larvatus | Entries tagged with lawyers

The best reason not to have sex in public is to avoid exposure to well-meaning second-guessers. Thus the late Robert Hughes ably illustrated the stupidity of judicial censure of sexual deviance:

Why so few [sodomy] convictions? Ernest Augustus Slade, who had been superintendent of the convict barracks at Hyde Park in Sydney from 1833 to 1834 (his resignation was forced by sexual scandal, though over a woman), testified that “among [the lower] class of convicts sodomy is as common as any other crime.” It was an ineradicable part of jail culture. But only about one case in thirty could be proven. Molested youths lodged complaints but then prevaricated in court; and other evidence tended to be vague, since “shirtlifters” were rarely caught in the act of buggery. “If you had it proved” Slade told the Molesworth Committee in 1838, “that men were found with their breeches down in secluded spots, and they stated that they had gone there to ease themselves, and upon examination it was found that they had not done so, what could have occurred?” But no jury would convict on such grounds. Out in the bush, the dreaded act became more obscure still, as there was nobody to watch the assigned convicts. Bishop Ullathorne believed that sodomy was less frequent among the shepherds, who tended to live alone, than among stockmen, “a much more dissolute set” who practiced “a great deal of that crime” and even taught it to the formerly innocent Aborigines. And if the Man from Snowy River’s convict forebear was not content with the brusque embraces of Jacky-Jacky, there were always sheep. “As a juryman,” one witness told the committee, ”I have had opportunities of hearing many trials for unnatural offences, with animals particularly. … I think they are much more common than in any other country inhabited by the English.” “That is, among the convicts?” interjected one committee member. “Yes,” said the witness, dispelling the thought of the colonial gentry practicing abominations on their own merinos.
—Robert Hughes, The Fatal Shore: The Epic of Australia’s Founding, Vintage Books, 1988, p. 267

Would that the indicters of WikiLeaking condoms took heed of rapidly dwindling chances of securing a jury conviction of Julian Assange.

As is well known, Holmes’s theory of liability rested on two interlocking principles. First, the primary purpose of the law is to ‘induce external conformity to rule’, [The Common Law, (M. DeW. Howe edn., 1963), p. 42.] and second, personal moral blameworthiness is not generally an ingredient of liability. [Ibid., pp. 42-3.] I turn first to consider how Holmes applied these central principles to the case of contract. Naturally enough we find many of the same themes as in his theories of liability in the criminal law and in tort. There is, for a start, Holmes’s hostility to the role of morals, expressed in extraordinarily vehement language in ‘The Path of the Law’. [Holmes complained that his own way of looking at the law of contracts ‘stinks to the nostrils of those who think it advantageous to get as much ethics into the law as they can.’ 10 Harv. L. Rev. 457, at p. 462 (1897).] Morality helps put the cart before the horse and makes people think that it is morally wrong to break a contract, and that there is a duty to perform a contract. Not so, says Holmes. The duty to perform a contract is imaginary, and the right to the other party’s performance is even more imaginary. A contracting party has a choice—to perform or to pay damages for not performing. To enter into a contract is not to assume any duty to perform, and is thus analogous to committing a tort. Holmes thus presents his marvellous apothegm: committing a contract is more or less the same thing as committing a tort, except that in the former case liability is conditional on non-performance. [See Pollock-Holmes Letters (ed. M. DeW. Howe, 1941, published in America under the title, Holmes-Pollock Letters), vol. i, at p. 177, vol. ii, at pp. 199-200, 233.] A contract is, in effect, a way of allocating a risk, the risk of non-performance or non-occurrence of an event. [The Common Law, pp. 324-6.] This, in Holmes’s words, frees the subject from the ‘superfluous theory that contract is a qualified subjection of one will to another, a kind of limited slavery’. [Ibid., p. 235.] Many of us today would share Holmes’s satisfaction at the dissolution of that quasi-metaphysical nonsense in his cynical acid. Holmes’s theory of the nature of contractual liability also leads to the conclusion that damages should be limited to those that can reasonably be regarded as part of the risks assumed by the defendant. So punitive damages can be ruled out, the contract-breaker’s motives become immaterial, and perhaps, more generally, damages should be kept on the low side.

Lastly, Holmes’s thoughts on contract focus on the external standards of liability and the unimportance of actual internal intention. Mistake, fraud, and the like affect the validity of contract not by reason of a deficiency in the will of the contracting parties, or a failure of assent, but for other, more external reasons. [Ibid., pp. 245-6, 253.] Such external reasons might include the fact that ‘there is no second party, or the two parties say different things, or essential terms seemingly consistent are really inconsistent as used’. [Ibid., p. 246.] Holmes even made the remarkable assertion that the ‘true ground’ of decision in the famous case of Raffles v. Wichelhaus, [(1864) 2 H. and C. 906.] involving the steamship Peerless, was ‘not that each party meant a different thing . . . but that each said a different thing’. [The Common Law, p. 242.] As Grant Gilmore said, this was, ‘even for Holmes an extraordinary tour de force’. [The Death of Contract (1974), p. 41.]

—P.S. Atiyah, Essays on Contract, Oxford University Press, 1986, pp. 57-58

Dear Bay Area law enforcement personnel,

Over the following year, I shall reside and appear in your jurisdictions, exercising my fundamental rights under the First and Second Amendments to the Constitution of the United States in the course of ongoing peaceful public protests, as documented at http://www.subrah.com/ and http://larvatus.livejournal.com/tag/webex. The attached images and the article "Man with semi-automatic weapon protests on Sand Hill", published in a local newspaper, should give you an adequate idea concerning the parameters of my performances.

