Redacted Discovery 3 - SM382036 Michael Zeleny

Superior Court of California
County of San Mateo

Criminal Division
400 County e ~ t ~ r 4th Floor
Redwood City, CA 94063
(650) 363-4302
www.sanmateocourt.org
INITIAL COMPLAINT
IN THE MATTER OF: People vs Michael Zeleny
Michael Zeleny
Case: SM382036A
July 19, 2012
7576 WILLOW GLEN RD
Los Angeles, CA 90046
A complaint has been filed in this court charging you with a violation of section(s) (Seccion Violada):
1) PC 25400(A)(2)
You are directed that you must appear in this Court at the address indicated above on:
DATE (FECHA): 08/21/2012 TIME (HORA): 9:00 A.M.
Your failure to appear in Court on the date and time given you above will result in the issuance of a warrant for
Una acusacion formal a sido archivada en este tribunal acusandole de una violacion de la seccion(es)
previamente mencionada.
Se Ie avisa que comparesca a responder en el asunto mencionado previamente en el juzgado indicado en la
fecha y hora tambien indicada. Si usted no comparese en la fecha y hora indicada re' te resultara en
una orden de arresto emitida contra usted.
By: Anthony Albar
Deputy Court Clerk
CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
rk
-I hereby certify that I am not a party to this cause; that I served the foregoing Initial Complaint by placing a copy
of the above Notice in separate sealed envelopes addressed respectively to the persons and addresses as
shown in the foregoing Initial Complaint, and by placing the envelope for collection and mailing on the date
indicated below at Redwood City, California, following standard court practices. On the same day that
correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, fully pre-paid postage is affixe d is deposited in
the United States mail at Redwood City, California, in the ordinary course 0
DATED: 07/19/12
FILE COPY
By: Anthony Albar
Deputy Court Clerk
- - - ~ ' - 1 ~ - - - - - - .-----,
- - . ~ - - . - ---------' ---- -------"---
-.----.... - ~ . - - .....,--.----
---....-J.. I I I: : I I
I ,,! I ij --ji I
.. --- ,
.. .-' -
1 ' , t ' "J:' 1 .1
: i \ ., ___ -o/L-__ t I u
Ll
' '\:=-- ' 1 / ' ,...... .,.....-- .. - -- I '. -..... I ...... / 0'
1 _ _ , TY Of MENLO PARK --- -1_ -.- .-/ _'
I __ OTY 0" IJENlO ?ARK t ... roo PU3UC ,/.-/-_
o - CASEMENT fOR pvauc HIQtWA"'\ I 5!>J6 OR SJ4 _ I .. '
-----,--1 \ 5536 O.R. 62.5 ,-_ -l- .:::..-_ - ;;:::;:::;; .....
- -- I, _:...----- -, /c';::/'
-- -- __ -
- -- ,--. ANO ! I __ .-
\ '0 JO P.U.E. ______ -1------- __ -0.-
______ .. ___ -- -- -
--- ---------------
,
\
,
': ..:':" ;

---..
S't-M"+--
lG
5 e...
I
, i
Il l; I
. ,
t>u1\:c.. Ptcc.e-!..seG\.!>tml!,,, . I
\ .
La. ..... osc(!.o..f' nd-'- hlll!l:
C,TY OF' MEI'LD PAR'" P:' ANS E-l
14 r30
\
Intel-Deparlmen lal Correspondence
DATE: October 7,2010
TO: Police Management Staff
FROM: Sharon Kaufman, Acting Commander, Patrol Operations
SUBJECT: NEA - Michael Zeleney and Stanford Properties
-- ----
This memorandum is to serve as a training and informational document addressing the approach,
handling and potential enforcement at NEA and/or Rosewood Hotel and/or surrounding propeliies at
2855 Sand Hill Rd.
In the last couple of days, meetings have taken place between the Chief and I with Stanford Eroperties,
their attorneys and District Attomey's Steven Wagstaffe and Karen Guidotti. After consultation, legal
representatives for the landlord have begun to craft a letter that will be used to inform Mr. Zeleney that
his presence is not welcome onto the property, and if he refuses to leave, he will be subject to arrest for
trespassing. An agent of Stanford Properties will be the ones to present the letter. They may ask us to
serve as witness to the service which we can do, however, we will not serve as their agent if asked.
Action Steps:
Patrol Supervisors: Please review Penal Code section 602. I(a) as this is the basic premi se of the letter
that is being drafted by Stanford Properties and ultimately what we would cite/arrest Mr. Zeleney for.
Additionall y, if we do arrest Mr. Zeleney under the trespass section it is emparative to have a Sergeant
on site and do the following:
I) Book into the county jail based on the "likelihood of reoccurrence" if we simply cite him
2) Take and book all items of evidence including his weapon and ammuni tion for the case, (make
sure he is give a property receipt).
3) Gather any and all statements of witnesses, whether they are employees, customers, guests,
vendors, etc".
4) Make sure that a citizen's an'est fonn is signed by an agent representing the landlord.
5) Assemble all cases written on the protestor and hi s activities the last few weeks along with NEA
submitted video and Menlo Park Police Department generated video.
Communications Supervisor: As restraining orders are kept in dispatch, we would also like to keep a
copy of the letter that was served to Mr. Zeleney in a folder in dispatch so that it is easily accessible to
officers and sergeants any day and time. We would also like to add notes into RIMS to flag both the
properties and Mr. Zeleney as infonnational when calls come in. For example, under Mr. Zeleney's
profile, note when he was served with the letter. Flag the properties to alert officers of previous
trespass activity.
Records Supervisor: Make sure that all records personnel are aware of Mr. Zeleney and his activities
at the locations.
If any of these action items cannot be done as a result of technilogical incapabilities, please let me
know.
SAND HILL OFFICES - PRIVATE PROPERTY / NO TRESPASSING SIGN LOCATION
/
/, ..
/-.. )
I
I
(
{
, '
:'. \ I
I '
,-
,.. . , .....
. ', ......
I " ,
.--- - ., .......... .. - ... .... .....
..... "". '" .. ( "" " " ' "
'--.... ,< " ......
1
" '. , .............. ...... .
' 0 " ""- -.... -- ......."., ......
,-'". 2 '-.. "-
...., - ,. -......"
",
"
. . .. .
BlDG.F2 11:..
I i
< .
< ' <
", \.,
\ ' . < ,
. \ \ ,..., .. " .
.'M""
m."...

\
PODIUM PLAN
\
,
\
,
\

\ L
,
" ,
Bclr:

. .
, 11:.
c\
I -- IJfJ ,-' .-D "\ ":'.
.. A J ',' ._ .\'. "
/v" ... . .. '
rufijid \@) .... (" ..
Fl
,
Btl)(3. ' .
' '.. , . = n=f:::d --LLt.::.:J \ r. "
ff( . E.t I ', "' . . . . . , - '>:" '\"'':.
/ ... .. ,/ ....\ ,,\.\!..
/' ( I '\
--. --( I' , ",

'.
I(!;< \CC;:.-
From: larvatus@gmail.com <Iarvatus@gmail.com>
To: policechief@menlopark.org <policechief@menlopark:org>; grojas@menlopark.org <grojas@menlopark.org>;
wlm@jsmf.com <wlm@jsmf.com>; slodge@santaclaraca.gov <slodge@santaclaraca.gov>; police@santaclaraca.gov
<police@santaclaraca.gov>; Manager@santaclaraca.gov < Manager@santaclaraca.gov>; CityAttorney@santaclaraca.gov
<CityAttorney@santaciaraca.gov> -
Cc:
Sent: Man Sep 20 03:09:37 2010
Subject: Resumption of Public Protests in Menlo Park and Santa Clara
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,
oahdoleers;-a"na" to lhe"aefirliffonsof peoi:ire-"v.-ClBrf-(1996};-"4S-CaT."App.4fh
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 rl_ot limited t9, SLJQrCiO IYCir (iflQ Sandell.
At the sarrre 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 air 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 11),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.
2
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
This electronic mail message, including any attachments hereto, is
intended only for the
addressee and may contain privileged and/or confidential information. If
you are not the
addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the
message to such
person), you are. hereby notified that you must. not use, disseminate, copy
it in any'form,
or take any action based upon it. If you have received this message by
error, please
immediately delete it and any copies of it, including any attachments
hereto, and notify
the sender at New Enterprise Associates by reply electronic mail message,
fax or phone.
Thank you.
3
Uvu UO c..U.1U a.c.or... HI"' LM-=>I::.K.JI::.I t"Ht"I
p.2
IL/loJ ;;lIS::.'
(-.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP H ( )
Robert B. Hawk (Cal. Bar No. 118054) v f-)/ LI / !l4( I/) 0/
Kristi K. Elder (Cal. Bar No. 231996) t' "1 i:? '{ -- { C/ /0
Nimrod H. Aviad (Cal. No. 259705)
1
2
525 UniversitY Avenue, 4 Floor
Palo Alto, California 94301 '90\) _. ! () t) 17
4 . Telephone: (650) 463-4000 0 ! b ' -5,,,4- r Cf'7
3
Facsllnile: (650) 4634199 ..
5 rObert.hawk@hoganlovells.com I
kris.elder@hoganlovells.com C ().{fVf\eX\
6
7
8
9
10
11
nimi.aviaa@heganlovells.com
({(){V, Cha(k:\W
Attorneys for Plail1tiff
NEW ENTERPRISE ASSOCIA TBS, INC.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
VcJ.1J1lii COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
J! Vk,J ;/AlL
New Enterprise Associates, Inc., a Delaware Case No.
12 Corporation,
13 Plaintiff.
14 v.
15 -MichaerZefenYt arid DOES 1-25,
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Defendant.
MEMORANDU1v1 OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTBORITlES IN SUPPORT OF
NEW ENTERPRISE ASSOCIATES,
INC.'S EX PARTE APPLICATION
- . FOR-TEMPORARY-RESTRAINING
ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE RE PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION
Date: October S. 2010
Time: 2:00 p.m.
Dept: 24, Courtroom 2C
Hen. Stephen M. Hall, Presiding Judge
ISO NEA'S EX. PA.RTE APPLIC. FOR TRO & ase RE PRELIM. INJUNCTION
\\\OlISU60'OOOOQI STOoI'7 d
/
(
Oct 06 2010 8:29PM HP LASERJET FAX
10. 3
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I.
II.
T ABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION ............... " .............................................................................................. 1
STATEMENT OF FACTS .................................................................................................. 2
A.
B.
c.
D.
Ba.c.kground ... f ,. , ,. ,t I ,. ,,. I ," , ......... , .. r I., I I I ......... II. II II t "' t 1,2
2009 Trespass ......................... , .......................... " ., ................................................... 3
2010 Trespass ......... , ........................ , ................... " ................................................... 5
NEA's Efforts To Resolve The Issue Have Been Ineffective, and NEA Has
Suffered And Will Continue To Suffer Irreparable Harm ....................................... 7
11 III. NEA IS ENTITLED TO A TRO AND A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ....................... 8
12
13
14
15
A.
B.
A TRO Is Necessary To Prevent Further Irreparable Harm to NEAt .... 11 ................ 9
NEA Has A Strong Case On The Merits And Will Likely Prevail On Its
Trespass Claim .................. It ....... ................. 0 ......................................................... ,.9
-- 1. - The elements of a trespass action are unambiguouslypresent ....
16 2. Zelenfs disingenuous invocation of Constitutional rights c;loes not
:1St11' r:v-1-..!. 0 t' ..,.;...." \I! .

