Westfield

I am from san gabriel valley i donot a[ppreciate seeing los angeles labels on every thing concerning san gab valley please take the tim e out and understand the valley shopuld not be labels for the city of klos angeles i believe that people concerning are district should under stand the signs that have clear view in are citys that are a combined area code perhaps zip coeds for san gabriekl valley consist of westr field not basically understanding that lake wood or either whittier cerritos and nor walk maybe even montebello are the local citys taken into considerration pay attenttion about advertisement for the san gabriel valley

Somewhere between fact and fiction lies the belief of Westfield UTC www.westfield.com/utc/ 4545 La Jolla Village Drive, San Diego, CA 92122, Mall Manager Ryan Perry 4215 Adler Street, San Diego 92116, and Westfield UTC Mall Security Director Christian Quinn , 2705 Plumeria Drive, Carlsbad, Ca, 92009 of Profession Security Consultants, www.PSCSITE.com , which is operated by www.caseglobal.com , Haskel Arbel, 22441 Burbank Blvd. Woodland Hills, Ca 91367, is the belief that huffing and puffing will blow this little house down. Specifically, concerns regarding an abducted child and the fact of *** activity in the parking lot of a family oriented mall was followed up by the decision of Westfield UTC management to throw a fit and call a friend at Northern Division of the San Diego Police who acted like ho responding to the demands of her pimp – likely due to the amount of taxes paid by Westfield UTC to the City of San Diego – thus a female lieutenant calls and harasses in an effort to quiet down the fact how UTC management believes bringing lawful conduct to its attention is somehow construed as harassment. Was a police report taken? No. Police investigation conducted? No. Did a patrol officer respond? No. Then why police involvement for non-criminal conduct? Pure oppression of speech.

In lieu of Westfield UTC taking any action of having actual knowledge an abducted child and the child’s captor frequented University Towne Center, and the fact *** conduct occurs on mall property, they closed their eyes and pretend the problem does not exist and instead of simply emailing “please do not contact us” they call a *** of a cop at Northern Division, 4275 Eastgate Mall, San Diego, Ca 92122, who is willing to drop to her knees to harass a man who simply brought concerns to the attention of Westfield UTC management. In short, the lieutenant was not investigating criminal conduct but simply made a courtesy call to harass a person to cease bringing up embarrassing information that Westfield UTC management has failed to act on. Imagine if the common person could called a high ranking member of the police department to ‘send a message’ to a neighbor, or other person who has not committed a crime, but just feel annoyed by. Well – that is the exact luxury Westfield UTC invoked as a high paying tax payer in which the common person does not enjoy. (Hence the Pimp n Ho analogy !) Really, how many of us have the luxury of needing the police and a lieutenant shows up?

Next, in an effort to dissuade further embarrassing facts how Westfield UTC fails to utilize its security officers to promote a safe environment, the lieutenant said if further contact (literally 2-3 email) could be construed as harassment to prevent future visits to the mall. This is the pinnacle of stupidity for such a high ranking person in the police department. Specifically, harassment is defined in California Civil Code Section 526.7(b) “For the purposes of this section, "harassment" is unlawful violence, a credible threat of violence, or a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, or harasses the person, and that serves no legitimate purpose.” See also, Falossi v. Koenig, No. E048400, 2010 Westlaw 438**** (Cal. Ct. App. November 5, 2010).Thus, by simply sending a few email bringing issues to the concern of UTC management hardly comports with what harassment could be construed as. Therefore, to allege continuing to inform Westfield UTC management of potential unlawful conduct as being harassment is worthy to note as the pinnacle of stupidity and incompetence.

Further missing from the belief a person can be expelled from a mall is the fact a right to the freedom of speech on mall property exists. Recently, the California Supreme Court explained that a shopping mall is a public forum because it is analogous to other spaces that have “immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts Fashion Valley Mall, 172 P.3d at 745-46 (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, Westfield UTC will only continue the much needed attention it deserved with its cyclical whining while staying within my First Amendment Right and may provoke a series of demonstrations by people who not like UTC management promoting *** conduct on its property by its inaction as well as allowing an abducted child to remain free with his captor while on mall property due to the continued inaction of mall security is gross incompetence of both Mall Manager Ryan Perry SCSM and Professional Security Consultants www.PSCSITE.com in my opinion since it allows an abducted child to remain free and men giving other men oral sex in the parking lot with such confidence it appears openly advertising it online is without consequence.

Note: Addresses of pertinent people listed in the first paragraph are a public record and ask concerns about Westfield UTC management not taking an abducted child seriously who has been their mall repeatedly with his captor, and the fact *** conduct runs rampant in the mall to address your concerns in a civilized manner. For a well noted legal discussion on republishing public records, see, Harvard Law Review 124 Harv. L. Rev. 616 December, 2010 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - FIRST AMENDMENT - FOURTH CIRCUIT HOLDS THAT REPUBLISHING SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS GLEANED FROM ONLINE PUBLIC RECORDS IS PROTECTED SPEECH. - OSTERGREN V. CUCCINELLI, 615 F.3D 263 (4TH CIR. 2010). See also posting of abortion doctors home addresses online without more is not a “true threat”, Planned Parenthood of the Columbia/Willamette, Inc. v. American Coalition of Life Activists, 290 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2002), thus this post is strictly legal and will evolve to be strictly embarrassing as more names are added.