I conduct my protests in response to independently witnessed and officially documented death threats made against me and my family in order to deter us from pursuing claims recorded in a lawsuit subsequently filed in California Superior Court, County of Santa Clara as case No. 1-02-CV-809286, Zeleny v. Zhu and WebEx, in the names and on the behalves of Min Zhu and WebEx Communications, Inc. The evidence of these threats and their gravity sufficed for Judge Jacob Adajian of Los Angeles Superior Court to acquit me on 11 April 2003 of weapons carry charges on the grounds of necessity, in a bench trial of case No. 2CR11665. In accounting for his acquittal, he ruled:

He wouldn't get a gun permit. He wouldn't get a gun permit. We just don't issue those in L.A. unless you're a movie star or somebody who shouldn't have one. But they manage to get one. Attorney's [sic.] should have one. I couldn't get one when I was an attorney. I know when I became a judge, a responsible person, I was able to get one. Not as an attorney. I think he had a good-faith belief in the threat. He did go to the police. He did do the right thing.

Ten months after this decision, my father Isaak Zelyony, plaintiff in a related lawsuit No. 1-02-CV-810705, styled Zelyony v. Zhu, suffered fatal injuries in an apartment fire that appeared to start at two locations at once. A thorough investigation of causes and origins of this fire, which a retired Los Angeles Fire Department captain undertook on my behalf, failed to rule out the likelihood of foul play. My father was important to me. I am seeking amends for unlawful threats of violence that were followed by his violent death under suspicious circumstances. As of this writing, I have a pending lawsuit in federal court against callers who warned me that my father's death was not an accident and promised to arrange for me to rejoin him. I am protesting the ongoing institutional and individual support of a violent sexual deviant, who represents a grave personal threat to me and my family.

As law enforcement officers, you are well placed to assess my situation. For starters, you might consult the 1988 sealed police report of childhood sexual abuse made by Min Zhu's then 14 year-old daughter Erin. On numerous occasions Erin recounted Min's prior use of the terms that failed to dissuade me from pursuing my claim against him and his company, to persuade her to yield to his sexual advances. Her subsequent complaints of her molestation by Min Zhu can be found on newsgroup alt.sexual.abuse.recovery via Google Groups search for the terms "Erin Zhu sexual abuse". Additionally, they can be found along with her draft complaint against Min Zhu for childhood sexual abuse, her email correspondence with Blixa Bargeld to that effect, and various declarations by third parties attesting to the same facts, as matters of public record in Santa Clara Superior Court case 1-02-CV-809286, Zeleny v. Zhu & WebEx. Erin Zhu has authenticated the accounts of her rape by her father that she had authored and relayed or publicized, in sworn depositions in that case. Moreover, in a sworn deposition taken by John Walton on 3 November 2003, in Zelyony v. Zhu, Santa Clara Superior Court Case Number CV-810705, she confirmed under oath having settled her childhood sexual abuse claim against her father Min Zhu for $300,000, paying her lawyer David Affeld a contingency fee of 2.5%. She admitted having participated in the preparation of the draft complaint, which included a graphic description of her rape by Min Zhu. She acknowledged that after she settled her claim against them, her parents made her the beneficiary of a trust; and although she denied linking it to the settlement, she later settled a claim by her lawyer, who sued her for a contingency fee portion of the trust. While denying on that occasion that her childhood sexual abuse by her father involved "penetration", Erin Zhu confirmed under oath having told her lawyer when they prepared the draft complaint that it did involve penetration, and never having told him otherwise; and she further confirmed under oath that this sexual abuse occurred between 1 and 20 times. I urge you to consult the relevant parts of the transcript of Erin Zhu's referenced deposition, as entered in evidence and permanently consigned to the public record in NEA v. Zeleny, San Mateo Superior Court Case No. CIV499465, in the context of California Penal Code Section 263 providing: "The essential guilt of rape consists in the outrage to the person and feelings of the victim of the rape. Any sexual penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the crime."

My revelations of these facts failed to diminish the support of Min Zhu by the Menlo Park venture capital firm New Enterprise Associates (NEA). By NEA's accounts, its business relationship with Min Zhu began in 1999 when it invested in the company that he founded, WebEx Communications, Inc. According to SEC filings, NEA's General Partner Scott Sandell was on the Board of Directors of WebEx until February 2002. In his sworn declaration Sandell testified that "Min Zhu was a consultant at NEA, with the title Venture Partner, from March 17 2004 through March 2008." NEA has acknowledged that in 2004 I emailed them about Erin Zhu's claims concerning her childhood sexual abuse by her father Min Zhu. In my communications I pointed out that Erin verified under oath having made these claims between 1991 and 2001 in conversation with her friends, associates, and employees; in public Usenet postings and letters to her husband Blixa Bargeld; and in statements to her lawyer David Affeld in connection with the claim for childhood sexual abuse that he presented to her parents and settled on her behalf. My notices went unanswered and had no effect on NEA's support of Min Zhu and his position at WebEx. Meanwhile, WebEx's CEO Subrah Iyar attempted to cover up Min Zhu's rape of his daughter. In the course of defending against my lawsuit under his leadership, WebEx filed sworn corporate declarations claiming that there was "absolutely no truth" to the allegations that Min had raped his daughter seven years prior to its founding, while allowing him to use its corporate assets as hush money to buy her silence about his crimes, and employ its corporate counsel in defending against my claims made against him as an individual, independently of his connection with WebEx. Min Zhu resigned from WebEx and fled the United States to China only after I exposed him as a child rapist at the WebEx User Conference in San Francisco, on 2 May 2005. Yet in September of the same year, NEA funded Min Zhu's next venture in China, in full knowledge of the foregoing events. Witness this pointed observation published by China Venture News on 23 September 2005: "What's missing in the Private Equity Online article or any NEA release is any mention of the previous controversy surrounding NEA's venture partner, Min Zhu, who joined NEA in 2004, after his forced resignation as WebEx President and Director." Another side of Min Zhu's character is captured in the 2007 report of a joint investigation of WebEx by FBI and NSA, which found it illicitly transferring the records of its customers' confidential communications to China. To connect the dots, NEA's knowing sponsorship of a duplicitous child rapist has been an open secret in the venture capital community for over seven years. This is especially noteworthy in an industry, whose foundations can be shaken by a female partner's displeasure at receiving a copy of Leonard Cohen's The Book of Longing from her male colleague.