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
neS C n lni:iiilg trespa5lS ........................ " ......................................... .
C. The Balance Of Hardships Favors Granting A Preliminary Injunction ................. 12
IV.
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... ............ , ......... 13
'MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AurnORITIES
ISO NEA'S EX PARTE APPLIC. FOR TRO & OSC RE PRELIM. IN.rmtCTION
"
Oct 06 2010 8:29PM HP LASERJET FAX
1 .
2
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
p.4
3 CASES
Page(s)
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2S
26
27
28
Allredv. Han-is,
14 Cal.App.4th 1386 (1993) ........................... , ............................ " ...................................... 8) 10
Allred v. Shawley,
232 Cal.App.3d 1489 (1991) ............................................................................. " .................... 11
Bank of Stockton v. Church of Soldiers,
44 Cal.App.4th 1623 (1996) ...................................................................... ..... i .................... 8, 12
Butf v. State of Cal. ,
4 668 (1992) .,. ................ 1 "., , " " " 12
Feminist Women's Health Center v. Blythe)
32 Cai.App.4tl11641 (1995) ............. , ................... , .................. ,', .... , ..... , . , ...... ,.,., ............ "" ........ 11
IT Corporation v. County of Imperial,
3S Cal.3d 63 (1983) ., .. , ..... " .. , ... , ........ " ...... 1, ' .............. '.'f"" ...... , , ... , ... , ,." ..... t 8
Planned Parenthood v. WUson,
- 234 1662 (1991) ............... , ..... , .............. ".,., ............ f'."' .. " . '.tl' .. , 11
Robins 'V. Pruneyard Shopping Center,
23 Cal.3d 899 (1979). aff'd 444 U.S. 74 (1980) ..................................................................... 10
Uptown v. Strand,
195 Cal.App.2d 45 (1961) ......................................................................................................... 9
Youngblood v.
207 Cal.App.3d 1368 (1989) ............. ,', ...... , ..... , .... , ............. , ...... ," .................. ,." .. , ................. " 8
STATUTES
Code eiv. Pmc. 527(c) .................................... t ,t t , "., , , "., ............ 8
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
ISO NEA'S EX PARTE APPLIC. FOR TRO &: OSC RE PRELIM. INJUNCTION
Oot 06 2010 8:29PM
HP LASERJET FAX
p.5
1 I. INTRODUCTION
2 This is an action to enjoin a trespass on private property, For four out of the five
3 weekdays last week, for hours each day, Defendant Michael Zeleny endeavored to disrupt the
4 business of Plaintiff NEA, a longtime Silicon Valley venture capital f'inr4 by intimidating its
5 personnel and business guests. He did so by entering and refusing to leave a private property
6 office park under the control and ownership of NBA and its landlord. Zeleny and his hired
7 associates confronted, interrogated and videotaped NBA employees and business visitors, seeking
8 to intip1idate and/or provoke rewIsion on the part of those who would do business with NEA.
9 AImed with a 12-gauge sholgun and a full strap of ammunition across his chest, Zeleny
10 confronted visitors to NEA, asking them if they IIsupported child molesters." His associates
11 played loud bagpipe, trumpet and accordiOll music immediately outside NEA's windows, and he
12 posted signs on NBA's office building reading: liNEA: In bed with a child rapist."
13 Cynically invoking the United States Zeleny has engaged in activity
14 unambiguously intended tOll and in fact succeeding int injuring NEA and its employees. But
15 Zeleny has miscalcUlated. The Constitution does not restrict trespass actions on all private
16 . rather, such restrictions come into la; where private property is equivalent to a public
17 forum. The simple fact here is that Zeleny is trespassing on private property-not a public forum.
18 And given that fact) it does not matter what Zeleny has or has not been or that he has been
19 arming himselfwith a shotgun, or that he has been harassing people. The point now is that he and
20 his associates have been repeatedly entering and refusing to leave the grounds surrounding NEA's
21 offices, which are all located within a larger, entirely private property office park on Sand Hill
22 Road, owned by landlord Stanford University. The point now is that Zeleny has been trespassing
23 on property where multiple posted signs spell out "PRIVATE PROPERTY NO TRESPASSING
24 NO LOlTERING
t
Authorized Business use Only."
25 Put otherwise, this Complaint and this injunction application are not about speech or the
26 right to bear arms. Instead,. the single, determinative issue here is whether the evidence submitted
27 demonstrates that Zeleny is trespassing on private property and that the party in legal possession
28 of that property, NEA, is entitled to flIl injunction against this continuing trespass. Neither the
1
ISO NEA'S EX PARTE APPLIC. FOR TKO &: OSC RE PRELIM. INruNCTION
\\1Dl4 tlefOo)OaOl 57641 VJ
06 2010 8:29PM
HP LASERJET FAX
p.6
1 ConstitUtion nor any case law interpreting it gives Zeleny or his associates the right to trespass in
2 a private office complex, an office complex is not a public forum. A private office park.
3 in fact, is very different from a shopping center or any other gathering place for the general
4 public, in which the people generally are invited to congregate and engage in open discourse.
S And while Zeleny's conduct aside fiom his treapass is Qutrageous
JI
malicious and violates other
6 legal rights ofNEA!s, those are issues for another day. The narrow objective of this Complaint
7 and the injunction sought is to halt an ongoing, indisputably unlawful and injurious
t
continuing
8 trespass.
9 In that regard, the declarations and other evidence served with this TRO application
1 Q establish that:
11
12
13
14
15
16

