Jurist Doctorate, phd, Challenge Attorney for practicing on private property.
(( City attorney resigns the same day he gets this letter. ))
Attorneys have no permission to practice law on land not owned by the USA, City, County, or State.
June 1, 2011
City of Manhattan Beach City Hall
Leland Dolley, Legal Counsel
1400 Highland Avenue
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Re:Â 2000 Mercedes Benz wagon (Blue color) VIN:Â WDBJH65J2YBD65870
Dear Mr. Dolley;Â (City Attorney)
I am in receipt of your letter dated May 25, 2011 and appreciate your taking the time to reply but it is quite obvious that you have not addressed the specific concerns I have brought to your attention.Â There was apparently a meeting of some kind to discuss the letter that I wrote to the city Manager Dave Carmany and to you as city attorney and you have held a meeting to review and discuss this in private without notifying any other government employees or myself.Â Has the new police Chief, Eve Irvine been briefed on this issue involving her employee? Â If a meeting was held, why was I not notified in writing?Â I was never noticed by you or any other city employee of when and where this meeting to discuss the issues I have raised would take place and who would be in attendance.Â Are you following the proper protocol and legal procedures for such a serious legal challenge to the actions of your employee?Â The hasty rejection of my claim demonstrates that you do not have a firm grasp of the Organic Laws of the United States of America nor do you understand how this written law limits the authority of you and your fellow government employees.Â The towing and subsequent confiscation of my vehicle is contrary to the laws of the State of California and of the United States because it occurred on land NOT owned by and under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States of America.
The Manhattan Beach city council has recently issued a formal apology to former city manager, Geoff Dolan and the people of Manhattan Beach for a mistake they made.Â A promise was made by the city council members that this sort of thing would never happen again.Â In an effort to improve transparency in government, the people of Manhattan Beach have openly expressed that they want honest, open communication and truthfulness from all government personnel.Â To this end, I am bringing this matter to the attention of the Manhattan Beach City Council for open discussion at the next scheduled meeting so that everyone is aware of what is happening and how you as city attorney have handled this situation to date.Â To avoid any further liability for the city of Manhattan Beach and its employees, I have offered a remedy; The immediate unconditional release of my vehicle from the private impound yard, Van Lingen and B&H Tow in Torrance.Â As of this date, you have failed to accept my offer.Â Should the City Manager and the members of the city council choose to ignore my demand, this matter will be taken to the people of your city and brought before the public at large.Â I am also notifying the State of California Attorney General, the County of Los Angeles District Attorney and the California State Bar for violations of written law that have occurred on your watch as city attorney.Â I have discovered the fraud initiated by the secret meeting of the 2nd Continental Congress and George Washington’s failure to take the subscribed Article VI oath to â€œsupport this constitutionâ€.Â I have discovered this fraud perpetrated upon me and as a result, am unable to partake of this fraud by license or application to the subject matter by definition of the Codes, whether revised of the states Constitution or the United States Constitution as I would be assisting in a fraud of which I now have knowledge of and would be guilty of the outright commission of a crime under the written laws of the United States.Â While you and your fellow employees are subject to said creation of the state, I am subject only to English Common Law in the land not owned by and under the exclusive legislated jurisdiction of the United States of America.Â I claim my unalienable rights afforded me as an Article IV free inhabitant by Ratification of the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777 and pursuant to the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776.