According to Min Zhu, as of 2008, NEA continued to invest money in his company Cybernaut. I have no reason to doubt that their business relationship has continued to this day. By all accounts, Min Zhu has established himself as an excellent profit earner, inspiring investments from numerous profit-seeking institutions and individuals undeterred by scruples about his character. In bringing to light its defects, I look forward to finding out, how far the turpitude of Silicon Valley capital is matched by its shamelessness.

Please be assured that I am sensitive to your concerns for public safety. Accordingly, in the course of my Constitutionally protected activities, I pledge to abstain from any unlawful actions, including, without limitation, the following:

loading any firearms in the absence of a reasonable fear for life or limb;
deploying or firing any deadly weapons or firearms in the absence of a clear and present danger to life or limb;
making any threats of unlawful violence, including, but not limited to, drawing or exhibiting any deadly weapons or firearms in the presence of another person, in a rude, angry, or threatening manner;
stalking, accosting, or harassing any individual, including, but not limited to, making harassing telephone calls to any individual or institution, or sending harassing correspondence to any individual or institution by any means;
making any statement or engaging in a course of conduct that would place a reasonable person in fear for his or her safety, or the safety of his or her immediate family, and that serves no legitimate purpose; and
capturing visual images or audio recordings of any individual who has a reasonable expectation of privacy, or otherwise attempting to frustrate such an expectation.

I am pleased to point out that my prior events in San Diego, Milpitas, Menlo Park, and Santa Clara were unmarked by any disturbances. I hope that the same will be the case on this occasion of scaling up my activities within the bounds of legitimacy sanctioned by the authorities of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the United States Supreme Court. Owing to substantial gains in my quest for legitimate remedies, my protests shall include topical artistic performances by bagpipers, clowns, rappers, and a brass band. I shall employ portable generators, high-intensity floodlights, and night vision devices to discover the identities and whereabouts of other friends and supporters of Min Zhu. It is my position that the mounting of these performances and the use of these instruments are protected under the First Amendment, and therefore are not subject to local permit requirements. However, as an accommodation provided in the spirit of courtesy, I shall consider reasonable requests for placing time, place, and manner constraints on my performances on a case-by-case basis. Lastly, I continue to claim the right protected by the First Amendment, to hold press conferences at the sites of my protests and to film all passerby there being questioned as to their opinion of their subject matter. I hope to forestall dangerous misunderstandings and futile litigation bound to be costly and disappointing to your taxpayers by giving you this advance notice of my plan.

My protests will take place, without limitation, at the public grounds adjacent to the following institutions and residences:

New Enterprise Associates (NEA), 2855 Sand Hill Road, Menlo Park, CA 94025;
Cisco/WebEx, 3979 Freedom Circle, Santa Clara, CA 95054;
Silk Road Software & Services, Inc. (SRS2), One Market Street, San Francisco, CA 94105;
Subrah and Rupar Iyar, 15292 Kennedy Rd, Unit A, Los Gatos, CA 95032
Scott Sandell, 120 Deer Meadow Ln, Portola Valley, CA 94028;
Forest Baskett, 24 Alexander Ave, Sausalito, CA 94965;
Robert J. Garland, 636 Melville Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94301;
C. Richard Kramlich, 3699 Washington St, San Francisco, CA 94118;
Jake R. Nunn, 2120 Ashton Ave, Menlo Park, CA 94025;
Arno Allan Penzias, 19 Calle Del Mar, Stinson Beach, CA 94970;
Brooke A. Seawell, 1155 Trinity Dr, Menlo Park, CA 94025;
Peter Sonsini, 350 Olive St, Menlo Park, CA 94025; and
Sigrid Van Bladel, 1338 Masonic Ave, San Francisco, CA 94117.

This list will be extended and updated in future online postings and email communications. My protests will continue until I receive full satisfaction for Min Zhu's offenses against me and my family. All concerned parties may address their communications to my lawyers Michael D. Pinnisi <mpinnisi@pinnisianderson.com>, Pinnisi & Anderson, 410 East Upland Road, Ithaca, NY 14850, phone: (607) 257-8000, and David W. Affeld <dwa@agzlaw.com>, Affeld Grivakes Zucker LLP, 12400 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1180, Los Angeles CA 90025, phone: (310) 979-8700, fax: (310) 979-8701. I may be reached at the number listed below.

Michael@massmeans.com ---- http://larvatus.livejournal.com/ ---- http://www.subrah.com

Zeleny@post.harvard.edu | 7576 Willow Glen Rd, Los Angeles, CA 90046 | 323.363.1860

Wronged by the high and mighty? Cut them down to size with legally safe and ethically sound degradation of unworthy moguls and scrofulous celebrities.

“The Constitution as interpreted by the Court these past decades allows the federal government to put your taxes up and use the proceeds to send you a weekly box of broccoli.” This putatively commonsensical observation by Clive Crook is meant to support a transparent non sequitur: “If Washington instructed you to choose your own basket of fruit and vegetables or else pay a penalty, that would be a smaller infringement of your freedom than the Constitution already allows.” The logically warranted conclusion from the premiss at hand is that if a federal government’s individual mandate instructed me to choose my own basket of fruit and vegetables or else pay a penalty, that would be a smaller infringement of my freedom than recent Constitutional interpretation has tended to allow. The Constitution is an enduring factual body of principle that underlies the vagaries and wambles of its judicial interpretation. Let the trends change as long as the fundamental facts endure.