o
Zeleny and his associates have repeatedly entered and remained on the private
property surrounding NEA's offices and. under NEA's control,
they have ignored no trespassing signs,
they have refused NEA's and Stanford's demands that they leave the
the trespass has ca.used sUbstantial
J
irreparable injury to NEA,
unless Zeleny and those acting under his control are enjoined from further trespass,
17 NEA will suffer further irreparable injury.
18 Without more, PlaintiffNEA is entitled to issuance ofa Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and
19 Preliminary InjlUlction prohibiting Zeleny's future entrance onto the office park property l NEA
20 respectfully requests that the Court issue the requested and Order to Show Cause, and halt
21 Zeleny's ongoing violation ofNEA's right to be free of trespass to its property.
22 U.
23
STATEMENT OF FACTS
A. Backaround
24
25
26
27
28
NEA is a venture capital firm founded in 1977 with offices in China, India, the
Washington DC metropolitan area and Menlo Park, California. NEA focuses on providing
venture and growth capital in the information technology, healthcare
l
and energy technology
sectors. It has funded over 650 companies to date and is one of the world's largest venture capital
2
lS0 NEAtS ex PARTE APPLIC. FOR TRO &: OSC RE PRELIM. INJUNCTION
Dot 06 2010 8:29PM
HP LASERJET FAX
p.7
firms, with approximately $11 billion in committed capital across thirteen separate funds. Sandell
2 Decl.
3 In May 2007, NEA entered into a 1 5-year lease for office space at 2855 Sand Hill Road,
4 Menlo Park, Califomiat which is a freestanding office building that is part of a private office
5 complex owned by The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University ("Stanford").
6 Dillon Decl. 2. Pursuant to the lease with Stanford, NBA is the of2855 Sand Hill
7 Road and has a possessory interest in the walkways "leading to its building. the common tenant
8 grounds of that office park) including the entryways surrounding the building, and the parking
9 lots serving employees, clients and prospective clients (collectively, "Property"). See Lease,
10 Ex. A to Dillon Decl. NEA has occupied the Property since November 2008, when
11 construction of its offices was completed. Gravelle Decl.1J 2. NEA's offices in the Property are
12 regularly used to transact NEA' s nonnal business operations, including, among other things,
13 hosting meetings with current and prospective business partners, investors, portfolio oompany
14 fOlUlders and executives. Sandell Decl. 12.
15
B. 2009 Trespass
16 eceived emails indicatin that
17 defendant Zeleny intended to appear atNEAtg offices in Menlo Park on October 27,2009.
1 g Sandell Decl. , 6. This was not the first that NEA had heard from Zeleny; in November 2005 and
19 October 2007, Sandell received other Zeleny e-mails indicating that Zeleny intended.to appear at
20 offices and making disparaging, outrageous and false accusations aboutNEA and Sandell.
21 The ostensible reason for Zeleny's hostility was NEA and Mr. Sandell's purported association
22 with Min Zhu, with whom Zeleny had been involved in a bitter business dispute (originating in
23 approxiIl}ately 1999 .. 2000) and multiple related lawsuits. 1d. 4, 5. To NEA>s knowledge,
24 however, Zeleny never appeared at NEA's offices following the initial 2005 and 2007
25 communications.
26 In October 2009, NEA received further communications from Zeleny indicating that he
27
28
1 All citations to declarations herein are to declarations in support ofNEA's Ex Parte Application
for Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause Regarding Preliminary Injunction.
3
'MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORlTIES
ISO NEA'S EX PARTE APPLIC, FOR TRO &, OSC RB PREL1lvI. INJUNCTION
\\'tlJ.s2,6/llOOOOl. 57441 vi
Oot 06 2010 8:29PM
HP LASERJET FAX
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2S
26
27
28
p.8
intended to appear at NEA's offices irruriinently, ucSrrying exposed. unloaded firea.nns ...
accompanied by loaded magazines and speedloaders." Sandell Dec!. 6. Given this background
and Zeleny's persistence over nearly four years making wild accusations, NEA was sufficiently
concerned that on October 27, 2009,-it filed a Petition of Employer for Injunction Prohibiting
Violence or Threats of Violence Against Employee And Application for Temporary Restraining
Order against Zeleny-tbe day Zeleny stated he was going to amve atNEA's offices. Sandell
Dec!. 7, Ex. FI In addition, on that same date, Mr. Sandell) who had been targeted in many of
Zeleny's false and harassing missives; filed a Request for Orders to Stop Harassment. Althouge.
both requests were id, the Judge indicated that "Petitioners are free to purStle any civil
remedies or action they feel are just and appropriate." Jd
Later tha.t same day, on October 273 2009, Zeleny and an associate camet without
authorization or permission, to the private property where NEAts offices are located. Gravelle
Dec!. , s. Zelec.y was carrying a hand gun on his hip, and he and his associate placed disparaging
posters on the grounds immediately outside front door, handed out leaflets, and
confronted and spoke to individuals walking down the sidewalk to NEA's offices-making it
difficult for NEA ersonnel and guests and other office complex tenants and visitors to pass by
unimpeded. lei. and Ex. B. Zeleny and his associate also videotaped their own engagements with
individuals passing by. ld.
Because Zeleny and his associate were on private property without authorization, and
because their conduct was alarming to others in the office park. NEA contacted the Menlo Park
Police Department. Id. , 6. The responding officers determined that Zelenyt s gun was not
loaded, but did not ask Zeleny to leave the Property. ld. Zeleny and his associate remained on
the Property outside ofNEA's front entrance and the private sidewalks and other common tenant
areas surrounding NEA' s office for approximately four hours on October 27) 2009. Jd. 7.
Soon after Zeleny's unauthorized and disruptive visit to the Property t NEA made a request
to the office park landlord, Stanford (via the Property management agent, Peery/Arrillaga), to
post no trespass SigllB around the Property. Jd. 8. Three such signs \vere posted in late 2009 on
the internal road surroWlding the office park, stating ''PRIVATE PROPERTY," nNO
4
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORlflES
ISO NEAtS EX PARTE APFLIC. FOR TRO & OSC RB PRELIM. INruNCTION
\\\oWIt%6fOOOOOS j 7tH?
Oct 06 2010 8:29PM
HP LASERJET FA-X
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2S
26
27
28
p.9
TRESPASSING" and "authorized business use only.u Id and Ex, C. To NEA's krtowledge
s
neither Zeleny nor his associates returned to NEA's offices during the followingt' approximately
one-year period.
c. 2010 Trespass
This last week, however-the week beginning September 27, 1 O-Zeleny and his
associates returned in greater force than before. In disregard of the pos1ed no trespassing signs
and NEA' s rights. Zeleny increased his unauthorized presence at the Property-in terms of
duration, number of associates, and degree of dis;ruption.
2
On Monday, 27, 2010.
Zeleny and his associates began a week of repeated trespass on the Property. That morning, one
of Zeleny's associates anived and entered NEAts offices, indicating that he was responding to a
request (apparently Zeleny's) for a sign holder. Zeleny himself arrived around noon. once again
displaying a weapon, with an associate bearing video equipment. Gravelle Decl. 9. When
Zeleny arrived, the security guard hired by in anticipation of Zelenyt s visit, Robert
Chandler of Platinum Security, contacted the Menlo Park Police Department on NEAs behalf,3
ld 1 10. The police confirmed Zeleny's weapon was unloaded) but did not request that he leave
associates left the Pro e
Chandler Decl. 2,
The following day, Tuesday, September 28, around 10 a.m., Zeleny and his associates
made another unauthori2ed appearance at NEA '8 offices. Id Instead of the handgun that Zeleny
displayed previously t Zeleny carried a shotgun with shotgun shells strapped in a across his
1. Internet postings placed and/or authorized by Zeleny on the on .. linc bulletin board,
in connection with his Uv1sit' to NEA last week, demonstrate the vindictive
and maliolous nature of Zeleny and his to hann NEA. In one such posting dated
September 22, 2010, Zeleny sought a brass baiul to accompany him and playa single song for
four hours, Hawk Decl. 7. In another posting dated September 29, 20rO, Zeleny gave notice
tha.t he was holding a "party on Thursday) September 30 In front of New Enterprise Associates'
headquarters, 2.855 Sand Hill Road" and.was offering free food for all "Zhu family members,
registered sex offenders. sex workers, adult industry performers, and musicians willing to perfonn
for our guests," Id. ,8. Another Zeleny message stated Zeleny intended to appear at NEAs
offices again and that he would be anned and "loaded magazines, bandoleers
7
and
speedloaders," and that he intended to bring with him "bagpipers
J
clowns, rappers, and a brQss
fand.
u
Sandell Dec!. 9, Ex. G.
In anticipation of Zeleny's unauthorized visit to its offices, NEA also had arranged for a
videographer to be onsite.
5
ISO NEA'S EX PARTE APPLIC. FOR TRO &. ase RE PRELIM. INJUNCTION
v'J
Oot 06 2010 8:29PM
HP LASERJET FAX
p. 10
1 shoulder and chest. Gravelle Declo 11. And this time, his group of associates included a
2 videographer, a bagpipe and (later) a trumpeter. ld. Zeleny set up signs similar .to the
3 ones he had posted in 2009 t and he and his associates distributed or attempted to distribute
4 leaflets and confronted individuals entering or exiting NEA's offices and the adjacent office
5 buildings on the Property. /d.
6 Zeleriy
S
s intimidating and harassing conduct provoked concern on the part ofNEA
7 personnel for their safety and the safety ofNEA' s office guests, and once again, NEA called the
8 Menlo Park Police Department to report the disturbance and Zeleny's trespass on private
9 property. ld. 12, 13. Several police officers responded and checked Zelenyts weapon to
10 confirm. it was not loaded. But despite NEA' s request, the police again would not require Zeleny
11 or his associates to leave the Property. Id. 'lI 13. Zeleny and his entourage remained on the
12 Property for several hours that day_ Id
13 Although Zeleny had initially indicated that he would not return on Wednesday,
14 September 29, 1010, he nonetheless did so at approximately 4:00 p.m., again bearing a shotgun
15 and ammunition and repeating his activities from the day Id 14. AgainJ NEA contacted
16
17 Gravelle (a NEA employee), Robert Hawk (NEA's outside counsel), Robert Chandler (the private
18 security guard hired by NEA), and Sergeant Prickett of the Menlo Park police approached Zeleny_
19 Gravelle then informed Zeleny-on behalf of NEA and StanfoId (based on authorization from
20 Stanford's outside counsel (Dillon Decl. 4--tbat Zeleny did not have permission to be on the
21 Property and that he and his associates should leave. Gravell.e Decl. 16. Zeleny objected,
22 asserting he had a "rightn to be there. ld. Despite Zeleny's subsequent refusal ofNEAs demand.
23 the Menlo Park police still would not require Zeleny to leave. Id. 1 17.
24 On Thursday, September 30
J
and Friday, October 1, Zeleny associates again appeared
25 . at the Property and remained much of each day. Chandler Decl. 2, 4. 8. Zeleny was armed
26 both days, and he and his associates continued leafleting. confronting, and videotaping
27 individuals outside ofNEA's offices, as well as other areas of the Property. Id 3. On
28 Thursday, after Zeleny arrived, Messrs. Hawk and Stanford counsel Carol
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORiTiES
6
ISO NEA'S EX PARTE APPLIC. FOR mo & OSC RBPRELIM. INJUNCTION
\WJ34j1S1OQ01lOB. 57647 Vl
06 2010 8:29PM
HP LASER JET FAX
p. 11
1 Dillon. who authorized Mr. Chandler, on behalf of Stanford, to again tell Zeleny that he had no
2 permission to be on the Property and should immediately leave. Id. 4; Dillon Decl. 5. After
3 that call, Mr. Chandler again informed Zeleny, on behalf ofNEA and Stanford; that he and his
4 associates must leave. Chandler Decl. 4. Zeleny refused. Id
5 Zeleny was even more blatant in his attempts to disrupt business operations on Thursday,
6 bringing a. saxophone player, two accordion players and a bagpipes player, who all played
. 7 simultaneously outside NBA's offices. Id. 5. In response to the noise, Jake Nunn. a partner at
8 NEA, Mr. Hawk, and Sergeant Prickett of the Menlo Park police accompanied Mr. Chandler, who
9 informed Zeleny the activities were disturbing the peace and that he would be subject to arrest if
10 he did not stop the music. ld. 6. Menlo Park Police Sergeant Prickett confinned that he was
11 ready to respond if Zeleny did not comply. and as a result, Zeleny instructed the musicians to stop
12 playing. ld. The musicians left shortly after, but Zeleny remained on the Property until
13 approximately 5 :30 p.m. ld.
14 Before leaving for the day, Zeleny informed Sergeant Prickett that he intended to return to
15 the Property the following day, the following week. the week after that, and the month after that
16 __ u h tever it takes to break the com an
17 day. FridaYt October I-confirming that he would not stop the continuing trespass) and
18 provoking concern by other office complex tenants and guests, Chandler Decl. , 3-NEA was left
19 with little alternative but to prepate this Complaint and request for injunction.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
D. . NEA'! Efforts To Resolve The Issue Have Been Ineffective, and NEA Has
Suffered And Will Continue To Suffer Irreparable Harm.
NEA made every reasonable effort to deal with Zeleny before filing this suit. Those steps,.
however, have not been successful. and NEA continues to suffer injury from Zeleny's repeated
and unauthorized trespass onto the Property. NEA did what it could to minimize the impact of
s presence on its business operations. To this end, NEA rescheduled meetings that were
to be held ansite or moved such meetings to offsite locations; NEA also directed its personnel and
guests to enter and exit NEA's offices via a side entrance or the underground parking garage.
Gravelle Decl. , 12. Despite these steps, Zeleny and his associates continued to disrupt NEA
7
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIBS
ISO NBA IS EX PARTE APPLIC. FOR 'fRO & asc RE PRELIM. INJUNCTION
\\\0)48:161000001 - 57647 '13
Oot 06 2010 8:30PM HP LASERJET FAX p.12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
business and alarmNEA personnel and visitors, even going so far as to follow a guest ofNEA
into the parking .garage. ld.
Other measures proved just as futile. NEA requested aid from the Menlo Park police, and
although the police were responsive and initially spent considerable time monitoring the activities
of Zeleny and his associates, they declined to ask Zeleny to leave. (The police department's
position apparently stems from concern that the department would become embroiled in civil
litigation with Zeleny. Hawk Decl. 2,3. Indeed. two Menlo Park policemen advised NEA's
outside counsel that the best path for NBA was to try to resolve the issue itselftbrough civil
litigation. Id.) In addition, short of filing a lawsuit suit against Zeleny, NEA and Sandell tried
unsuccessfully last year to get a restraining order against Zeleny. Sandell Decl. 1f 7.
NEA bas suffered substantial injury already from Zeleny's repeated trespass, and if
Zeleny is not immediately enjoined from entering the Property,. NEA will continue to suffer
immediate and irreparable hann. is not merely a nuisance, but rather a real and serious
impediment to NEAts normal business See Gravelle Decl. 18. Zeleny and
. --
associates have disrupted NEA operations. ld. Several NEA business associates and co-tenants
have concern to NEA over the situation, Sandell Dec!. 8 10, and the effect on NEA's
reputation and on its current and. prospective business is incalculable but very serious.
18 III. NEA IS ENTITLED TO A TRO AND A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NEA's ex parte IRO application should be granted
1
pending a hearing on a preliminary
injlUlction) because NEA will otherwise suffer and irreparable harm. See Code Civ.
Proc. 527(c). NEA is further to a preliminary injunction because it: (1) has a reasonable
probability of success on the merits, and (2) the harm to NEA resulting from a refusal to grant the
preliminaxy injunction far outweighs any hardship to Zeleny if the injunction were
imposed. Bank of Stockton v. Church afSoldiers, 44 Cal,App.4th 1623. 1625-6 (1990); 11'
Corporation v. County of imperial, 35 Cal.3d 63, 69 (1983); Youngblood v, Wilcox, 207
Cal.AppJd 1368, 1372 (1989). What is more, the la\v is clear: "[a]n injunction is an appropriate
remedy for a continuing trespass. tt Ralph's Grocery Company v. United Food, 113 Cal. Rptr. 3d
88,93 (2010) (quotingAllredv. Harris) 14 Cal.App.4th 1386. 1390 (1993)). 'The showing by
8
ISO NEA'S EX PARTE APPLIC. FOR TRO & asc RE PRBLThf. INJUNCTION
Dot 06 2010 8:30PM HP LASERJET FAX p. 13
NEA here more than justifies the requested injunctive relief ..
2
A.
A TRO Is Necessary To Prevent Further Irreparable Harm to NEA.
3 A TRO should issue in this case, pending a hearing to consider a preliminary injunction,
4 beca.use NEA will otherwise suffer irreparable harm. A continuing trespass like that of Zeleny
5 and the other on the Property, in itself) causes irreparable hann. See) e.g" Ralph 'SJ
6 113 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 107 ("a party seeking an injunction need not establish an unlawful act beyond
7 the trespass. And the oontinuing trespass itself also ca.uses ilTeparable harm") (citations omitted).
8 Moreover. irreparable harm need not be to tangible property, but rather may include injury to
9 reputation and business interests. UptOW11 Enterprises v, Strand, 195 Cal.App.2d 45
J
S2 (1961)
10 (injury to reputation and business interest suffices). "When a trespasser engages in activities to
11 discourage the public from patronizing a the effect of the activity cannot be quantified
12 there is no way of knowing who would have patronized the business but for the
13 trespasser's activities." Ralph '$, 113 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 107. The injury here affects a different kind
14 of business than in Ralph's, Jupra, but that holding applies equally. Unquantifiable injury
15 to business and business prospects constitutes irreparable hann. as a matter of law. Id. (acti vities
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
21
28
Zeleny's continued trespass on the Property leaves no room for doubt that he is out to
damage and is damaging NEA's existing and prospective business relationships. Zeleny's
proclamatio,n that he intends to continue his trespass mltil he "breaks" the company (Chandler
Decl. 1) cannot be interpreted nor can the effect to date of Zeleny's actions. See
supra at II. D, NEA is seeking this Court's intervention so that this irreparable injury ,to NEA-
existing here as a matter of law
J
common sense, and be halted until a hearing may
proceed on NEA's requested Order to Show Cause Re Preliminary Injunction.
B. NEA Has A Strong Case On The Merits And Will Likely Prevail On Its
Trespass Claim.
NEA has much more than a "reasonable probability" of success on the merits of the single
cause of action it alleges: trespass.
MEMORANDUM OF POINts AND AUTHORITIES
9
ISO NEA'S EX PARTE APPLIC. FOR TRd & osc RB PRELIM. INJUNCTION
\\\DJ'1l6JWOOI'JI '1641 Y3
06 2010 8:30PM HP LASERJET FAX
p. 14
1. The elements of a trespass action are unambiguously present here.
2 The facts of this case as set forth above and in the evidentiary submissions
3 unequivocally demonstrate that Zeleny and the other defendants are engaged in a continuing
4 trespass on the Property. To show trespass. NEA needs to prove (1) it had ownership or
5 control of the property in question, (2) that Zeleny and the other defendants intentionally,
6 recklessly. or negligently entered that property without and (3) Defendants' conduct
7 was a substantial factor in causing hann to NEA. Ralph's, 113 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 93. By making
8 such showing, NEA may, without more, exercise its right to exclude trespassers from the
9 Property. See, e.g'
l
Allred v, Harris
J
14 Cal.App.4th 1386, 1390 (1993) ("As a general rule,
10 landowners and tenants have a right to exclude persons from trespassing on private property; the
11 right to exclude persons is a fundamental aspect of private property ovvnersbip." holding one of
12 many tenants in an office building had standing to demand exclusion of trespassers on adjoining
13 parking lots and walkways) (emphasis added), .
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Zeleny's disingenuous invocation of Constitutional rights does not
justify his . -_. .. ..
2.
Zeleny cannot justify or otherwise excuse his continuing trespass by his specious
invocation of Constitutional protections .relating to free speech or bearing anns. It is true. of
course
1
that certain property owners and tenants are restricted in their ability to exclude
trespassers-in limited circumstances involving private property detennined to be the equivalent
of a traditional public form. See, Robins v. Pruneyal'd Shopping CenterJ 23 Ca1.3d 899
(1979), qffJd 444 D .. S. 74 (1980) (demonstrators were allowed on the pxemises ofa large regional
private shopping center, even though the owners objected to their presence). But the facts in
PruneJlard were very djfferent than those in this case, where no shopping center is at issue.
Accordingly, the principles in Pruneyard do not restrict to any degree NEA's right to exclude
Zeleny and the other defendants from the Property.
In this regard, it is clear under controlling California jurisprudence developed since
Pruneyard that NBA' s offices, as well as the office park surrounding it, do not comprise a public
forum or pennit the restrictions on property rights that Pnmeyard prescribes for large shopping
10
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AurnORltIBs
ISO NEA'S EX PARTE APPLIC, FOR no &. ase RE PRELIM. INJUNCTION
\\\0341&000001 S7547 vJ
06 2010 8:30PM
HP LASERJET FAX
p. 15
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
centers. For example, when considering the status of a medical center and its adjoining walkways
and Pal'king lots, the court in Planned Parenthood v. Wilson, 234 Cal.App.3d 1662, 167172
(1991) (Wilson) stated:
The Medical Center's six tenants exclusively offel' professional and personal services to
specific clientele. It is for use only by individuals with specific business purposes, such as
employees, clients and prospective clients of the tenants. The small off-street parking lot
is designed to provide a convenient place to park for those having direct business with
Medical Center tenants. Each parking spot is labeled for use by "tenants
H
and "patients,')
and there is no space ,for public parking in general. Unlike a large shopping mall or
historically reoognized public forums like parks, streets or public sidewalks, the Medical
Center in no way has acquired the attributes of a public forum, Indeed, both
architeaturaUy"and by usage, f [i]t presents no significant opportunity to disseminate ideas,
and prohibiting such activity on its premises does not curtail the realistic opportunity of
citizens to exercise their right of free speech. The center [is] not the functional equivalent
o.f a public place ... , (emphasis supplied)
NEA's and the office park surrounding them, are no different. The tenants at the
complex (only four: NEA, Andreessen-Horowitz, J&W Seligman & Co., and Oak Hill Capital
Partners) 8!e all fmanctal firms on venture capital. private equity or asset management.
Gravelle Decl. , 3 j Hawk Decl. 8. Like the medical center in Wilson, these tenants "exclusively
offer. , . professional services to specific clientele.
7t
Id. Also as in Wilson, this Property, is
intended for use onl by individuals with specific business or employment purposes visiting the
office such as current and prospective investors and entrepreneurs. And, like the Wilson
mectical center the Property's off-street parking lot serves as a. convenient place to park
only for those having specific business in the office complex. Gravelle Docl. 8. And, the
streets running through the office complex are clearly marked "PRIVATE PROPERTY-NO
TRESPASSING NO LOITERING-AUTHORIZED BUSINESS USE ONt Y." ld Like the
Wilson medical NEA's offices and the office complex surrounding them lack the indicia
oft and are not remotely the functional equivalent of, a public space.
Neither Zeleny's putported expressive activities nor his Second Amendment
therefore, excuse his trespass. See also Feminisf Women's Health Center v. Blythe, 32
Cal.App.4th 1641, 1654',1660.1661 (1995) (a multi-story medical office building with several
tenants, including physicians and a pharmacy. and a 40-space parking lot reserved for tenants and
their clients and visitors is not a public forum)j Allred v. Shawle).J, 232 Ca1.App.3d 1489, 1494
11
ISO NEAPS EX P IlRTF. APPLIC. FOR TRO & asc RE PRELIM. INJUNCTION