For my own edification, I would like to ask you a few questions regarding your letter of response dated May 25, 2011.Â You mention in your letter that â€œWe have reviewed your correspondence and after consideration and review we do not find your arguments persuasive, nor contemplated in law.â€Â Â The word â€œweâ€ is used in your letter to describe more than one person has reviewed and decided my claim should be rejected;Â Kindly provide me with the name(s) of the other person(s) or city employees that you met with and reviewed my letter and please state their legal qualifications to assist you in making that determination.Â You have stated that what I wrote is not â€œpersuasive, nor contemplated in lawâ€;Â Kindly share with me what law (statute or Organic) you are contemplating because I have provided the source of the written law I have contemplated in great detail, that being the Organic Laws of the United States of America.Â In case you are wondering where to find these Organic Laws, I refer you to Volume 1 of the United States Code, Titles 1-5 which is published every 6 years by the United States Government Printing Office.Â You will see the Organic Laws of the United States of America are provided for all Americans to see and are proven to exist long before any statute laws of the United States were written.Â If you canâ€™t seem to find this legal publication in your library, it is available for purchase ($103 USD) by visiting the official United States Government Printing Office website located at this link:
For your own edification and that of your co-workers, I highly recommend the city of Manhattan Beach purchase a copy of this book for reference.Â Lest I remind you that as a government employee, ignorance of the written laws that limit your authority to the land owned by and under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States of America is no excuse for ANY government employee.Â To lie about knowing what I have now presented to you as fact of law not only risks disciplinary action and possible disbarment, it is a CRIME.Â In fact, as I recall, ignorance of written law and poor legal advice from incompetent legal counsel is exactly what led the city council to violate the Brown Act.Â This has resulted in the recent filing of a $2,000,000 claim against the city by the former City Manager, Geoff Dolan.Â Need I say more about this?
If the Organic Laws of the United States of America are not persuasive enough for you Mr. Dolley, perhaps your grasp of the English language is lacking.Â The truth is hidden in plain sight and I am pointing you directly to the specific law.Â The written law is very clear and concise regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the United States because it HAS to be.Â I point out that the United States Congress perfected the law referencing territorial jurisdiction because it HAD to do thisâ€¦the written law must tell the truth as well.Â In Chapter 5 of Title 28 under Historical Revisions and Notes, Sections 81-131, the law defines and shows the territorial composition of the United States as of January 1, 1945.Â This is further evidence that this law was enacted by the United States Congress as positive law and still exists today.Â All governments have limited authority that must be clearly defined in the written law and the city of Manhattan Beach is no exception to this fact of law.Â You, Mr. Leland Dolley, are a California State Bar licensed attorney so you are already supposed to know this, but you donâ€™t.Â I am bringing this to your attention now because it appears you seem to lack a proper understanding of â€œwhereâ€ the laws of the State of California and of the United States apply from a geographic perspective.Â I am quoting you facts of law that have long been established in the Organic Laws of the United States of America.Â July 13, 1787 is when the Northwest Ordinance was adopted forming a temporary government.Â This government of the United States then became permanent in the second union of states formed by the Constitution of the United States when on April 30, 1789, George Washington took the Article 2, Section 1 Clause 5 oath, â€œ…to preserve, defend and protect the Constitution of the United States, so help me Godâ€.Â By citing written law and explaining this to you, I support all my claims and establish facts of law to solidify my position.
Please define all real property owned by the corporate body known as the “city of Manhattan Beach” and located in the State of California.Â Providing me with this list of real estate property holdings should verify (according to you) all of these properties are owned by and under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States of America.Â â€œThe State of California is an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land”.Â The land referred to in the State of California is synonymous with the land in the United States.Â This fact of law may be found in Article 3, Section 1, Clause 1 of the California Constitution and it ties these two (what appear to be separate) governments together as one.Â The burden of proof is directly on the city of Manhattan Beach to provide solid factual evidence that the “public parking lot” from which my car was towed is in the State of California and thus, in the United States.Â This evidence must clearly evidence that this parking lot was located on land owned by or ceded to and under the exclusive legislated jurisdiction of the United States of America at the time my vehicle was confiscated on May 11, 2011.Â In lay terms, this simply means that the parking lot must be federal territory.Â I have maps provided by the California BLM (Bureau of Land Management) that identify no land in Manhattan Beach is in the State of California OR in the United States.Â These maps are available to you for purchase from the California BLM Sacramento, CA office and I suggest that you purchase the appropriate map for your region as a means to establish this parking lot is in the State of California and therefore also in the United States.Â I must insist Mr. Dolley that you tell the truth to your clients and to the people of the city of Manhattan Beach as they deserve nothing less than the truth.
Stating that you do not find my argument persuasive or compelling enough is not an adequate response by the standards set forth in written law and the licensing body established to prevent misrepresentation and abuse in your position as legal counsel.Â The California State Bar has established rules in accordance with the written laws of the United States and you are licensed by this body to practice law in the State of California.Â You, as city attorney, must advise the City Manager, the Chief of Police and the city council members on this matter and you have a legal obligation to tell them the truth about written law regardless of the economic or financial impact this may have on the city or its employees.Â Because of this legal obligation, what I have brought to your attention needs to be communicated to everyone.Â Therefore, I have provided a copy of this and all correspondence with your office to each and every member of the city council as well as to the City Manager and the new Chief of Police, Eve Irvine.Â This issue needs to be broughtÂ to the people of the city of Manhattan Beach and will be on the agenda and must be addressed in the next city council meeting scheduled for June 7.Â I remind you that in any future correspondence with me, you must cite specific references to any written law you provide that establishes a legal basis for your arguments.Â I restate the fact that as an Article IV free inhabitant, I am immune from the review process and that the statement in your letter that my claim has been rejected means nothing.Â It does not absolve you or the city from liability either.
From what source does the city of Manhattan Beach derive its authority?Â Show me your authority by virtue of the State of California Constitution and the Constitution of the United States.Â Provide the written law that subjects and enslaves a man while stripping away his unalienable rights given by nature and natures creator.Â The Organic Laws of the United States of America are the basis for all 50 codes of the United States Code that follows.Â This is why I have focused on these 4 Organic documents because they alone provide the clues and the truth about the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
If you wish to argue the validity of the written laws of the United States, you are arguing against your own guide and what is in fact your bible in the practice of your licensed trade.Â This conduct contradicts the oath you have taken as a licensed member of the California State Bar and the attorney client privilege which limits this “privilege” to acts that are NOT fraudulent by nature.Â The crime-fraud exception is one of the oldest exceptions to the attorney-client privilege.Â The attorney-client privilege does not extend to communications made in connection with a client (i.e. the city of Manhattan Beach) seeking advice on how to commit a criminal or fraudulent act, nor will a client’s statement of intent to commit or cover-up a crime be deemed privileged, even if the client was not seeking advice about how to commit it.Â The attorney-client privilege is ultimately designed to serve the interests of justice by insulating attorney-client communications made in furtherance of adversarial proceedings.Â But the interests of justice are NOT served by forcing attorneys to withhold information that might help prevent criminal or fraudulent acts.Â Consequently, attorneys can be compelled to disclose such information to a court or other investigating authorities. Â With that firmly in mind, I must also remind you that in accordance with the laws of the State of California and the California State Bar, you are currently practicing law outside the area for which your license was issued.Â I must insist that this be disclosed to the city council members and the City Manager as a fact of law that you are now aware of.Â Should you fail to disclose this fact, you will then expose yourself to personal liability as well as disciplinary action by the California State Bar.
When is it ethical for an attorney to lie? A well-known biblical commandment, Exodus 20:16, states, â€œYou shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.â€Â Â Of course, the Rules of Professional Conduct do not advocate attorneys to lie, but their studied silence on the issue may incline attorneys to advocate for their clientâ€™s interest with indifference to a no-less-compelling interest that lawyers conduct themselves consistent with standards of truthfulness.Â I am providing you with the violations I have observed regarding your behavior and conduct under the California Business and Professions Code and in the California Rules of Professional Conduct:
2005 California Business and Professions Code Sections 6060-6069 Article 4. Admission to the Practice of Law
6068.Â It is the duty of an attorney to do all of the following:
(a) To support the Constitution and laws of the United States and
of this state.