Yes, Mr Crook, our Constitution is a quasi-religious document, whose constancy is an inviolable national myth. But the constancy of our Constitution is also thoroughly attested, in extent and limitation, by its amendments. When changing it falls to the Court and is done by stealth, it becomes and remains liable to equally stealthy judicial reversals. That is what the Roberts Supreme Court seems to be poised to inflict upon Obamacare. Back in the realm of horticulture, American farmers have long received lavish subsidies from the government, enabling them to grow lots of things I don’t want to eat. So I am always already being forced to “buy” broccoli via the power of taxation. Likewise, the federal government could — and bloody well should — use its power of taxation to pay for government-administered universal health insurance. What it cannot and shouldn’t do is create a boondoggle for its favorite industries by compelling its citizens to transact with private vendors, be it for health insurance or fresh vegetables.

Your fellow countryman John Lanchester patiently explains this for you in the latest issue of the London Review of Books:

If there were ever going to be a serious and sustained theoretical challenge to the hegemony of capitalism inside economics — a serious and sustained challenge subsequent to the one provided by what used to be called ‘actually existing socialisms’ — you’d have thought one would have come along since the near terminal meltdown of the global economic system in 2008. But all we’ve seen are suggestions for ameliorative tweaking of the existing system to make it a little less risky. We have at the moment this monstrous hybrid, state capitalism — a term which used to be a favourite of the Socialist Workers Party in describing the Soviet Union, and which only a few weeks ago was on the cover of the Economist to describe the current economic condition of most of the world. This is a parody of economic order, in which the general public bears all the risks and the financial sector takes all the rewards — an extraordinarily pure form of what used to be called ‘socialism for the rich’. But ‘socialism for the rich’ was supposed to be a joke. The truth is that it is now genuinely the way the global economy is working.

Obamacare is socialism for insurance companies. If and when our society agrees that health care is a public good, let us socialize its administration. Empowering our government to bring the health insurance industry 32 million new customers is crony capitalism at its sleaziest. And it stinks.

War is Peace.
Freedom is Slavery.
Ignorance is Strength.
Whistleblowing is Espionage.

Let me spell it out for you. We are a nation of laws. We are also a charitable nation. If you want our goods and our words within the scope of our foreign aid, ask for it. But as a foreign national, you have no say in our laws. If you are lucky, you have a say over your own goods and words, under your own laws, in your own country, in your own language. Then make and share your own goods and words, under your own laws, or change them to suit. In the meantime, if you break our laws, in our jurisdiction, we will prosecute you to their fullest extent.

Got it?

Michael Zeleny <michael@massmeans.com>

Re: Resumption of Public Protests at Rosewood Sand Hill Compound

Michael Zeleny <michael@massmeans.com>

Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 8:37 PM

To: sandhill@rosewoodhotels.com, policechief@menlopark.org, wadixon@menlopark.org, grojas@menlopark.org, sakaufman@menlopark.org, wlm@jsmf.com, danielprimack@gmail.com

Cc: Subrah Iyar <Subrah.Iyar@webex.com>, jchambers@cisco.com, john.chambers@cisco.com, "David W. Affeld" <dwa@agzlaw.com>, Ajay Vashee <avashee@nea.com>, Ali Behbahani <abehbahani@nea.com>, Amita Shukla <ashukla@nea.com>, Arno Penzias <apenzias@nea.com>, Brooke Seawell <bseawell@nea.com>, Chip Linehan <clinehan@nea.com>, Chuck Newhall <cnewhall@nea.com>, David Mott <dmott@nea.com>, Dick Kramlich <dkramlich@nea.com>, Ed Mathers <emathers@nea.com>, Forest Baskett <fbaskett@nea.com>, Frank Torti <ftorti@nea.com>, George Stamas <gstamas@nea.com>, Harry Weller <hweller@nea.com>, Hugh Panero <hpanero@nea.com>, Jake Nunn <jnunn@nea.com>, James Barrett <jbarrett@nea.com>, Jay Graf <jgraf@nea.com>, Jimmy Treybig <jtreybig@nea.com>, John Nehra <jnehra@nea.com>, Jon Sakoda <jsakoda@nea.com>, Josh Makower <jmakower@nea.com>, Justin Klein <jklein@nea.com>, Krishna 'Kittu' Kolluri <kkolluri@nea.com>, Louis Citron <lcitron@nea.com>, Mark Perry <mperry@nea.com>, Mike O'Dell <modell@nea.com>, Mike Ramsay <mramsay@nea.com>, Mohamad Makhzoumi <mmakhzoumi@nea.com>, Nitin Sharma <nsharma@nea.com>, Patrick Chung <pchung@nea.com>, Patrick Kerins <pkerins@nea.com>, Paul Hsiao <phsiao@nea.com>, Paul Walker <pwalker@nea.com>, Peter Barris <pbarris@nea.com>, Peter Behrendt <pbehrendt@nea.com>, Peter Morris <pmorris@nea.com>, Peter Sonsini <psonsini@nea.com>, PM Pai <ppai@nea.com>, Ralph Snyderman <rsnyderman@nea.com>, Ravi Viswanathan <rviswanathan@nea.com>, Richard Whitney <rwhitney@nea.com>, Rick Yang <ryang@nea.com>, Robert Croce <rcroce@nea.com>, Robert Garland <rgarland@nea.com>, Rohini Chakravarthy <rchakravarthy@nea.com>, Ryan Drant <rdrant@nea.com>, Sara Nayeem <snayeem@nea.com>, Scott Gottlieb <sgottlieb@nea.com>, Scott Sandell <ssandell@nea.com>, Sigrid Van Bladel <svanbladel@nea.com>, Sujay Jaswa <sjaswa@nea.com>, Suzanne King <sking@nea.com>, Tim Schaller <tschaller@nea.com>, Tom Grossi <tgrossi@nea.com>, Tony Florence <tflorence@nea.com>, "Michael D. Pinnisi" <mpinnisi@pinnisianderson.com>, "Hawk, Robert B." <robert.hawk@hoganlovells.com>

Dear NEA and associates,

Please be advised that our hitherto postponed protest will begin tomorrow and continue indefinitely, according to the terms previously announced in the email copied below.

I am attaching an image of a bumper sticker that we have created for your benefit, licensed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported (CC BY-ND 3.0). Please feel free to use it in advertising your investment practices.