Oot 06 2010 8:30PM HP LASERJET FAX
p.16
1 (1991) (a 14,OOO-square .. foot medical office building, in retail sales were prohibited, with
2 an adjoining 12,OOO-square-foot medical office building and a shared 14S"space parking lot is a.
3 not a public forum); Bank a/Stockton, 44 Cal.AppAth 1623 (a single purpose two story building
4 (bank) with en adjoining parking lot reserved for customers is not a public form; such a property
5 does not provide a place for the general public to congregate, as only those who were transacting
6 business with the bank were invited on the property).
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
c. The Balance Of Hardships Favors Gra;nting A Preliminary Injundion,
Having shown a very substantial likelihood it will win on the merits, the balance of
hardships becomes secondary, as the greater the moving party's showing on one factor) the less
that must be shovvn on the other. Butt v. State o/Cal., 4 Cal.4th 678 (1992). In effect, U[iJn
the unique setting offree speech rights versus private property rights, this harm analysis is the
same as the analysis ooncerning the likelihood of success on the merits." Bank of 44
Cal.App.4th at 1631 .. NEA's strong showing regarding.likelihood of success any
notion of harm to Zeleny and is tantamount to a balance of hardships in NEA's favor.
Moreover, any balance ofha:rdships would decidedly tip in NEA's favor in all events. If
NEA 1
continue 10 suffer serious and irreparable hann. See supra, Part n.D. By contrast, Zeleny and the
other defendants face no hann whatsoever ifa TRO and preliminary injunction are granted. Even
when prevented from entering the office park, Zeleny and his (paid) associates may still exercise
purported rights to speak and bear arms as they.see fit---at any public forum-just not on the
private property surrounding NEA's offices. For these reasons, the balance of hardships plainly
favors granting the requested relief.
12
ISONEA'S EX PARTE APFLIC. FOR TRO 4t OSC RE PR.BLnvt INJUNCTION
Oot 06 2010 8:31PM HP LASERJET FAX
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2S
26
27
28
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth NBA respectfully requests that the Court grant its
applicatioll for a TRO and Order to Show Cause Re Preliminary Injunction.
Dated: October Ss 2010 HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
By: ______________________ __
Robert B. Hawk
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
525 University Avenue
t
4th Floor
Palo Alto, California 994301
Telephone: (650) 4634000
Facsimile: (650) 463-4199
Attorneys for Plaintiff
New Enterprise Associates. Inc.
13
lVIEMORAA'IDUM OF POINTS AND AutHORITIES
ISO NEA'S EX PARTE APPLIC. FOR TRO &:. OSC RE PRELIM. INJUNCTION

p.17
Mr. Michael Zeleny
Hand Delivered
Dear Mr. Zeleny,
STANFORD
UNIVERSITY
October 8, 2010
For the past two weeks, you have been periodically coming onto property owned by the Leland
Stanford Junior University, at times with a shotgun and a filled ammunition belt slung over your
shoulders. You have disrupted the businesses of our tenants in the office complex behind the Rosewood
Sand Hill Hotel, and employees and guests of the hotel, both by your presence on the property and the
disruption caused by associates you have brought on the property to photograph and videotape persons
having legitimate businesson the property and to play musical instruments. You followed a Rosewood
employee for more than 100 yards on October 1, causing her to be in fear for her safety. Your associate
appeared to have videotaped this event without her permission. With your gun in full view, you also
stood in the middle of an access road in a confrontational stance in full view of a contractor who had
come to the hotel to perform maintenance services, causing him to nearly refuse to perform services for
the hotel.
The property owned by the Leland Stanford Junior University is private property. The landowner
has the legal right to bar anyone from its premises, including persons whom it believes has disrupted or
will disrupt its normal business operations. Further, as part of its efforts to maintain a safe working
environment for all employees, residents and visitors to its property, the landowner has the legal right to
bar anyone from its premises, including persons whom it believes has interrupted or interfered or will
interrupt or interfere with its efforts to maintain a safe environment. Thus, this is formal notice that your
presence on the following Stanford property is prohibited effective immediately: the Rosewood property
commonly known as 2825, 2855 through 2885, and 2725 through 2775 Sand Hill Road in Menlo Park,
450 through 585 Broadway and 1228 Douglass in Redwood City, and the Stanford campus (as shown on
the map attached to this letter). Stanford policy specifically prohibits weapons on campus. For the
avoidance of doubt, your presence on any of the above-described property after delivery of this letter will
be unlawful and you may be subject to arrest for trespass.
I urge you to comply voluntarily with this prohibition. However, please understand that should
you choose to disregard it, you may subject yourself to law enforcement intervention, including arrest for
trespass or other possible legal action.
Very truly yours,
The Office of the Vice President & General Counsel
cc: Chief Brian Roberts, Menlo Park Police Department
Chief Laura Wilson, Stanford Department of Public Safety
Building 170, 3rd Floor. Main Quad. Post Office Box 20386. Stanford. CA 94305-2038
' ..... j .. I P1o'-
1,1,111'(' ,- 1)
.' I Ll
.1' ,/ C . I!'
J,M,sr", r "( i-I.:, ::,
I r:i1 i.GiM "i

' ......es:
Menlo Park
STANFORD
UNIVERSITY
Search Stanford Coogle Map (Legend)
L nl i-:Jj
:'(lV.
'" ,
I

F r;l 'l(
Palo Alto

VA AI:,..,
Sy!.I f:1\l
G Search
81 CI ;1 r {<
n.5

;; <:u\Jl,

P;; I':1 idl::;
5;;;'1:0'1:15
"
'"
It
'
"
c
..t'
, 1"('
n'J'.:
Stanford Home Official Campus Map

.
f'!:C' fiO! i '1t'!
:1: ' ,10. 11:.::11'
=-3!k
N.: r-: M,
Joger
Slo.rg'l
Navall
Motf
MrI
Fed-ara

