of what he said, but I clarified I had already showered that morning. He left without any further explanation. Just in case, before going to bed, I decided to go to the bathroom and clean up. I cleaned up my upper body. Then I went to bed. As I was in bed, Rick came to tell me I had to leave, because he had given me until 10:30pm to shower and I had not. Rick left the room immediately and went downstairs. I put my clothes back on and went downstairs to find some explanation. Rick repeated I had to leave because I would not obey.I clarified that I was showering on a daily basis, I had showered that morning and I had cleaned up after he told me... Then the owner's son came to say the arguments was over and I had ten minutes to pack and leave or he would call "the cops". I explained him it would be impossible for me to pack all my gear in ten minutes; it normally takes me a couple of hours and now the lights were off and everybody was sleeping in my room. He replied I now had 9 minutes. As I protested, he kept counting: 8, 7, 6, 5... As I knew I had not done anything wrong, I had nothing to fear from the police, I suggested he call the police right away; that will allow me get an explanation and have some reasonable person hear me. They then hesitated about calling the police; but I insisted.
When the officers arrived I explained them my problem. The officers patiently listened to me as well as the owner's son. Once we both finished, the officers asked if I would be allowed to stay if I shower. They had to look for Rick to answer, since Rick had gone downstairs to avoid getting involved. Rick stated that the rules say I would be allowed to stay as long as I shower. The officers then asked me if I would accept to shower. I insisted I had never had any problem to do so. Finally the officers left, I went back to the shower, went to bed and left the Ray of Hope shelter the next morning.
The above description is the treuth about the "Ray of Hope Shower Incident". The couple of weeks I stayed at the Ray of Hope Homeless Shelter in Kalispell were horrible. Most of the shelter's personnel were truly horrible people: the owner, Peggy, her son, Rick degrade the shelter's residents as normal form of treatment. The humiliation I suffered was no exception. That is the treatment most other residents were and are receiving. As Kevin, some other resident, said, the atmosphere at the shelter was like walking on egg shells. you had to watch anything you say, anything you do, because they were "giving you shit" at all times. There is no doubt in my mind that if anybody has any reason to complain is me, not the shelter. It really pisses me off that, after the humiliation and degradation I suffered at the Ray of Hope Homeless shelter, the government even manipulated the story and used it to attack me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)