Michael@massmeans.com ---- http://larvatus.livejournal.com/ ---- http://www.subrah.com

Zeleny@post.harvard.edu | 7576 Willow Glen Rd, Los Angeles, CA 90046 | 213.290.4699

Wronged by the high and mighty? Cut them down to size with legally safe and

ethically sound degradation of unworthy moguls and scrofulous celebrities.

On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Michael Zeleny <zeleny@post.harvard.edu> wrote:

Dear NEA,

I share your relief at settling our dispute regarding my access to your private property. As you know, I will no longer appear in front of your office. I am equally relieved that your single claim challenged only my "conduct in repeatedly trespassing on private property, leaving [me] free to express [myself] as [I desire], at any lawful place and time, with the sole exception that [I] cannot make unauthorized entry onto the NEA office complex." You objected to the location of my protest but did not dispute its content.

Starting on 31 October 2011 and continuing indefinitely, I shall resume my protest against your abhorrent investment practices. I shall do so on the public easement near the entrance to your complex. I shall also protest against anyone who would do business with you, based on their implicit endorsement of your immoral practices. I shall take photos and record videos of everyone entering your complex, post the images online and distribute them on bills posted throughout the San Francisco Bay Area, and offer rewards for the first correct identification of names and addresses of everyone who does business with your child rape sponsoring enterprise. I shall display signs and banners illustrating the purpose of my protests. As before, I shall be armed with legal counterparts of U.S. military rifles and pistols, in full compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local ordinances. As before, I invite you to comment on my plans, should you have any legitimate objection to the time, place, or manner of my expression of my Constitutionally protected message.

--
Michael@massmeans.com | Zeleny@post.harvard.edu | 7576 Willow Glen Road, Los Angeles, CA 90046 | 323.363.1860 | http://www.subrah.com

http://larvatus.livejournal.com | "All of old. Nothing else ever. Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better." -- Samuel Beckett

To prevail over refractory and punctilious assholes, you must leverage their punctiliosness against their refractoriness. All your moves must be commemorated in writing. Everything must be repeated at least three times to each party. Every seemingly stuck cog in the bureaucratic machine will be loosened by a written request to identify his manager and refer the controversy upstairs. I have applied this strategy time and again to prevail over craven pencil-pushers. “What one man can do, another can do.” Go kill the bear.

A young Muslim maid from old Guinea
Sucked frog cock to summon a djinnea:
“I wish for a way
To make the Jew pay!”
Alas, the DA was a ninnea.

Cyrus R. Vance Jr., the Manhattan district attorney,
on 19 May 2001 after the DSK indictment.
Seth Wenig/Associated Press

“Muammar Qaddafi has lost the legitimacy to lead, and he must leave”…

—Barack Hussein Obama, 3 March 2011

…“unless he changes his approach and there are significant reforms in the Libyan government that allow the Libyan people to express themselves”.

—Barack Hussein Obama, 22 March 2011

Meet Yetta Kurland, lesbian law expert, vegan advocate of animal rights, failed candidate for New York City Council, officer of the court, and reluctant gunslinger-at-large.

The New York Observer reports that after being outed by The New York Times as one of nearly 4,000 license holders allowed under the Sullivan Law to carry concealed handguns in New York City, Yetta dashed off an open letter to supporters explaining just why she owns and carries a gun:

Dear Neighbor,
I wanted to share my response to a recent article that ran in the NYTimes regarding firearms.
————————————
To The Editor:
I worry your recent article “The rich, the famous, the armed” (Feb 20) portrays firearms as tantalizing accoutrements of New York's power elite.
    By placing those whose job responsibilities might call for firearm licensing (myself, other officers of the court and law enforcement like the Queens DA) alongside glamorous celebrities, you risk portraying guns as inviting, even fashionable.
    However unintended, headlines like “The rich, the famous, the armed” and “boldface names with gun” dangerously play into Americans’ fascination with firearms. It undermines our efforts to eliminate gun violence, unlicensed handguns, and laws that allow the sale of semi-automatic weaponry.
    Guns are not funny or amusing. They are the instruments of tens of thousands of violent deaths each year. Instead of glamorizing or trivializing guns, I wish your paper would bring attention to important efforts to control gun sales around the country, including the efforts of our Mayor.
Yetta Kurland, Esq.
New York, NY
Feb. 20, 2011

It is heartening to see this brave little woman gamely shouldering the burden of self-defense amidst a populace overwhelmingly disarmed since 1911. Meanwhile, herewith H.R.822, National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 introduced in the U.S. House by Representatives Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) and Heath Shuler (D-N.C): “The Congress, therefore, should provide for national recognition, in States that issue to their own citizens licenses or permits to carry concealed handguns, of other State permits or licenses to carry concealed handguns.” In 2009, NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg was able to bribe the Senate into filibustering national concealed carry reciprocity via the Thune Amendment. “The passage of this amendment would have done more to threaten the safety of New Yorkers than anything since the repeal of the assault-weapons ban,” Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) said after the vote. "If this had passed, it would have created havoc for law enforcement and endangered the safety of millions of New Yorkers. We will remain vigilant to prevent any legislation like this from passing in the future.” This year, legislative odds favor the hordes of law-abiding gun nuts descending upon the Big Apple with packed heat. Here’s hoping that their uncouth touristic ways leave unruffled all those special New Yorkers, whose riches, fame, or job responsibilities might call for firearm licensing.

Dear city authorities of Menlo Park and Santa Clara,

Please be advised that starting on 27 September 2010, my associates and I will resume open-ended peaceful public protests last held in 2009 in front of NEA, 2855 Sand Hill Road, Menlo Park, CA 94025 and Cisco/WebEx, 3979 Freedom Circle, Santa Clara, CA‎ 95054. The purpose of our demonstrations will be to protest Subrah Iyar’s employment by Cisco/WebEx, Scott Sandell’s employment by NEA, and the association of these individuals and their employers with Min Zhu, as explained at http://www.subrah.com.

My associates and I are pledged to abide by all applicable laws. We exercise our right to free expression on private property readily accessible to general public pursuant to the rulings in Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980) and progeny. We assert that the strip of private property directly in front of the main entrances to 2855 Sand Hill Road, Menlo Park, CA 94025 and the plaza in front of 3979 Freedom Circle, Santa Clara, CA‎ 95054, both fall within the purview of Pruneyard in virtue of housing several unrelated businesses and being readily accessible to the general public. Additionally, owing to police and hotel management misconduct at our first public protest in San Francisco, and death threats received in the past and recently renewed in the matter at issue, we shall exercise our right to bear arms pursuant to the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and all applicable federal and state laws, by carrying exposed, unloaded firearms, legally owned by my associates and me in the state of California, accompanied by loaded magazines, bandoleers, and speedloaders, subject to the definitions of People v. Clark (1996), 45 Cal.App.4th 1147, 53 Cal.Rptr. 2d 99. None of the firearms in question will qualify as assault weapons under California law, as listed or described in Penal Code Sections 12276, 12276.1, and 12276.5. My associates and I agree to Section 12031(e) inspections of our firearms on demand by police officers. Please note recent incorporation of the Second Amendment protection of the right to keep and bear arms as “fundamental” to the American scheme of ordered liberty, in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. ___ (2010).

We will not interfere in any unlawful way with the operation of NEA, Cisco/WebEx, or any of their employees, clients, associates, or visitors, including, but not limited to, Subrah Iyar and Scott Sandell. At the same time, we shall vigorously enforce our right to speak out against the knowing collusion of big business in your jurisdictions with a violent child rapist, and seek redress for all wrongs consequently visited upon us, by resisting in all lawful ways and publicly denouncing in all appropriate venues, any private or official attempt to interfere with our rights. Please take note of case law, beginning with Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000), to the effect that detaining a man observed as openly carrying an unloaded firearm in public violates the Fourth Amendment. Please note further ACLU of Nevada v. City of Las Vegas (ACLU II), 466 F.3d 784, 790 (9th Cir. 2006) and progeny holding various local ordinances prohibiting street expression, solicitation, and entertainment, in violation of the First Amendment. Lastly, please be aware that litigation over infringement of fundamental Constitutional rights is subject to a mandatory award of attorneys’ fees and court costs to the prevailing party intent on exercising them, typically in the amount of a multiple of the actual fees and costs. Our costs in mounting these events are considerable, and we shall seek court orders for their manifold reimbursement by any perpetrators of unlawful interference.

We are pleased to point out that our prior events in San Diego, Milpitas, Menlo Park, and Santa Clara were unmarked by any disturbances. We hope that the same will be the case on this occasion of scaling up our activities within the bounds of legitimacy sanctioned by the authorities of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the United States Supreme Court. Owing to substantial gains in our quest for remedies against Min Zhu and his confederates, our protests shall henceforth include topical artistic performances by bagpipers, clowns, rappers, and a brass band. It is our position that these performances are protected under the First Amendment, and therefore are not subject to local permit requirements. However, as an accommodation provided in the spirit of courtesy, we shall abstain from erecting free-standing signs and using amplification equipment, and will consider requests for additional constraints on our performances on a case-by-case basis. Lastly, we continue to claim the right protected by the First Amendment, to hold press conferences at the site of our protests and to film all passerby there being questioned as to their opinion of big business knowingly getting in bed with a violent incestuous paedophile. We hope to forestall futile litigation bound to be costly and disappointing to your taxpayers by giving you this advance notice of our plan.

Concerned parties may address their communications to my lawyer David W. Affeld <dwa@agzlaw.com>, Affeld Grivakes Zucker LLP, 12400 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1180, Los Angeles CA 90025, phone: (310) 979-8700, fax: (310) 979-8701. I may be reached at the number listed below.

--
Michael Zeleny@post.harvard.edu -- http://larvatus.livejournal.com/-- 7576 Willow Glen Road, Los Angeles, CA 90046 -- 323.363.1860
All of old. Nothing else ever. Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better. -- Samuel Beckett

Larry Roibal, portrait of Antonin Scalia
Ball point pen on the morning newsprint

JUSTICE SCALIA: Mr. Gura, do you think it is at all easier to bring the Second Amendment under the Privileges and Immunities Clause than it is to bring it under our established law of substantive due?
MR. GURA: It’s—
JUSTICE SCALIA: Is it easier to do it under privileges and immunities than it is under substantive due process?
MR. GURA: It is easier in terms, perhaps, of—of the text and history of the original public understanding of—
JUSTICE SCALIA: No, no. I’m not talking about whether—whether the Slaughter-House Cases were right or wrong. I’m saying, assuming we give, you know, the Privileges and Immunities Clause your definition, does that make it any easier to get the Second Amendment adopted with respect to the States?
MR. GURA: Justice Scalia, I suppose the answer to that would be no, because—
JUSTICE SCALIA: Then if the answer is no, why are you asking us to overrule 150, 140 years of prior law, when—when you can reach your result under substantive due—I mean, you know, unless you are bucking for a—a place on some law school faculty—
(Laughter.)
MR. GURA: No. No. I have left law school some time ago and this is not an attempt to—to return.
JUSTICE SCALIA: What you argue is the darling of the professoriate, for sure, but it’s also contrary to 140 years of our jurisprudence. Why do you want to undertake that burden instead of just arguing substantive due process, which as much as I think it’s wrong, I have—even I have acquiesced in it?
(Laughter.)

—Oral arguments in McDonald v. Chicago (08-1521), 2 March 2010

Elaborating on his fascination with Che’s will, Soderbergh explained: “His ability to sustain outrage is what is remarkable to me. We all get outraged about stuff, but to sustain it to the point of putting your ass on the line to change what outrages you, to do it consistently year after year, and to twice walk away from everything and everybody to do it—it’s not normal.”