Maps & Directions Visitor Information
Stanford University. 450 Serra Mall. Stanford, California 94305. (650) 723-2300, Terms of Use I Copyright Complaints
I, _________ , declare:
1.
2.
. I am a private security guard employed by ___________ _
On October __ ,2010, as part of my duties, I was asked to deliver a letter, with
an attached map, to Michael Zeleny. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of
what I delivered to Mr. Zeleny from the Office of the Vice President and General Counsel of
Stanford University.
3. I read the contents of the letter to Mr. Zeleny and handed the letter to him.
4. Mr. Zeleny did __ did not __ accept delivery of the letter.
I declare under penalty of perjury and under the laws of the United States that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Executed 'this __ day of October, 2010 in Menlo Park, California.
Al73S24062. J
Kaufman, Sharon A
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
larvatus@gmail.com on behalf of Michael Zeleny [zeleny@post.harvard.edu]
. Saturday, October 09,20109:27 AM
Kaufman, Sharon A
Dixon, William A; David W. Affeld; McClure, William; sandhill@rosewoodhotels.com; Roberts,
Bryan A; Burt, Lacey A
Re: Relocation of Protest Site
Thank you for your helpful clarification. Per the explanation given yesterday by Sgt Dixon, I await the
letter explaining the legal grounds of your order to terminate my protest. I note that the relevant
sections of P.C. 602 specifically exempt "any person on the premises who is engaging in activities
protected by the California Constitution or the United States Constitution." Please note that my
activities fit within this category pursuant to the rulings in Prunevard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447
U.S. 74 (1980) and progeny. Please forward your correspondence in this regard 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. My contact information is listed
below.
Michael Zeleny@post.harvard.edu -- http://iarvatus.livejournal,com/-- 7576 Willow Glen Road, Los
Angeles, CA 90046 -- 323.363.1860
Samuel Beckett
On Fri, 'Oct 8, 2010 at 1 f:56 AM,Kaufinan, Sharon A <SAKaufman@menlopark.org> wrote:
I will first address the musical performances issue:
Be advised that being on a public sidewalk you are subject to conform to not only Penal and Vehicle Code restrictions, but
also to Menlo Park Municipal Code requirements. We have a noise ordinance in the City of Menlo Park which restricts
and/or prohibits the use of loud and unreasonable noise. You will find this under Menlo Park Municipal Code R.06.020
and 8.06.030. These sections in part, not verbatim, that a "Noise Disturbance" means any source of sound which exceeds
the noise limitations permitted in MP Muni Code section 8.06.030. For purposes of the section, sources of sound shall
include but are not limited to the following: Amplified music, loudspeakers, radios, televisions, stereos, musical
instruments, etc .... R.06.030 states that the noise limitation for daytime hours are not to exceed (60) DBA as measured
from the nearest affected property. Also any street musician on public property is subject to pay a two dollars per day per
person, per MP Muni Code 5.20.0 I 0(9)
Next, PC415(2) states: Any person who maliciously and willfully disturbs another person by loud and unreasonable
noise. Being "malicious" is making an overt act not necessarily a wrongful act. Regarding the case law you quote,
People v. Superior COllrl (Commons) (1982). 135. refers to acts committed by a person who is in violation of 415(3),
which states that '''Any person who uses offensive words in a public place which are inherently likely to provoke an
immediate violent reaction. The jury instruction you provide by the Grand Jury does not supersede the penal code, and
the parameters of the case being heard by them is unknown and may not be applicable.
1
Further. in regards to being on public property, you must be aware that MP Municipal Code 13.1S.020(c) - No
encroachment of any kind, which impedes, obstructs or denies pedestrian, vehicular or other lawful travel within the limits
of the public right of way or which impairs adequate sight-distance or safe pedestrian or vehicular traffic, will be
permitted.
Lastly, you state that you intend to incorporate your protest the publicly accessible grounds of Rosewood Hotel. Be
reminded that Rosewood Hotel is on Private Property and you have already been advised that you are not to return there,
this includes parking of vehicles, etc ...
This is all for your information, in the spirit of cooperation
Sharon Kaufillall
lilterilu COl1111lallder Patrol Operatiolls
Menlo Park Police Departl1lent
650-330-6321
sakaufnlan@Jllelllopark.org
From: larvatus@gmail.com [mailto:larvatus@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Michael Zeleny
Sent: Friday, October 08, 2010 10:20 AM
To: Dixon, William A; David W. Affeld
Cc: Kaufman, Sharon A; McClure, William; sandhill@rosewoodhotels.com
Subject: Relocation of Protest Site
Dear S gt Dixon,
Per our phone conversation yesterday, I am confirming the relocation of my protests against NEA to the front
entrance of the site comprising Rosewood Sand Hill Hotel and the office park that contains NEA. In connection
with this relocation, until and unless I receive further notification from Menlo Park Police, I intend to reinstate
my musical perfonnances at the new protest site, in support of my message. Please note that in order to secure
conviction under P.C. 415(2), against any person who maliciously and willfully disturbs another person by loud
and unreasonable noise, the prosecutor must prove that the defendant (a) willfully and maliciously caused loud
and unreasonable noise, and that (b) the noise disturbed another person. Here "maliciously" means intentionally
doing a wrongful act with the unlawful intent of annoying or injuring another person, whereas that the noise
"disturbed another person" means that the noise (c) presented a danger of immediate violence, or (d) was used
for the purpose of disrupting lawful activities, rather than as a means to communicate. Please see in this regard
People v. Superior Court (Commons) (1982), 135 Cal.App.3d 812,817: "We are satisfied that loud shouting
2
and cheering constitute the loud 'noise' prohibited by [Penal Code] section 415 only in two situations: I) where
there is a clear and present danger of imminent violence and 2) where the purported communication is used as a
guise to disrupt lawful endeavors." Also, please refer to Judicial Council Of California Criminal Jury Instruction
2g8? the and Unreasonable Noise: "In orderto disturb another person by causing
loud and unreasonable noise, there must be either: [I] A clear and present danger of immediate violence; OR [2]
The noise must be used for the purpose of disrupting lawful activities, rather than as a means to communicate."
Please be advised further that until and unless I receive further notification from Menlo Park Police, I intend
to incorporate into my protest the publicly accessible grounds of Rosewood Sand Hill under the authority of
rulings in Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980) and progeny. I am sure that your city
authorities will recognize that publicly accessible grounds of that hotel fully realize the qualities of a "miniature
downtown" identified in Pruneyard. Please accept my assurances of continued compliance with police orders in
this matter. Please note also that my crew has aI-ready been assaulted by the hotel staff, whose director of
facilities has been captured on video threatening to "take [me] down". I trust that your department will do its
best to forestall further unlawful acts by the hotel personnel and other parties objecting to our activities.
Michael Zeleny@post.harvard.edu -- http://larvatus.livejoumal.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
3
Kaufman. Sharon A
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Dear Sgt Dixon,
larvatus@gmail,com on behalf of Michael Zeleny [zeleny@post.harvard.edu]
Friday, October 08,2010 10:20 AM
Dixon, William A; David W. Affeld
Kaufman, Sharon A; McClure, William; sandhill@rosewoodhotels.com
Relocation of Protest Site
Per our phone conversation yesterday, I am confirming the relocation of my protests against NEA to
the front entrance of the site comprising Rosewood Sand Hill Hotel and the office park that contains
NEA. In connection with this relocation, until and unless I receive further notification from Menlo Park
Police, I intend to reinstate my musical performances at the new protest site, in support of my
message. Please note that in order to secure conviction under P.C. 415(2), against any person who
maliciously and willfully disturbs another person by loud and unreasonable noise, the prosecutor must
prove that the defendant (a) willfully and maliciously caused loud and unreasonable noise, and that
(b) the noise disturbed another person. Here "maliciously" means intentionally doing a wrongful act
with the unlawful intent of annoying or injuring another person, whereas that the noise "disturbed
another person" means that the noise (c) presented a danger of immediate violence, or (d) was used
for the purpose of disrupting lawful activities, rather than as a means to communicate. Please see in Q .. .d.,.
this regard People v. Superior Court (Commons) (1982),135 Cal.App.3d 812,817: ''We are satisfied ~ ~
that loud shouting and cheering constitute the loud 'noise' prohibited by [Penal Code] section 415 only t-
in two sItuations: 1) where there is a clear and present danger of imminent violence and 2) where the
purported communication is used as a guise to disrupt lawful endeavors." Also, please refer to ~ 171.a-:t
Judi.cial Co.uncil.OfCalifornia Criminal Jury Instruction 2689--- Disturbing the Peace: Loud and ~
Unreasonable Noise: "In order to disturb another person by causing loud and unreasonable noise, ~
there must be either: [1] A clear and present danger of immediate violence; OR [2] The noise must be
used for the purpose of disrupting lawful activities, rather than as a means to communicate."
Please be advised further that until and unless I receive further notification from Menlo Park Police,.!
intend to incorporate into my protest the publicly accessible grounds of Rosewood Sand Hill under the
authority of rulings in Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980) and progeny. I am
sure that your city authorities will recognize that publicly accessible grounds of that hotel fully realize
the qualities of a "miniature downtown" identified in Pruneyard. Please accept my assurances of
continued compliance with police orders in this matter. Please note also that my crew has already
been assaulted by the hotel staff, whose director of facilities has been captured on video threatening
to "take [me] down". I trust that your department will do its best to forestall further unlawful acts by the
hotel personnel and other parties objecting to our activities.
Michael Zeleny@post.harvard.edu -- http://larvatus.livejournal.com/-- 7576 Willow Glen Road, Los
Angeles, CA 90046 -- 323.363.1860
Samuel Beckett
1
Kaufman. Sharon A
From: Kaufman, Sharon A
Sent:
To:
Friday, October 08, 2010 11 :59 AM
_Police Management Staff
Subject: FW: Relocation of Protest Site
Here is an email that was sent to Sgt. Dixon this morning on Mr. Zeleny's intentions. I prepared and sent the below
response for your information.
I will first address the musical performances issue:
Be advised that being on a public sidewalk you are subject to conform to not only Penal and Vehicle Code restrictions, but
also to Menlo Park Municipal Code requirements. We have a noise ordinance in the City of Menlo Park which restricts
and/or prohibits the use of loud and unreasonable noise. You will find this under Menlo Park Municipal Code 8.06.020
and 8.06.030. These sections in part, not verbatim, that a "Noise Disturbance" means any source of sound which exceeds
the noise limitations permitted in MP Muni Code section 8.06.030. For purposes of the section, sources of sound shall
include but are not limited to the following: Amplified music, loudspeakers, radios, televisions, stereos, musical
instruments, etc .... 8.06. 030 states that the noise limitation for daytime hours are not to exceed (60) DBA as measured
from the nearest affected property. Also any street musician on public property is subject to pay a two dollars per day
per person, per MP Muni Code 5.20.010(9)
Next, PC415(2) states: Any person who maliciously and willfully disturbs another person by loud and unreasonable
noise. Being "malicious" is making an overt act not necessarily a wrongful act. Regarding the case law you quote,
People v. Superior Court (Commons) (1982), 135, refers to acts committed by a person who is in violation of 415(3), which
"states"that who offensive words in a public place which are inherently likely to provoke an immediate
violent reaction. The jury instruction you provide by the Grand Jury does not supersede the penal code, and the
parameters of the case being heard by them is unknown and may not be applicable.
Further, in regards to being on public property, you must be aware that MP Municipal Code 13.18.020(c) - No
encroachment of any kind, which impedes, obstructs or denies pedestrian, vehicular or other lawful travel within the
limits of the public right of way or which impairs adequate sight-distance or safe pedestrian or vehicular traffic, will be
permitted.
Lastly, you state that you intend to incorporate your protest the publicly accessible grounds of Rosewood Hotel. Be
reminded that Rosewood Hotel is on Private Property and you have already been advised that you are not to return
there, this includes parking of vehicles, etc ...
This is all for your information, in the spirit of cooperation
Sharon Kaufman
Interim Commander Patrol Operations
Menlo Park Police Department
650-330-6321
sakaufman@menlopark.org
From: larvatus@gmail.com [mailto:larvatus@gmail,com] On Behalf Of Michael Zeleny
Sent: Friday, October 08, 2010 10:20 AM
To: Dixon, William A; David W. Affeld
Cc: Kaufman, Sharon A; McClure, William; sandhill@rosewoodhotels.com
Subject: Relocation of Protest Site
1
Dear Sgt Dixon,
Per ()ur phone cOQyersation yesterday, I am confirming the relocation of my protests against NEA to
the front entrance of the site comprising Rosewood Sand Hill Hotel and the office park that contains
NEA. In connection with this relocation, until and unless I receive further notification from Menlo Park
Police, I intend to reinstate my musical performances at the new protest site, in support of my
message. Please note that in order to secure conviction under P.C. 415(2), against any person who
maliciously and willfully disturbs another person by loud and unreasonable noise, the prosecutor must
prove that the defendant (a) willfully and maliciously caused loud and unreasonable noise, and that
(b) the noise disturbed another person. Here "maliciously" means intentionally doing a wrongful act
with the unlawful intent of annoying or injuring another person, whereas that the noise "disturbed
another person" means that the noise (c) presented a danger of immediate violence, or (d) was used
for the purpose of disrupting lawful activities, rather than as a means to communicate.- Please see in
this regard People v. Superior Court (Commons) (1982),135 Cal.App.3d 812, 817: "We are satisfied
that loud shouting and cheering constitute the loud 'noise' prohibited by [Penal Code] section 415 only
in two situations: 1) where there is a clear and present danger of imminent violence and 2) where the
purported communication is used as a guise to disrupt lawful endeavors." Also, please refer to
JUdicial Council Of California Criminal Jury Instruction 2689 - Disturbing the Peace: Loud and
Unreasonable Noise: "In order to disturb another person by causing loud and unreasonable noise,
there must be either: [1] A clear and present danger of immediate violence; OR [2] The noise must be
used for the purpose of disrupting lawful activities, rather than as a means to -communicate."
Please be advised further that until and unless I receive further notification from Menlo Park Police, I
intend to incorporate into my protest the publicly accessible grounds of Rosewood Sand Hill under the
authority of rulings in Pruneyard Shopping Centf!r y. Robins, 44? 7 4 {198Q) I am
sure fhafyour Cifyauthofitieswillrecognize that publicly accessible grounds of that hotel fully realize
the qualities of a "miniature downtown" identified in Pruneyard. Please accept my of
continued compliance with police orders in this matter. Please note also that my crew has already
been assaulted by the hotel staff, whose director of facilities has been captured on video threatening
to "take [me] down". I trust that your department will do its best to forestall further unlawful acts by the
hotel personnel and other parties objecting to our activities.
Michael Zeleny@post.harvard.edu -- http://larvatus.livejournal,com/-- 7576 Willow Glen Road, Los
Angeles, CA 90046 -- 323.363.1860
Samuel Beckett
2
10/15/2010 16:09 3109798701 AGZ LLP PAGE ell
FACSIMILE TRANSIvlISSION COVER PAGE
AFFELU GKIVAKES ZUCKER LLP
12400 WIl .. :SHJRE BOULEVARD
SUITE 1180
Los ANGeLeS, CALIFORNIA 90025
TEJ.lEPHONE: (310) 9798700
F 1\ x: (310) 979-870 I
October 15,2010
NAME: William L. McClure OFFICE: Jorgenson, Siegel, McClure & Flegel, LLP
LOCATION: Menlo Park CA
FAX PHONE: (650) 324 .. 0227 OFFICE PHONE: (650) 3249300
FROM: David W. Affeld SENDER'S PHONE: (3 10) 979-8700
NUMBER OF PAGES (including cover sheet): --L
COMfv'IENTS:
CONFTDENTIALITY NOTE: The inrormation trDnsmittcd in this facsimile messAge is sent by an attorney or that
attorney's agent. It is to be confidential Bnd (or the llse of onc the individllftl or entity named Hbove. If the
recipient is ft client, this me3sage may nlsa be for the purpose of rendering legal advice and thereby privileged. Irthe
render ofthis ms3age Is not the intcnded recipient, you nre hereby notified that nny retention, disseminRtion, distrIbUtion,
01' copy or this telecopy is strictly prohibited. If you have receIved this facsimile in error. immediately notify u!' hy
telephone and return the original message to us nt the address above vill the moil service (we will reimburse postage).
Thank you.
PleDse notc the total number of pages to be trAnsmitted. If you do not receive the numbn indicated, please call (3 J 0) 979-
8700.
10/15/2010 16:09
31097987131
AGZ LLP PAGE 02
AFFELD GR(VAKES ZUCKER LLP
12400 WILSHIRE: 80ULEVARO
,",I.IITE: 1190
LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90025
TEL (310) 979-6700 FAX (.:310) 979-9701
October IS! 2010
By Fax. Email (odD, and Regular lVlaiI
William L. Iv1cCIure
Jorgenson, Siegel, McClme & Flegt:l, LLP
1100 Alma Street, Suite 210
tvlcnlo Park, CA 94025-3392
Rc! First Amendment Protest Activity by Michael Zeleny at Rosewood
Sand Hill
Dear Mr. McClure:
I understand that you are involved on behalf of the City Attorney's office for the
City of lvlcnlo Park with respect to protest activity by Michael Zeleny at Rosewood Sand Hill,
directed at New Enterprise Associates, Inc. ("NEA"). I further understand that officers from the
Menlo Park PoHce Department have told Mr. ZeJel1Y that ifhe continues his protest activity al
that site, he will be prosecuted for criminal trespass, and that they have done so at your direction.
We are at a complete loss to understand what the legal grounds cou.1d possibly be
on 'which the Department is authorized to order Mr. Ze]eny to terminate his protest. Penal Code
602.1 (a), for example, provides as follows:
Any person who intenti.<'lnally interferes \.vith any Ia\vful business or occupation
carried on by the owner or agent of a business establislunent open to the by
obstructing or intimidating those attempting to carry on business, or their
customers, and who refuses to leave the premises of the business estabHshment
after lJeiJJg lv h:avl: by ur lh.e owner's agent, or by a peace
officer acting at the request of the owner or owner's agent, is guilty of a
misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for up to 90 dDYD, or by
a fine of up to four hundred dollars ($400), or by both that imprisonment and fine.
However. section 602.1 (c) specifically exempts application of section 602.1 (a) to "any person on
the premises who is engaging in activities protected by the California Constitution or the United
States Constitution." That is precisely what lvlr. Zeleny is doing.
10/15/2010 15:09
31097987131
AFFELD GRIV AKES ZUCKER LLP
William L. McClure
October 1:'i, ?O 1 0
Page 2
AGZ LLP PAGE 03
SimilarlYt Section 602(0) criminalizes "[r]efusing or failing to leave land
t
real
property, or structures belonging to or .lawfully occupied by another and not open to the &eneral
public .. upon being requested to leave ... " (emphasis added.). Rosewood Sand Hill is quite
obviously open to the public. The main tenant on the property is a botel complex which operates
a restaurant and two spas, among other things, all of which are offered to the public. NEA itself
has visitors come and go daily.
Furthermore, local ordinances cann.ot override Mr. Zeleny's exercise of righl
of protest under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. See
Prune yard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447l LR 74 (1980) and progeny. Furthermore, free
speech rights vis-a-vis a the rights of an owner of private property open to the public are even
broader under the California State Constitution than under the United States Constitution.
Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Canter, 23 Cal. 3d 899 (I 979), affinned by the United States
Supreme Court in the decision cited immediately above.
Sargent Dixon of the Menlo Park Police Department told Mr. Zeleny last Friday,
October 8: 2010, that his depanmenr was drafting a letter that would explain the basis tor
ejecting Mr. Zeleny {rom the grounds of Rosewood SandHill. It has'beeifa\veek'arid no such
letter hns been received yet. \Vhether the Police Depal'ttllc::ut or your office does,
please forward a copy to me at your earliest opportunity. We welcome the opportunity to meet
confer with you in the hope that litigation to overcome the abridgement of Mr. Zeleny's
Constitutional rights can be avoided. In addition, unless the City can state coherent grounds for
its position, Mr. Zeleny \-vill resume his protest activhy. If the City then makes good on it.'\ threat
to arrest him for exerc.ising his Constitutional rights, he will pursue a civil rights action against
all responsible parties.
Very truly yours,
David W. Affcld
c: Robert B. Hawk
: ... :. . ...... ......... "'-o ... , _ - ............ , ................. .
James Barrett; Jay Graf; Jimmy Treybig; John Nehra; Jon Sakoda; Josh Makower; Justin Klein; Krishna 'Kittu' Kolluri;
Louis Citron; Mark Perry; Megan Alderete; Mike O'Dell; Mike Ramsay; Mohamad Makhzoumi; Nitin Sharma; Patrick Chung;
Patrick Kerins; Paul Hsiao; Paul Walker; Peter Barris; Peter Behrendt; Peter Morris; Peter Sonsini; PM Pai; Ralph
Snyderman; Ravi Viswanathan; Richard Whitney; Rick Yang; Robert Croce; Robert Garland; Rohini Chakravarthy; Ryan
Drant; Sara Nayeem; Scott Gottlieb; Scott Sandell; Sigrid Van Bladel; Sujay Jaswa; Suzanne King; Tim Schaller; Tom
Grossi; Tony Florence
Subject: Public Protest at Rosewood Sand Hill Compound
Dear Rosewood Sand Hill Hotel management and Menlo Park city authorities,
Please be advised that starting on 18 April 2011, my associates and I will resume open-ended
peaceful public protests last held in the Fall of 2010 in front of NEA, 2855 Sand Hill Road, Menlo
Park, CA 94025. ~ e purpose of our demonstrations will be to protest Subrah Iyarls 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.
As you know, a civil action by NEA against me for trespass is pending as Case No. 499465 in San
Mateo Superior Court. During its pendency, my associates and I will abstain from entering the
grounds of the Rosewood Sand Hill compound at 2855 Sand Hill Road. Our action will therefore take
place at the public easement adjacent to its entrance. As before, we are planning to feature topical
displays, openly carried unloaded firearms, and relevant entertainment. As before, in the spirit of
courtesy, we are prepared to discuss reasonable mutual accommodations pertaining to the time,
place, and manner of our performances. In this connection, I am attaching for your commentary a
mockup of a hand-held 30
1
banner that we are planning to string across the entrance to the
Rosewood Sand Hill compound. As an example of possible accommodations, pursuant to your
agreement we would be willing to minimize our impact on the bUsiness of Rosewood Sand Hill Hotel
by relocating our displays from the entrance to its compound to the far end of its grounds adjacent to
NEAls quarters.
Angeles CA 90025, phone: 310.979.8700, fax: 310.979.8701. I may be reached at the number listed
below.
Michael@massmeans.com I Zeleny@post.harvard.edu 17576 Willow Glen Road, Los Angeles, CA
90046 I 323.363.1860 I http://www.subrah.com
http://larvatusJivejournal.coml"AIi of old. Nothing else ever. Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try
again. Fail again. Fail better." -- Samuel Beckett
2
Kaufman, Sharon A
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Sharon,
Dan K. Siegel [dks@jsmf.com]
Wednesday, October 12, 2011 9:31 AM
Kaufman, Sharon A
McClure, William; Robin H. Riggins
Zeleny
I have reviewed the Zeleny documents and discussed them with Bill. As the area marked in pink on the map/diagram
you sent me is covered by a public access easement, the general public, including Mr. Zeleny, has the right to be on the
land for any lawful purpose. As protesting is a protected First Amendment right, Mr. Zeleny may conduct his protest on
the public access easement.
I have reviewed the Judgment and Permanent Injunction ("Order") and it does not prevent Mr. Zeleny from protesting in
this location. The Order is limited to a small geographic area that does not contain the pink public easement.
Furthermore, the Order does not ban Mr. Zeleny from protesting on public property.
Lastly, any issues arising out of Mr. Zeleny posting of videos and addresses of individuals who enter onto 2855 Sand Hill
Road are issues for those individuals to resolve and are not issues in which the City can or should be involved.
If you have any questions or concerns please email or telephone me. Both Bill and I are available to consult with you or
whomever else in the Department wishes to discuss the planned resumption of these protests.
Dan
1
Jerry Brown signs ban on open-carry of handguns
I Search
-Q. r. SFGate r Web Search by YAHOOI r Businesses ! Al:!vanced
Bay Area & State Nation World Poli t ics Crime Tech Obi t uaries Education
Green Science Health
Wyatt Buchanan, Chronicle Sacramento Bureau
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
:J PRI NT 3 EMAIl c,..."> SHARE :) E FONT I SlZE: .;J ..:J
(10-10) 11:24 PDT
Sacramento -
32
Gov. J eny Br 0\\11 bas
outlawed the open
carrying of unloaded
handguns in California,
signing a bill late
902
Sunday night that
makes the practice that
had been popular with
some gun rigbts advocates a
misdemeanor in the state.
8
I - P,,-,iC!Ww,''''''C''n.-.lo.o\oo
wa1kino on North The bill, ABl44 by Assemblyman
IMAGES
4 VIew AII IIN'ili!s ( 4)
MORE BAY AREA NEWS
Engines of plane In fatal East Palo
Alto crash ran normall'l 10.11 . 11
Goodbye rain! Clear skies by t his
ali:emoon 10.11.11
Oakland man held in Sacra mento
slaylngs of man and infant son
l O. 1i 11
other exemptions.
Anthony Portantino, D-La
Canada Fliotridge (Los Angeles
County), will take effect J ao. 1 aod was backed by law
enforcement officials throughout the state who said
the practice created a public safety issue.
'''''Te "iew the open carrying of unloaded handguns as a
threat to the safety of the communities we police and
the safety of our officers," said David L Maggard, Jr.,
president of the Californi a Police Chiefs Association.
The ban does Dot apply to law enforcement, people
authorized to carry loaded weapons in public or to
people selling unloaded weapons at gun shows, among
Violations of the law will carry a fi ne of up to $1,00 0 and up to six months in count)'jail.
In addition, Brown signed into law a bill that will require that the infonnation from
purchasers of long guns, such as rifles and shotguns, be retained by the state
Department of J ustice in the same \',>,ay information about handgun purchasers is
retained.
Currently. the information of people who buy long guns is destroyed.
In a message accompanying the signed bill, AB809 by Assemblyman Mike Feuer, D-Los
Angeles, Brown wr ote, "Since the state already retains handgun purcbaser information, I
see no reason why the state should not also retain information pertaining to the sale of
iongguns."
Page 1 of 3
Wei rd Opinion
nl5l [
I
Gall eri es
1-30'21 I

