Michael Zeleny (larvatus) wrote,
Michael Zeleny

your choice of my venue

"William L. McClure", "Cindy S. Elmquist"
Jorgenson, Siegel, McClure & Flegel, LLP
1100 Alma Street, Suite 210
Menlo Park, CA 94025
650-324-9300 Phone
650-324-0227 Fax

"David C. Bertini", "Matt L. Milde", "Cherise Brandell"
701 Laurel St. Menlo Park, CA 94025

Dear Mr McClure,

I have received your second denial, dated 4 May 2016, of my amended application for a special event permit, submitted on 15 April 2016. My second appeal follows.

With respect to your complaint regarding my application being incomplete, please refer to the map I submitted with it, as reattached below for your convenience. The red rectangle that designates the location of my entertainment event represents the location of my Dodge Ram SRT-10 pickup truck. All my activities and all my equipment will be confined to its bed and cabin, as driven to and parked at the designated location. The video presentation will be made with a 55" SunBrite outdoor TV, mounted in a Gator G-Tour E-Lift, and powered by a portable generator. As stated in my original application dated 28 July 2015, I will remain on site around the clock until NEA publicly acknowledges its wrongdoing and severs all its relations with Min Zhu, Scott Sandell, and Dick Kramlich. My staff will attend to all my needs with daily deliveries, in full compliance with all relevant laws and regulations.

My event is most certainly meant to be open to the community at large, and I will make every accommodation for all passerby to engage lawfully and safely with its content and its authors. Without limitation, these accommodations will include distribution of flyers and souvenirs, and opportunities to engage me in real-time discussion, broadcast via a live Internet linkage.

If the foregoing explanation satisfies your concerns, I will forgo carrying of loaded weapons in the spirit of compromise. However, if you continue to object to my carrying unloaded firearms in the course of my entertainment event, I shall be happy to litigate the matter of loaded open carry within the scope of Constitutionally protected speech. Your citation of Penal Code §16840 providing that “a firearm shall be deemed to be ‘loaded’ whenever both the firearm and the unexpended ammunition capable of being discharged from the firearm are in the immediate possession of the same person”, is inapposite, because applicable solely to “[e]very person who carries a loaded firearm with the intent to commit a felony” within the scope of Penal Code §25800. I assure you that I have no such intent.

Lastly, I do not understand your claim that “a practical reading of the entertainment exception would require the Department of Justice or the Menlo Park Police Department to authorize [my] event.” If you are claiming that my Constitutionally protected speech stands in need of such authorization, as explained previously, I shall be happy to settle this matter within the scope of a civil action for deprivation of rights pursuant to 42 U.S. Code §1983. Indeed, if you compel me to do so, the venue of my performance will merely change, from Sand Hill Road, to a Federal courthouse. One way or another, my message will resonate with its intended audience.
I trust that I have answered all relevant questions and addressed all legitimate concerns. I hope that no further explanations will be necessary for you to make a final disposition of my application.

7576 Willow Glen Rd, Los Angeles, CA 90046, U.S.A. | voice:323.363.1860 | fax:323.410.2373
Wronged by the high and mighty? Cut them down to size with legally safe and ethically sound degradation of unworthy moguls and scrofulous celebrities.
Tags: assclowns, assholes, law, lawyers, webex

  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded