Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Chan v. Ellis: Appellee Brief

Chan v. Ellis: Appellee Brief

Ratings: (0)|Views: 78 |Likes:
Chan v. Ellis: Appellee Brief
Chan v. Ellis: Appellee Brief

More info:

Published by: ExtortionLetterInfo.com on Oct 23, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

11/19/2013

pdf

text

original

 
IN
THE
COURT
OF
APPEALS
STATE
OF
GEORGIA
OCT
2I
2013
CLERK,COUHTOF
/\PPEALS
OF
GEORGIA
MATTHEW
CHAN,
)
Appellant
)
)
vs.
)
)
LINDA
ELLIS,
)
Appellee
)
DOCKETNO.:
A14A0014
LOWERCOURTNO.:
SU13DM409
BRIEFOFAPPELLEELINDAELLIS
Respectfully
submitted,
Elizabeth
W.
McBride
Attorney
for
Appellee
Georgia
Bar
No.730165
Page,
Scrantom,
Sprouse,
Tucker
&
Ford,
P.C.P.O.
Box
1199Columbus,Georgia
31902§ewm@psstf.com
-
..
:::::l
..
;\
-;"J
c·,
,'..J\
en
 
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART I: APPEL
LEE’S RESPONSE TO PRELIMINARY
STATEMENT OFAPPELLANT AND STATEMENT OF FACTS ...................................................... 1Jurisdiction ....................................................................................................... 1Statement of Facts ............................................................................................ 2PART II: ARGUMENT AND CITATION OF AUTHORITY WITH RESPECTTO ENUMERATION OF ERRORS .......................................................................11A. Jurisdiction ...................................................................................................11B.
Appellee’s Response to Appellant’s
Enumeration of Errors ........................11Proper Standard of Review....
……………………………………………...11
 
Appellee’s Response To Each Enumeration Of Error…………………….
13PART III: ARGUMENT AND CITATION OF AUTHORITY ............................15A.
 
The Trial Court Had Discretion To Find That The Elements Of O.C.G.A.§16-5-90(a)(1) Were Met ........................................................................15B. Appellant Was Not Deprived Of Due Process .........................................19
 
iiC. Appellant Failed To Properly Preserve His Objection To TheAdmissibility Of The Affidavit Of Timothy McCormack ..........................20CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENT .......................................................................23D.
Chan’s Speech Is Not Protected Speech; The Order Is Narrowly Tailored;
And The Communications Decency Act Does Not Protect Chan Because HisForum Is Not Content Neutral So The First Amendment Is Upheld ............23
1. Chan’s Activity, Threats and Intimidati
on, Are Not ProtectedSpeech..................................................................................................232.
Even If Chan’s Speech Is Protected, The Narrowly Tailored Order 
Is Proper Because It Allows Other Forms Of Communication. .........25
3. Chan’s Activities
Violate The Communications Decency Act. .....27CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................30

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->