Tropical
Thailand:
The Hx (or
San ...
World's
oldest
running car:
I SS-; Oe ..

Ny Ride
1961
Triumph
TRJA
MOST READ MOST E MAIUO
1. Jl!!rry Brown signs ant ibullying, open<arry
bills
2. Beotlng: hybridS from carpool lanes backfires
3. Tony Sennen.saw U1dy Gaga naked
4 . Occupy mo .... ement in Oakland, SF hoUSing
protest
5. 49ERS No Morgan 50 more walker7
6. They're In It together Fans of 4ge,-.;, Raiders
teel II deep affectlcn for ...
7. Jerry Brown signs ban on open-carry of
handguns
Tod."J y'. Deal in SOi n Francisco
55 for 510 Toward Food and Drinks at
Extreme Pizza
Get SOl" Francisco Dally 0001 alert s.
I Please elller four email h"re

39:40:08
http://www.sfgate.comlcgi-biniarticle.cgi?f=/c/a/20 11 110/1 OIBAHB 1 LF08V .DTL 1011 11201 1
E-mail WyattBuchananat wbllchoHon@sjchronicle.com.
=.: PRINT - I EMAlt - S!-'.AFtE

32
We Recommend
From Around the Web [Whllt'slhi,?j
NH official; Husband killed wife who strangled
'""
Unthlnk,1ble Poised to Happen on Wall Street. See
Disturbing Charts.
Hal f Dome survivors wish they had taken heed
allegedly forces gIrl to sell sex for car b!U
800tlng hybrids from carpool lanes backfired
8rOl'ln signs anti -bullying, open-carry bills
What percentage of the undergraduate population
at San ... (Res'i!t San Franci sco)
Space Traders: Trey ElliS Remembers Adapting
the Derrick BelL (TIle Roc!)
/>l an dies In struggle with San Leandro police
Govt . Worker Paid to Stay Home (The f iscal limes)
Pot-Packing St oner Arrested After Petting Police
Dog ( The Stir By Caletjom)
Subscribe to the San Francisco Chronicle and r eceive access
to the Chronicl e for iPad App and a gift:
Add Your Comment
New to the site?
To use commenting,
you need to sign up.
Register
r Sunday + $ 15 gift C2rd
r Fri -Sun + $15 girt card
r Man-Sun + a $25 gift c.!Ird
Seloel an orror
Al r eady a member?
Please log in. (Forgot Passl'lord?)
Usemame rl----------- -
Password
I Remember r'le Sign In
Most Popular Comments
W
friction.Jack 11:4:!. A.II on OC":obEr 10, 20ll
There's still time for my nude open carry Halloween costume!!!
REPLY (llS) ( L6) POI'IJt,IRI; '( 99
14 replies
I II6iU [Report A.l:usa]
Good move by the governor. The open carry thing Is just a stunt done to generate controversy
EJ
The: Pelican )1:4J on October l a, 2!lll
_ and publicity for the gun advocates. It serves no useful or legitimate purpose other than to
focus attention on guns as political props. I am sure there will be litigation over this Issue. Lets
hope for a common sense approach by th e Courts.
REPLY (169) ( 105) POP"LAIlIIV 64 I I <RI [R!!port libuse]
21
bSwp 11 3' ftH on October 10. 201 t

Open Carry advocates shot themselves i n the foot on thi s one. And next on their agenda? Open
carry of long guns ...
. REPlY (I"?) ' (85 ) DOPIJlAAH, 62
14 replies
View Comments (383)
Boston-S.F. food
mash up
Ads by Yahoo!
ABC's sitcoms need Best Sylvest er
10 man up St"lIonc movies
B", st Money Market Funds
Book documents
S.F. jau club
find the Highest Yields In the US. Compare the Trusted FDIC Banks
(
Mortgage R.ates Hit 2.50
0
10
If you owe under $729k you may qualify for 3.01% APR Govt Refi Plans.
(WI'/YI SeeRelin<!"cePaf eS com)
5 Hot Growth Stocks
Discover Your Best Opportunit ies For Safe PortfoliO Growth.
J I \Rl [Report Abu::ej
Pumpkin 5quuh(ls
Callfor n ill rl!.cord
Page 2 of3
FROM OUR HOMEPAGE
CUre for S.F. fog
How about exotiC Thailand, where. the weather Is
nice all year, round. Check It our.

monster-
ARCHITECT
PROJECT MANAGER Company
VMI
Mere Jebs
7
\f- !
Sf \L' ly. LU
'<
./
IS ON SFCate.com
REAL ESTATE
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/20 11 II 011 OIB AHB 1 LF08V .DTL 1011 1/201 I
Jerry Brown signs ban on open-carry of handguns Page 3 of 3
Inspired by olCpansive vi e ws
This pair of four'bedroom, l.S-bath
sister homes - the second al 1395 is II
bit more traditional - have 180-dl!9ree
views of the city, bay and Mount Oiilblo.
16 year old Sonoma kid builds own heuse
What you can rent In Piedmont for 59,995
Orinda contemporary made for entertaining
CARS
Search Real Estllte 6
A wine country kind of ride
SUI! Remldt's 1961 Triumph TRJA may
not be 115 fancy a5 the Jaguar XK140s
she originally wanted, but It still offers /I
sporty thrill. Photos"
Battery options for older Prius
Cadillac Ciel Hybrid Con\'ertible Is a grand tourer
'!) Photo: Share pies of your Cllf

I
Surch Cars
Newest Taylormade RlI
Irons free shipping ..
AfrICan Wood SOQkcase
' OVERSTOCK ' S79
1>1attress ' $395 Bedroom
5et ' 5195 ..
German Shepherd AKC
PUllS, TOil European
Browse adS I an ad
Home News Sports 6us!ness Entertlllr'lment kIod LJvll'IQ Travel Buy to Sell Fil'ld B.ly Alea Jobs R'!al Estate Sile Index
Company Info: COnwd Us Hearst Corp. Pl"ivltcy Policy Terms and COl'ldltJcl'I$ VJork for Chro,,"da In EdlJc:ation Ever.u t. Promotions SUbml 5!io10l'lS
AdVertising Services: WIth us PIKe is OassHled About Our Adl Pucl:c lOal l Business Directory
Reade r Services: Horne IPad EEd,1H1I'I I>\Oblle RSS Feedbad t!uy Photos FAQ CorrectIons Get Us
l ocal Services : AIr Conditioning Contractcrs Car Oealushlps Cleal11no SelVlces Family Fli(Il iture lnjur( Attorneys local il.estourllnls lie'. Car Dealers Real
Est;:!te Al,ler"lts Relll htiSte Attorneys
;:: 20 11 Heust Inc.
H Ii A A S T ' W I '/\Jprn
http://www.sfgate.comlcgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/aJ20 1111 Oil OIBAHB lLF08V .DTL 1011 1/2011
Number 11-11 Menlo Park Poli ce Department October 10, 2011
Subject: AB 144 - Ban on Open-Carry of Handguns
Governor Jerry Brown signs ban on open-carry of handguns in California. Assembly Bill CAB)
144 will take effect on January 1, 2012. Please find the attached arti cle with more information,
or you can visit the link at the following web address:
httn:llwww.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/cl aJ201 1/ 1011 O/BAKE I LF08V .DTL#ixzz I aPTLkxmJ.
STANFORD
UNIVERSITY
OFFICIAL STAY AWAY NOTICE FROM STANFORD UNIVERSITY,
STANFORD ROSEWOOD PROPERTY
To: Mr. Michael Zeleny
By email
From: Stanford University
Date: April 15, 2011
.
TAKE NOTICE: MICHAEL ZELENY:
Leland Stanford Junior University is the owner of the real property on which the Rosewood Sand
Hill Hotel, the "Rosewood" office complex, and the adjacent "Addison Wesley" office complex are
located. All property owned by Leland Stanford Junior University is private property. The landowner has
the legal right to bar anyone from its premises, including persons whom it believes has disrupted or will
disrupt its normal business operations. Further, as part of its efforts to maintain a safe working
environment for all employees, residents, tenants and visitors to its property, the landowner has the legal
right to bar anyone from its premises, including persons whom it believes has interrupted or interfered or
will interrupt or interfere with its efforts to maintain a safe environment. Thus, this is formal notice that
your presence on the following Stanford property is prohibited effective immediately: the Rosewood
property commonly known as 2825, 2855 through 2885, and 2725 through 2775 Sand Hill Road in Menlo
Park, 450 through 585 Broadway and 1228 Douglass in Redwood City, and the Stanford campus (as shown
on the map attached to this letter). Stanford policy specifically prohibits weapons on campus. For the
Please understand that should you choose to disregard this notice, you may subject yourself to law
enforcement intervention, including arrest for trespass or other possible legal action.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
Robert B. Hawk (Cal. Bar No. 118054)
Kristi K. Elder (Cal. Bar No. 231996)
Nimrod H. A viad (Cal. Bar No. 259705)
525 University 4rh Floor
Palo Alto, California 94301
Telephone: (650) 463-4000
Facsimile: (650) 463-4199

kris.elder@!loganIovells.com
nimi.aviad@hoganlovells.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
NEW ENTERPRISE ASSOCIATES, INC.
ENDORSED FILED
SAN MATEO COUNTY
SEP 2 2 2011
Clerk of the Superior Court
Sv S. Peyrot