Soderbergh’s treatment explains the cult of Che Guevara for me. Its grounds are not to be found in the fighter’s altruism looking out for the victims of oppression contrary to their will welcoming its violation. Neither is the would-be liberator morally disqualified by the resistance of his potential beneficiaries; for what good is his intelligence, if not to warrant his authority to speak and act on their benighted behalves? Be it due to sacrificial selflessness or intellectual vanity, Che’s capacity for staying pissed off makes him stand out.

Anticipating his own political martyrdom, Cicero commented on an earlier occasion of noble failure: “ut aegroto, dum anima est, spes esse dicitur”. (Letters to Atticus 9.10.3.) To the sick, while there is life there is hope. Proverbial wisdom condensed Ciceronian dicta to expand their purview: “dum spiro spero”; while I breathe I hope. But to the truly outraged, hope is beside the point. Suffice unto them to spew forth. Dum spiro sputo.

Ага, строчить кляузу на Марс—намного стрёмнее, чем писать предъяву Её Величеству. Одно дело—мирская владыка, другое—небесное светило.

Ἡράκλειτος τὸ ἀντίξουν συμφέρον καὶ ἐκ τῶν διαφερόντων καλλίστην ἁρμονίαν καὶ πάντα κατ᾽ ἔριν γίνεσθαι: ἐξ ἐναντίας δὲ τούτοις ἄλλοι
Heracleitus says, ‘Opposition unites,’ and ‘The fairest harmony springs from difference,’ and ‘'Tis strife that makes the world go on.’

—Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 1155b1-6, translated by J. Bywater

Thirty-three years ago the author of these screeds walked free after serving a fifteen day sentence for petty hooliganism with twenty-two codefendants, counting among the first Soviet political protesters to get away with a slap on the wrist. The Berlin Wall came down thirteen years later, to the day. Coincidence? You decide.

Meanwhile, the philosophy of freedom is making giant strides in Russia. On 18 April 2009, Vadim Karastelev, head of the local Human Rights Committee, protested the curfew forbidding anyone under 18 years of age from appearing in the streets of Krasnodar region by displaying a sign with the slogan “Freedom is not given, it is taken”, a paraphrase of an analogous quotation about rights taken from a play by Maxim Gorky:

Прав—не дают, права—берут… Человек должен сам себе завоевать права, если не хочет быть раздавленным грудой обязанностей…
Rights aren’t given, rights are taken… Man must fight to win his rights if he doesn’t want to be crushed by a mountain of duties…

Herewith the expert philosophical analysis rendered in connection with his public display: ( Read more... ) Vadim Karastelev’s slogan echoes the combative demon of Charles Baudelaire:

Celui-là seul est l’égal d’un autre, qui le prouve, et celui-là seul est digne de la liberté, qui sait la conquérir.
Only he is the equal of another, who proves it, and only he is worthy of liberty, who can conquer it.

In his turn, Baudelaire drew upon Goethe’s Faust calling for free humanity jointly creating universal welfare in a free society:

Ja! diesem Sinne bin ich ganz ergeben, 
das ist der Weisheit letzter Schluß: 
Nur der verdient sich Freiheit wie das Leben,
der täglich sie erobern muß.

This is the final product of my strife,
The greatest wisdom mankind ever knew:
He only earns his freedom and his life, 
Who boldly conquers them each day anew.

The Faustian maxim is infinitely malleable, lending itself as the populist motto for the National Socialism of Alfred Rosenberg, the Marxism of Ernst Thälmann, and the dissident humanism of Andrei Sakharov. May it serve as the battle cry for the advent of freedom in Russia.

SENATOR TOM COBURN: Thank you. Let me follow up with one other question. As a citizen of this country, do you believe innately in my ability to have self-defense of myself—personal self-defense? Do I have a right to personal self- defense?
JUDGE SONIA SOTOMAYOR: I’m trying to think if I remember a case where the Supreme Court has addressed that particular question. Is there a constitutional right to self-defense? And I can’t think of one. I could be wrong, but I can’t think of one. ( Read more... )

For all her waffling about eminence, Judge Sotomayor was ill advised to withhold her concession of a constitutional right to self-defense. If the doctrine of substantive due process, as used by the Supreme Court to protect a wide range of unenumerated rights over a long period of time, supports the right to abortion and the right to privacy doctrines, it must with far greater reason support a right to self defense. The Supreme Court that protects “the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life” in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992), cannot shie away from protecting the far more basic right to preserve one’s existence from wrongful physical threats. ( Read more... ) In the light of reason, Judge Sotomayor’s recognition of abortion rights as settled precedent and endorsement of a constitutional right to privacy should cause and compel her to recognize and endorse a constitutional right to self-defense. As a practical matter, her shoo-in as a Supreme Court Justice will vouchsafe a permanent preemption of impartial reason by the richness of her experiences.

Please add to and correct this Wikipedia page to the extent of your ability.

Misogynistic? Moi? ( Read more... )

    Tis The Season.....
    Due to intense media scrutiny, the annual Gala Daughter Pork Fest has been moved to a new, undisclosed location and the date has been changed.
    Those of you who have daughters. Think for a moment about raping her. Pretty distrubing? Damn right. Now, do you really want to be affiliated with anyone who’s moral compass is so badly out of adjustment that daughter raping falls within the “O.k. to do” list?
    I don’t give a shit if you’ve made 10 million off the turd.
    ― Yahoo! Message Boards: WEBX, Msg 38303 by gloufam, 12/13/05 08:19 pm

    This Just In:
    The hymen is sad…
    When ruptured by Dad.
    ― Yahoo! Message Boards: WEBX, Msg 38332 by gloufam, 12/19/05 06:21 pm

