From: The Good The Bad <the.good.the.bad.the.papd.ugly_at_(domain_name_was_removed)>
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 05:52:13 -0800

*Bart and Oakland officials are receiving; "An unceasing barrage of emails"
from concerned citizen's! *
**
*I doubt anyone made use of there employers email servers!*

Via US Mail

                                                                        January

2, 2009

Gary Baum

Office of the City Attorney

City Hall, 8th Floor

250 Hamilton Avenue

Palo Alto, CA 94301

• Re: Mark Petersen-Perez*

Dear Mr. Baum:

Mark Petersen-Perez has asked our firm to communicate with you concerning the city's interference with his e-mail activities.

As you know, the City of Palo Alto has encouraged its citizens to communicate with city officials and City Council through e-mail. Your own e-mail address and that of many others are listed on the City's websites as appropriate points of contact. **

• *

Accordingly, it is disturbing to learn that your office has directly communicated with Mr. Petersen-Perez's business associates to convince them to restrict Mr. Petersen-Perez's use of e-mail accounts to send messages to the city government. We are also concerned that the City of Palo Alto is apparently blocking e-mail messages sent by Mr. Petersen-Perez from other accounts to which he has access. Our concern is only heightened by the fact that the information technology director at Mr. Petersen-Perez's firm is apparently married to the information technology director for the City of Palo Alto.

We have grave doubts about the constitutionality of these acts, which now block Mr. Petersen-Perez from petitioning for redress of grievances. It is well established that, "the right to petition extends to all departments of government," *California Motor Transport Company v. Trucking Unlimited * (1972)* *404 U.S. 508, 511*; BE & K Construction Company v. NLRB (*2002) 536 U.S. 516, 525. Even assuming that there is some basis for restricting the scope of my client's communications in terms of time, place, or manner, a direct attempt to cut off his channels of communication through interfering with third parties, such as apparently occurred here, is clearly unconstitutional. Should my client suffer any repercussions or damage in his employment or business relationships the liability of the city and any responsible individuals is clear-cut.

I want to emphasize that our purpose in us sending this letter is not to threaten litigation but to seek a solution. We hereby respectfully request that the city cease and desist from any and all contact with Mr. Petersen-Perez's business associates and employers designed to inhibit his use of channels of communication. We also request that if the City believes it is entitled to impose any time, place, or manner restriction on his use of e-mail or other channels of communication that you inform us in writing as to the basis for any such restrictions and how they apply to his activities. Our goal is to have "rules of engagement" that are understood by both City employees and my client, but we will of course insist that those rules of engagement fully respect our clients' constitutional rights to freedom of speech and freedom to petition for redress of grievances.

I look forward to your prompt response to this letter.

                                                                        Very

truly yours,

                                                                        PIERCE

& SHEARER LLP

---

                                                                        Andrew

F. Pierce Received on Fri Jan 09 2009 - 05:52:13 PST