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
New Enterprise Associates, Inc., a Delaware Case N<J. CIV 499465
JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT
INJUNCTION IN FAVOR OF
PLAINTIFF NEW ENTERPRISE
ASSOCIATES, INC.
12 Corporation,
13
14
v.
Plaintiff,
15 Michael and DOES 1-25,
16 Defendant.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JUDGMENT & PERMANENT INJUNCTION IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF NEA
\\'Dl4B26AX1OOOI- 100219 vi
/.-.
1 Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 998, on September 19 J 2011,
2 Plaintiff New Enterprise Associates, Inc. ("NEA") submitted a settlement offer to Defendant
3 Michael Zeleny ("Zeleny"). Zeleny and his counsel accepted such offer on September 19,2011
4 and September 20,2011, respectively.
5 The Court being fully advised and in accordance with California Code of Civil Procedure
6 Section 998 hereby:
7 ORDERS, ADJUDGES AND DECREES THAT:
8 1. Judgment is entered against Defendant Michael Zeleny- in favor of PlaintiffNEA
9 in the amount of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) (the "Damages");
2. Defendant Michael Zeleny is permanently enjoined from entering onto, or
11 inducing other individuals to enter onto, any portion of the real property situated at 2855 Sand
12 Hill Road, Menlo Park, California, the walkways leading to NEA's business offices located in
13 2855 Sand Hill Road, the common tenant grounds of the office park in which 2855 Sand Hill
14 Road is located, including the internal street and entryways surrounding the buildings, and the
15 parking lots serving employees and invited guests of tenants of the office complex, as depicted in
16 the photograph (within the red line) attached as Exhibit A (the "Permanent Injunction'');
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3. The Damages and the Permanent Injunction are in satisfaction of all claims in this
action, including without limitation, claims for injunctive relief, damages, costs and expenses,
attorney fees and interest.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: Septembert2-, 20 II
v. Raymond Swope
Judge of the Superior Court
1
JUDGMENT & PERMANENT INJUNCTION IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF NEA
\\'D348261OOOOO1. 100219 vi
Kaufman, Sharon A
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
All,
Louis Citron [LCitron @NEA.com]
Wednesday, October 26, 2011 3:00 AM
ISusan.Aldridge@rosewoodhotels.com'; Roger Lane; Michael.Casey@rosewoodhotels com'
'Dillon, Carol'; 'Steve Elliott'; Iks@stanford.edu; Kaufman, Sharon A . ,
UPDATE - Zeleny - IMPORTANT
Please see below some posts by Michael Zeleny on a photography web site.
This could be a preview of his next move. This would be very very dangerous
given the bike lane that cuts across the right turn lane heading east.
Please let me know if you would like to do a call.
Thank you.
Best,
Louis
Intrusive Lighting for Turbo-Paparazzi
Michael Zeleny, Sep 14, 2011; 04:06 a.m.
I am in the business of getting in the face of very rich, very powerful, and very offensive people. Part of my
work involves taking their candid photos in public, day and night, over all private objections, in rigorous
compliance with all applicable laws. The images must be faithful to the foulness of my subjects.
I am adapting to this task a Leica S2 with a 70mm f/2.5 Summarit-S on a Gitzo carbon fiber monopod, and a
Broncolor Mobil A2L with two MobiLED lampheads. I am thinking of carrying the power pack on my back
and mounting the lights on my shoulders in a specially constructed harness. The "spaceman" vibe is an asset in
my work. The money is no object.
1. How should I configure the lights fa maximum effect?
2. Would a ringflash help to highlight the uglies?
3. What would be the right video counterpart to my kit?
I would be very grateful for any advice and assistance. I am looking for cartoonists, animators, graphic
designers, and video editors with a strong backbone, iron guts, a weird sense of humor, and high tolerance for
shocking subject matters.
1
Michael Zeleny, Sep 15,2011; 07:23 p.m.
Jim, my uniform is limited to a Sam Browne belt supporting a S&W Registered Magnum. This video should
answer most of your remaining questions
Michael Zeleny , Sep 29, 2011; 04:02 a.m.
I am waiting for a Broncolor Ringflash C and two Mobil A2L kits. I might have the lampheads manned by an
assistant. We will have hand-held and body-mounted camcorders. Most photo opportunities would be of drivers
and passengers in cars slowly passing by. There will be an issue of working around reflections from car
windows and windshields, but I expect to capture enough images of quality sufficient for my purposes. We have
some funny laws of liability for "constructive invasion of privacy", but they protect only subjects engaging in a
personal or familial activity under circumstances in which they nave a reasonable expectation of privacy, which
will not be the case here. I am unaware of laws that limit the intensity of hand-held lighting, but expect some ad
hoc objections to be concocted by the city attorney and my subject's counsel. First Amendment protections will
rebuff most of them in no time. Basically, I aim to maximize the offense to deserving parties within the bounds
of laws.
Link:
http://photo.netlphotography-lighting-equipment-techniques-forumlOOZKOe?start=lO
This electronic mail message, including any attachments hereto, is
intended only for the
addressee and may contain privileged and/or confidential information. If
you are not the
addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the
message to such
person), you are hereby notified that you must not use, disseminate, copy
it in any form,
or take any action based upon it. If you have received this message by
error, please
immediately delete it and any copies of it, including any attachments
hereto, and notify
the sender at New Enterprise Associates by reply electronic mail message,
fax or phone.
Thank you.
2
Kaufman, Sharon A
From: William L. McClure [wlm@jsmf.com]
Tuesday, April 19. -2011 9:06 AM Sent:
To:
Cc:
Burt, Lacey A; Kaufman. Sharon A; Romero. Jaime G
Roberts, Bryan A
Subject: FW: FW: Public Protest at Rosewood Sand Hill Compound
StayawayZeleny_1 041 02_1.pdf Attachments:
See email from Michael Zeleny below-I don't intend to respond to him unless any of you feel that a further response is
required. Did he show up yesterday? Bill
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 3:02 AM
To: William L. McOure
Cc: David W. Affeld; Bryan Roberts; Laura.Wilson@stanford.edu; Jeffrey Rosen
Subject: Re: FW: Public Protest at Rosewood Sand Hill Compound
Dear Mr. McClure,
David Affeld has forwarded to me your email dated 15 April 2011. as quoted below, Additionally, I have received the attached letter of the same date
from Stanford Police, which your demand that I "will have to obey Stanford's written instruction not to trespass on their property" appears to reference. I
will address your demands in the order of your arrangement.
1. I agree not to affix any banners or any signs to any poles or light standards without written
consent from the owner of the said structures;
2. I warrant that any banners or signs strung across, held aloft or suspended over any roadways
would be placed at a height that would not interfere with any automotive or pedestrian traffic
accessing the site;
3. I agree to conduct my protests in an orderly manner, obeying all applicable laws and codes
and abstaining from blocking or impairing access to any site;
4. During the pendency of NEA v. Zeleny, Case No. 499465. in San Mateo Superior Court, I agree to restrict my protests on
Stanford University-owned properties in Menlo Park and Redwood City to public easements, pursuant
to Stanford's written instruction not to trespass on their property. On the other hand, notwithstanding that
instruction, I claim my right to free expression and lawful carry of arms on the parts of Stanford readily
accessible to general public pursuant to the rulings in Prunevard ShoRping Center v. Robins,
447 U.S. 74 (1980) and progeny. In response to Stanford's position in this matter., I intend to
hold a press conference on its campus to protest its ongoing efforts to silence my criticism of its notorious alumnus, violent incestuous
paedophile Min Zhu. I warrant that all my appearances on Stanford campus after the delivery of this email will be expressly meant to exercise
free speech in this matter. I am convinced that, in so far as the campus of a major university clearly satisfies the predicates of Prune yard and
progeny, my speech concerning a public issue or matters of public interest would be Constitutionally protected as such on its
grounds readily accessible to general public. In this connection, please note the recent rulings in NEA v. Zeleny, confirming
that my speech connects with a public issue or an issue of public interest.
I thank you for your reasoned and professional approach to my performances. In the spirit of courtesy. I am prepared to discuss reasonable mutual
accommodations pertaining to the time, place, and manner of my public appearances at the entrance to the Rosewood Sand Hill complex and on the
Stanford campus. I invite you and other concerned parties to address all legal communications directly to me at the address and phone number listed
below. Additionally, my lawyer David W. Affeld <dwa@agzlaw.com> may be reached at Affeld Grivakes Zucker LLP, 12400 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite
1180, Los Angeles CA 90025, phone: 310.979.8700, fax: 310.979.8701. Lastly, I would greatly appreciate your forwarding this correspondence to. and
putting me in touch with, your prosecutorial counterparts and law enforcement agencies responsible for all other jurisdictions relevant to this matter.
Michael@massmeans.com 1 Zeleny@post.harvard.edu 17576 Willow Glen Road, Los Angeles, CA 900461
323.363.1860 I http://www.subrah.com
http://larvatus.livejoumal.coml''All of old. Nothing else ever. Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail
again. Fail better." -- Samuel Beckett
1
On Fri, Apr 15,2011 at 2:26 PM, David W. Affeld <dwa@aQziaw.com> wrote:
FYI. -Dave
***
This E-mail, along with any attachments, is confidential and may be privileged. If you have received it in error,
please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy
it or use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person.
***
David W. Affeld
Affeld Grivakes Zucker LLP
12400 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1180
Los Angeles CA 90025
Tel.: (310) 979-8700
Fax: (310) 979-8701
From: William L. McClure [mailto:wlm@jsmf.com]
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 2:00 PM
To: David W. Affeld
Cc: Roberts, Bryan A; sandhill@rosewoodhotels.com; Qrojas@menlopark.org; Burt, Lacey A; Jerome-Robinson, Starla L; Romero,
Jaime G
Subject: RE: Public Protest at Rosewood Sand Hill Compound
Importance: High
Dear Mr. Affeld--
I am in receipt of the email from your client, Michael Zeleny, indicating that he will begin "peaceful" public protest on
April 18, 2011, within the public right of way adjacent to the entrance of the office/hotel complex where NEA is located
at 2855 Sand Hill Road, tvlenlo Park, and that Mr. Zeleny plans to stdng a 30' hand held banner across the entrance to the
Rosewood Sand Hill compound. Pleased advise your client of the following comments from the City of Menlo Park
("City") regarding Mr. Zeleny's proposed activities:
I. Mr. Zeleny may not affix the banner or any signs to City owned poles or light standards, nor can he
attach any banner to traffic signal poles owned by the City, nor can he attach the banner to PG&E or other
utility poles (without the consent of the owner of the poles).
2. If Mr. Zeleny figures out a way to string the banner across the entrance without utilizing any City owned
poles or any utility poles, he would have to place the sign at a height that would not interfere with large trucks
accessing the site.
2
3. Mr. Zeleny wi ll hGve lO maintain hi s protest in an orderl y manner, not spill in into the street or blockina
or impai ling access to the site, obeying all traffic signal s, etc. - '"
4. Mr. Zeleny will have to obey Stanford's written instruction not to trespass on their propeny .
The City of Menlo Park appreciates Mr. Zeleny's compliance with the above referenced comments in enoao-ina in hi s
"''' "
protest activities as outlined. If you have any questions or wi sh to discuss thi s matter further, please do not hesitate to
contact me. Note that I have not communicated directl y with your client as [ have not received your consent or
authori zation to do so. Please communi cate these comments to your client.
Regards.
Willi am L. McClure. Cit y Attorney
Cily of Monlo Park
I 100 Alma Slreet, Suile 2lO
Menlo Park. CA 94025
650-324-9300 Ofc
650-324-0227 Fax
wlm@jsmLcol11
nmskler Ihl! cll\' ironnk!nt berm\: pti nt in,g
From: larvaIus@Qmai l. com [mailto:l arvaI us@Qmail.coml On Behalf Of Michael Zeleny
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 12:21 AM
To: @rosewoodhotels.com; pol icechi ef@meniopark.or!!; wadi xon@menl oDark.of2; grojas@meni opark.or2;
sakauFman @menl opark.orQ; William L. McClure
Cc: Subrah [yar; jchambers @ci sco.com; john.chambers@cisco.com; David W. Affeld; Ajay Vashee; Ali Behbahani; Amita Shukl a;
Amo Penzias; Brooke Seawell ; ChenLi Wang; Ching- Ho Fung; Chip Linehan; Chuck Newhall ; David Mall; Dick Kramlich; Ed
Mathers: Forest Baskeu; Frank Torti; Gene Trainor; George Stamas; Harry Weller; Hugh Pancra; Jake Nuno; James Barrell; Jay Graf;
Jimmy Treybig; John Nehra; Jon Sakoda; Josh Makower; Justin Klein; Kri shna 'Kittu' Kolluri; Loui s Citron; Mark Perry; Megan
Alderete; Mike O'DeLl; Mike Ramsay; Mohamad MakllZoumi; Nilin Sharma; Patrick Chung; Patrick Kerins; Paul Hsiao; Paul Wal ker;
Peter Barris; Peler Behrendt; Peter Morris; Peler Sonsini; PM Pai; Ralph Snyderman; Ravi Viswanathan; Ri chard Whilney; Rick
Yang; Robert Croce; Robert Garland; Rohini Chakravarthy; Ryan Drant; Sara Nayeem; Scott GOlllieb; Scot t Sandell ; Sigrid Van
Bladel; Sujay Jaswa; Suzanne King; Ti m Schall er; Tom Grossi; Tony Florence
Subject: Public Protest at Rosewood Sand Hill Compound
Dear Rosewood Sand Hill Hotel management and Menlo Park city authoriti es,
3
Please be advised that starting on 18 April 2011, my associates and I will resume open-ended peaceful public
protests last held in the Fall of20IO in front ofNEA, 2855 Sand Hill Road, Menlo Park, CA 94025. 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.
As you know, a civil action by NEA against me for trespass is pending as Case No. 499465 in San Mateo
Superior Court. During its pendency, my associates and I will abstain from entering the grounds of the
Rosewood Sand Hill compound at 2855 Sand Hill Road. Our action will therefore take place at the public
easement adjacent to its entrance. As before, we are planning to feature topical displays, openly carried
unloaded firearms, and relevant entertainment. As before, in the spirit of courtesy, we are prepared to discuss
reasonable mutual accommodations pertaining to the time, place, and manner of our performances. In this
connection, I am attaching for your commentary a mockup of a hand-held 30' banner that we are planning to
string across the entrance to the Rosewood Sand Hill compound. As an example of possible accommodations,
pursuant to your agreement we would be willing to minimize our impact on the business of Rosewood Sand Hill
Hotel by relocating our displays from the entrance to its compound to the far end of its grounds adjacent to
NEA's quarters.
Concerned parties may address their communications to my lawyer David W. Affeld <dwa@aQzlaw.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@massrneans.com 1 Zeleny@post.harvard.edu 17576 Willow Glen Road, Los Angeles, CA 900461
323.363.1860 1 http://www.subrah.com
http://larvatus.livejournal.coml''AlI of old. Nothing else ever. Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail
again. Fail better." -- Samuel Beckett
4
Kaufman, Sharon A
From: Romero, Jaime G
Sent:
To:
Monday, April 18, 2011 11 :04 AM
Kaufman, Sharon A
Subject:
Attachments:
From: O'Connor, Dani
FW: From the Stanford Police
StayawayZeleny_1 041 02_1.pdf
Sent: Monday, April 18, 201110:32 AM
To: Burt, Lacey A; Romero, Jaime G
Subject: FW: From the Sta nford Police
Sent: Sunday, April 17, 201111:37 PM
To: Stanford Police
Cc: Police Chief; Laura.Wilson@stanford.edu; McClure, William; Jeffrey Rosen; David W. Affeld
Subject: Re: From the Stanford Police
Dear Stanford University,
I have received your attached letter dated 15 April 2011, giving formal notice that my presence on the following
Stanford property-isprohibitedeffective immediately: the Rosewood property commonly known as 2825, 2855 -
through 2885, and 2725 through 2775 Sand Hill Road in Menlo Park, 450 through 585 Broadway and 1228
Douglass in Redwood City, and the Stanford campus. (Please note that the map you claimed to have attached to
this letter did not arrive with it.)
As to your properties in Menlo Park and Redwood City, please be assured that during the pendency of NEA v.
Zeleny, Case No. 499465 in San Mateo Superior Court, my presence thereon shall be confined to public easements, as
previously agreed with Menlo Park authorities. On the other hand, I claim my right to free expression on the parts of
Stanford readily accessible to general public pursuant to the rulings in Prunevard Shopping Center v.
Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980) and progeny. In that connection, Stanford policy that specifically prohibits
weapons on campus has no force against me as an unaffiliated party not subject to its administrative authority.
Please look out for my announcement of a press conference to be held on your campus in connection with your
ongoing efforts to silence my criticism of your notorious alumnus, violent incestuous paedophile Min Zhu. For
the avoidance of doubt, please be assured that all my appearances on your campus after delivery of this email
will be expressly meant to exercise free speech in this matter, and will be Constitutionally protected as such.
In the spirit of courtesy, I am prepared to discuss reasonable mutual accommodations pertaining to the time, place, and
manner of my public appearances on the Stanford campus. Please address your legal communications directly to me at
the address and phone number listed below. My lawyer David W. Affeld <dwa@agzlaw.com> may be reached at Affeld
Grivakes Zucker LLP, 12400 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1180, Los Angeles CA 90025, phone: 310.979.8700, fax:
310.979.8701.
Michael@massmeans.com 1 Zeleny@post.harvard.edu 17576 Willow Glen Road, Los Angeles, eA 900461
1
http://larvatus.livejoumal.coml''All of old. Nothing else ever. Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail
again. Fail better. II -- Samuel Beckett
On Sun, Apr 17,2011 at 7:42 PM, Stanford Police <Police@stanford.edu> wrote:
Please see the attached letter.
If you have any questions, you may call the Stanford Police at 650-723-9633
2
STANFORD
UNIVERSITY
OFFICIAL STAY A WA Y NOTICE FROM STANFORD UNIVERSITY,
STANFORD ROSEWOOD PROPERTY
To: Mr. Michael Zeleny
By email
From: Stanford University
Date: April 15, 2011
TAKE NOTICE: MICHAEL ZELENY:
Leland Stanford Junior University is the owner of the real property on which the Rosewood Sand
Hill Hotel, the "Rosewood" office complex, and the adjacent "Addison Wesley" office complex are
located. All property owned by Leland Stanford Junior University is private property. The landowner has
the legal right to bar anyone from its premises, including persons whom it believes has disrupted or will
disrupt its nonnal business operations. Further, as part of its efforts to maintain a safe working
environment for all employees, residents, tenants and visitors to its property, the landowner has the legal
right to bar anyone from its premises, including persons whom it believes has interrupted or interfered or
will interrupt or interfere with its efforts to maintain a safe environment. Thus, this is formal notice that
your presence on the following Stanford property is prohibited effective immediately: the Rosewood
property commonly known as 2825, 2855 through 2885, and 2725 through 2775 Sand Hill Road in Menlo
Park, 450 through 585 Broadway and 1228 Douglass in Redwood City, and the Stanford campus (as shown
on the map attached to this letter). Stanford policy specifically prohibits weapons on campus. For the
Please understand that should you choose to disregard this notice, you may subject yourself to law
enforcement intervention, including arrest for trespass or other possible legal action.
. ,,. \ I t I , ( \: Ii: 1 ; i \.." I t j '_ !
Kaufman. Sharon A
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
larvatus@gmail.com on behalf of Michael Zeleny [zeleny@post.harvard.edu1
Thursday, April 14, 2011 12:21 AM
sandhill @ rosewoodhotels.com; Police Chief; Dixon, William A; Rojas, Glen; Kaufman, Sharon
A; McClure, William .
Subrah Iyar; jchambers@cisco.com; john.chambers@cisco.com; David W. Afteld; Ajay
Vashee; Ali Behbahani; Amita Shukla; Arno Penzias; Brooke Seawell; ChenLi Wang; Ching-
Ho Fung; Chip Linehan; Chuck Newhall; David Mott; Dick Kramlich; Ed Mathers; Forest
Baskett; Frank Torti; Gene Trainor; George Stamas; Harry Weller; Hugh Panero; Jake Nunn;
James Barrett; Jay Graf; Jimmy Treybig; John Nehra; Jon Sakoda; Josh Makower; Justin
Klein; Krishna 'Kittu' Kolluri; Louis Citron; Mark Perry; Megan Alderete; Mike O'Dell; Mike
Ramsay; Mohamad Makhzoumi; Nitin Sharma; Patrick Chung; Patrick Kerins; Paul Hsiao;
Paul Walker; Peter Barris; Peter Behrendt; Peter Morris; Peter Sonsini; PM Pai; Ralph
Snyderman; Ravi Viswanathan; Richard Whitney; Rick Yang; Robert Croce; Robert Garland;
Rohini Chakravarthy; Ryan Drant; Sara Nayeem; Scott Gottlieb; Scott Sandell; Sigrid Van
Bladel; Sujay Jaswa; Suzanne King; Tim Schaller; Tom Grossi; Tony Florence
Public Protest at Rosewood Sand Hill Compound
NEA Banner.JPG
Dear Rosewood Sand Hill Hotel management and Menlo Park city authorities,
Please be advised that starting on 18 April 2011 , my associates and I will resume open-ended
peaceful public protests last held in the Fall of 2010 in front of NEA, 2855 Sand Hill Road, Menlo
Park, CA 94025. The purpose of our demonstrations will be to protest Subrah lyar1s 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.
As you know, a civil action by NEA against me for trespass is pending as Case No. 499465 in San
Mateo Superior Court. During its pendency, my associates and I will abstain from entering the
grounds of the Rosewood Sand Hill compound at 2855 Sand Hill Road. Our action will therefore take
place at the public easement adjacent to its entrance. As before, we are planning to feature topical
displays, openly carried unloaded firearms, and relevant entertainment. As before, in the spirit of
courtesy, we are prepared to discuss reasonable mutual accommodations pertaining to the time,
place, and manner of our performances. In this connection, I am attaching for your commentary a
mockup of a hand-held 30
1
banner that we are planning to string across the entrance to the
Rosewood Sand Hill compound. As an example of possible accommodations, pursuant to your
agreement we would be willing to minimize our impact on the business of Rosewood Sand Hill Hotel
by relocating our displays from the entrance to its compound to the far end of its grounds adjacent to
NEA1s quarters.
Angeles CA 90025, phone: 310.979.8700, fax: 310.979.8701. I may be reached at the number listed
below.
Michael@massmeans.com 1 Zeleny@post.harvard.edu 17576 Willow Glen Road, Los Angeles, CA
http://larvatus.livejournal.coml"AIl of old. Nothing else ever. Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try
again. Fail again. Fail better." -- Samuel Beckett
1
LUlU 'I .. . Free Food For Sex Workers, Adult Film ...
SF bay cralgsllst > south bay> event> events email this posting to a friend
'1 .. . ' ... ' ......, .
9/28-9/2;p: Free Food For Sex Workers, Adult Film . pleasef@gwithcare: .
Actors, Registered Sex Offenders (FREE PARTY)
i
miscategorized
.' ...... - 1, - .. -........ ...... .- ......... _-..... -....... _ .... _-. "' ..... , "'" ..... _-- .......... -... .... -._ ......... -
Date: 2010-0> -28, 2:18PM PDT prohibited
Reply
to'. -ezx'\s-] 978645409@crairtclist.org[Enorswhenre
p
l
y
ingtoads?]
.. _ l::.J _ spam/overpost
'" best ofcmigslist
Sandell, Mjchilel Zeleny and friends are throwing a party in Menlo Park at New Enterprise Associates on
Thursday Cisco WebEx headqualiers in Santa Clara on Friday. M'usic and food will be on hand.
In keeping wl Min Zhu's sexual preferences, food is fi'ee for registered sex offenders, sex workers, adult
industry and any musicians who perform on-site. Others pay cash. Please bring proofofyour sex
worker, .ln1 industry or registered sex offender status.
Festivities at ch location begin at lOAM and continue 3 PM.
Thursday's is at NEA, 2855 Sand Hm Road, Menlo Park, CA 94025
Friday's evenJt at CiscoiWebEx, 3979 Freedom Circle, Santa Clara, CA 95054
Want to more Min Zhu, Subrah Iyar and Scott Sandell? Go to http://www.subrah.com/
location: FRJPARTY
it's NOT ok tolontact this poster with services or other commercial interests
PostinglD: 19r645409
. '-..-T" ... Co lis t, -'-t:r01s' 0 ... _m .....
J
,I
1
sfbay .craigSIiSt.orl .. ./ 1978645409, html
{
1/1

Redacted Discovery 3 - SM382036 Michael Zeleny

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Redacted Discovery 3 - SM382036 Michael Zeleny

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Superior Court of California

County of San Mateo

:1St11' r:v-1-..!. 0 t' ..,.;...." \I! .

bSwp 11 3' ftH on October 10. 201 t

You might also like