    WebEx Drops Libel Claim Against Zeleny
    Since December 29, 2001, Michael Zeleny has publicized child rape allegations repeatedly made since 1988 by Erin Zhu against her father Min Zhu, better known as the founder and former President and CTO of WebEx Communications, Inc. (NASDAQ:WEBX). On Friday, December 23, 2005, WebEx agreed to drop its libel lawsuit filed against Michael Zeleny for asserting that it squandered its shareholders’ assets on a failed coverup of child rape. This capitulation took place in response to Zeleny’s defense of truth asserted in the wake of two judicial sanctions imposed on WebEx for bad faith pleadings. WebEx’s aborted action against Zeleny has been funded by its shareholders’ assets.
    ― Yahoo! Message Boards: WEBX, Msg 38370 by helicalenzyme, 12/24/05 01:33 pm

    management sucks
    Webex has several years advance on the competion in a growing market with huge potential.
    The problem is that Wall street has no confidence in this awful managemnt team. The founder is a pedophile who raped his own daughter (he still makes managment decisions)
    Subrah can not even manage his waistline how is he going to manage a corporation. No one has any respect for this fat east louisiana loser.
    That is why when any company with real management announces anything in the conferencing arena (does not even need to be web based) the stock tanks. Wall street knows subrah can not keep the others at bay. They have seen him fumble before them and not even know how many working days in the quarter.
    Believe me the mediocrity trickles down to every nook and cranny of this organization.
    They can not even maintain 99% uptime in USA during business hours.
    ― Yahoo! Message Boards: WEBX, Msg 38297 by bbbburn, 12/13/05 01:58 pm

    Re: management sucks
    If you have evidence of Min Zhu still making management decisions at WebEx, please contact me. The ensuing housecleaning will benefit all members of the general public investing in WEBX.
    ― Yahoo! Message Boards: WEBX, Msg 38302 by helicalenzyme, 12/13/05 06:12 pm

    WebEx president plans to leave company
    WebEx Communications Inc. said on Thursday that its president, Bill Heil, plans to leave the company.
    No reason was given for Heil’s decision, but the company said he plans to join its Business Advisory Board and will continue at WebEx in the coming months to assist in the transition of his responsibilities.
    ― Silicon Valley/San Jose Business Journal - February 23, 2006

    Bill Heil Bails
    I talked to Bill last May. He didn’t want to stick around for the encore.
    the sinking ship
    ― Yahoo! Message Boards: WEBX, Msg 38821 by helicalenzyme, 02/24/06 05:07 pm

    Re: Bill Heil Bails
    He was fired and if he wants to get extra money besides his severance he sits in this new position and shuts up. IMHO
    ― Yahoo! Message Boards: WEBX, Msg 38825 by dayslate90, 02/26/06 11:57 am

    Re: Bill Heil Bails
    you’re right on. He was fired.
    This is why I love investing in companies where the founder(s) are still involved and have a significant share. Too many comapnies wait until the mgt weakness shows up in the numbers, and even then sometimes the board drags its feet.
    ― Yahoo! Message Boards: WEBX, Msg 38826 by munger75, 02/26/06 11:57 am

    Re: Bill Heil Bails
    “This is why I love investing in companies where the founder(s) are still involved and have a significant share.”
    one down, two to go
    ― Yahoo! Message Boards: WEBX, Msg 38837 by helicalenzyme, 02/27/06 09:58 pm pm

    Re: Bill Heil Bails
    That’s just the Chinese culture, they value family more than we do.
    ― Yahoo! Message Boards: WEBX, Msg 38843 by munger75, 02/28/06 01:40 pm

    I’ve Examined The Facts;
    The allegations are built on pure POPPYCOCK.
    ― Yahoo! Message Boards: WEBX, Msg 38827 by gloufam, 02/26/06 04:03 pm

    Re: I’ve Examined The Facts;
    gloufam seems to be questioning my allegation of child rape coverup by WebEx:
    make amends for mayhem
    WebEx Drops Libel Claim Against Zeleny
    ― Yahoo! Message Boards: WEBX, Msg 38838 by helicalenzyme, 02/27/06 10:09 pm

    Re: I’ve Examined The Facts;
    Not at all my friend. It was meant as clever word play. Based on POPPY COCK — get it?
    ― Yahoo! Message Boards: WEBX, Msg 38840 by gloufam, 02/28/06 11:53 am

    Re: I’ve Examined The Facts;
    “Not at all my friend. It was meant as clever word play. Based on POPPY COCK — get it?”
    Please bear with my non-native grasp of English.
    Merriam-Webster identifies poppy as “any of numerous annual, biennial, and perennial herbs or rarely subshrubs of Papaver or sometimes of closely related genera…”, or “an extract from the poppy used in medicines”, or “something possessing the narcotic qualities of the poppy.”
    Are you attributing the narcotic qualities of the poppy to Min Zhu’s penis? That would explain a great deal about WebEx management and its musical chairs.
    ― Yahoo! Message Boards: WEBX, Msg 38845 by helicalenzyme, 03/01/06 12:07 am

—
cordially, — Michael Zeleny@post.harvard.edu
7576 Willow Glen Road, Los Angeles, CA 90046 — 323.363.1860 — http://larvatus.livejournal.com/
All of old. Nothing else ever. Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better. — Samuel Beckett

Profile

larvatus

Subrah Iyar Appreciation Society

2025

S	M	T	W	T	F	S

Syndicate

Page Summary

Style Credit

Style: Neutral Good for Practicality by timeasmymeasure

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags

Page generated Jul. 8th, 2025 01:49 am

larvatus prodeo

HIC LOCUS EST UBI MORS GAUDET SUCCURRERE VITAE

Entries tagged with lawyers

the leaky vessels of state

no duty to perform?

notice of peaceful protests in the san francisco bay area

reductio ad brassicam

minitrue

international conversation

here goes nothing

go kill the bear

this multicultural love

our foreign policy, qualified

reciprocity

resumption of public protests in menlo park and santa clara

even scalia has acquiesced in it

dum spiro sputo

interplanetary pussyfooting

a slogan for two anniversaries

baffling a wise latina

constructive ambiguity

metagraph to misogyny

selected sound bites from webex watchers