(b) To maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and
(c) To counsel or maintain those actions, proceedings, or defenses
only as appear to him or her legal or just, except the defense of a
person charged with a public offense.
(d) To employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided
to him or her those means only as are consistent with truth, and
never to seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an
artifice or false statement of fact or law.
California Rules of Professional Conduct
CHAPTER 1: PROFESSIONAL INTEGRITY IN GENERAL
Rule 1-100. Rules of Professional Conduct, in General.
Rule 1-300. Unauthorized Practice of Law.
(A) A member shall not aid any person or entity in the unauthorized practice of law.
(B) A member shall not practice law in a jurisdiction where to do so would be in violation of regulations of the profession in that jurisdiction.
Rule 5-200. Trial Conduct.
In presenting a matter to a tribunal, a member:
(A) Shall employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to the member such Â Â Â Â Â means only as are consistent with truth;
(B) Shall not seek to mislead the judge, judicial officer, or jury by an artifice or false statement of fact or law;
(C) Shall not intentionally misquote to a tribunal the language of a book, statute, or decision;
(D) Shall not, knowing its invalidity, cite as authority a decision that has been overruled or a statute that has been repealed or declared unconstitutional; and
(E) Shall not assert personal knowledge of the facts at issue, except when testifying as a Â Â Â Â witness.
As interim city attorney, you have an obligation to your employer/client as a California State Bar licensed attorney and you must adhere to these Rules of Professional Conduct established by this government regulatory agency or risk the consequences of your behavior.Â If this matter shall go to trial, you, Mr. Leland Dolley shall be called on to testify as a material witness with personal knowledge of these facts at issue I have presented.Â When you testify, the issue of territorial jurisdiction will be exposed in the court of law and you will be under oath to tell the truth and nothing but the truth.Â This trial must take place in a court that is located within the United States, the place where all written law of the United States has the exclusive legislated jurisdiction of the United States of America.Â In the course of your testimony, should you mislead the judge or anyone else in any way by an artiface or false statement of fact, you will have violated Rule 2-200 which is defined as: Trial Conduct under subsections (A), (B), (C).Â Should you continue to practice law outside the State of California as you have been doing in this particular case, you are also in violation of Rule 1-300. Unauthorized Practice of Law. subsections (A) and (B).
I am not a licensed attorney but I am an avid student of written law and I have spent hundreds of hours researching and studying with my professor what I have presented to you here and in my previousÂ correspondence with the city.Â For your own edification and that of the city council, I will phrase this question to myself to further clarify my position; Am I saying that most of government (including the city of Manhattan Beach) in the United States is operating outside of the territorial jurisdiction established first in the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787 and then perfected in to positive law in Chapter 5 of Title 28 under Historical Notes and Revisions in Sections 81-131 as of January 1, 1945?Â Yes, that is exactly what I am saying to you sir and I have supported all of these claims with written law.Â I invite any and all legal experts to challenge my findings and conclusion that all written law in the United States is limited to the land owned by and under the exclusive legislated jurisdiction of the United States of America.Â I have not abrogated my rights as an Article IV free inhabitant pursuant to the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777.Â As a free inhabitant, I am entitled to all the privileges and immunities of free citizens in the United States of America and that includes Manhattan Beach.
We may need to resolve this issue before the people of the city of Manhattan Beach for it is these people who have elected the officials that sit on the council for the city of Manhattan Beach.Â These people have the right as I do to demand the truth from you and your fellow city employees.Â Thank you Mr. Dolley, I look forward to a peaceful and expedient resolution to this most unfortunate situation and the lawful return of my personal property.
Mailing address of convenience:Â 1512 Olympic Ave., Placentia, CAÂ 92870
cc: lada/csb/cag/city of mb/dc/rpm/mwt/wp/djl/ah/ei
Click HERE to view the list of foundational information created by Lawyer Paul John Hansen to aid in independence from the US System.