Alejandro harasses me every time I sit down in Starbucks, in spite of the fact that Corporate has informed me in writing that 'a customer is anyone on the premises, regardless of what that person orders or when that person orders it.' I have related this fact to Alejandro. At 5PM 11/22/16 Alejandro had a man (short heavy, dark disheveled longish hair, with a baby face, about twenty years old) by the name of Rhys Freeman (he probably gave me a fake name) come to my table and demand that I order, when I told him that I know Alejandro is putting him up to harassing me, Rhys Freeman insisted that Alejandro left, and that the policy "at all restaurants I know of" is that customers must order as soon as the arrive. I pointed out that Alejandro was standing behind him, I asked to see the Policy and informed him that a POLICY is a legal document that must be on file with the city attorney and the police department. An edict is an unlawful abuse of authority and both he and Alejandro can be ARRESTED since their EDICT is not a Policy, but rather is HARASSMENT. I told Rhys Freeman that Alejandro has been harassing me with unlawful edicts for several years. I have asked Alejandro's staff to stop harassing me numerous times, I told Rhys Freeman that I am working on a murder case that demands my undivided attention so "I am going to buy something just to get you to stop harassing me," so that I can get back to work on my computer. He responded by telling me that he is too busy to look for the Policy at issue, he then told me that Alejandro told him the purchase would have to be consumed then and there, (a pack of almonds) I replied, "just throw it in the trash and leave me alone or I will have you arrested for relentlessly annoying and harassing me. Harassment is civilly and criminally actionable: A conviction in civil court carries damages from $10,000 and up. Since Alejandro and his fellow bully Starbucks employees insist on harassing me while my voice activated tape recorded is worn, there is ample evidence of their criminal and civilly actionable illegal violative conduct. If it were merely a matter of petty inadequate individuals with nothing better to do I could tolerate it,there are plenty of stupid pests in the world, but these irritating employees claim to be acting at the behest of and under the authority of Starbucks. Starbucks is libel for it's employee's subordinate conduct. And more importantly one must ask oneself what kind of ignorant low wage idiots take satisfaction from bothering respectable people who actually have a life as contributing members of society? A. Unconsciousness representatives of Starbucks.
HARASSMENT: California Penal Code §646.9(e) defines harassed as a "knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, torments, or terrorizes the person, and that serves no legitimate purpose. This course of conduct must be such as would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress and must actually cause substantial emotional distress."
Course of conduct is defined as a "pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose." Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of course of conduct. Repeatedly is defined as "on more than one occasion."
Sentencing Under Penal Code §646.9(a), three years in state prison, even if there is no restraining order in effect. However, if there is a restraining order or any other protective court order in effect, he or she could be sentenced up to four years in state prison.
If the defendant was previously convicted of stalking (§646.9), criminal threats (§422), domestic battery (§273.5), or a felony violation of a restraining order, a five-year sentence can be imposed.
Other provisions of Penal Code §646.9 provide that the sentencing court may issue a restraining order against the defendant that is valid for up to ten years, read more