CUOMO {eouisasnutie: 200 OLD COUNTRY ROAD | SUITE 2S0UTH | MINEOLA, N¥YL5OL | 1:516,741.3222 | v9 516.741.3223 April 13, 2015 Page, Scrantom, Sprouse, Tucker, Ford 1111 Bay Avenue Third Floor Columbus GA 31901 Attn: Elizabeth McBride Re: Chan v. Ellis and subsequent conduct of Linda Ellis Dear Ms. McBride: Attached is the Supreme Court of Georgia’s decision in Chan v. Ellis, Lwrite to ig your attention to comments made by your client on various forums that are false, misleading and damaging to Matthew Chan’s reputation. Demand is hereby made that she cease and desist from making such false and defamatory comments and I further demand that she retract or remove those comments from the sites where she posted them. 1. “He [Matthew Chan] posted pictures of my home” In many place throughout the Intemet ~ since the ruling- Ms, Ellis has stated that my client had posted photos of her home on extortionletterinfo.com (ELI), for example, on ITAlive’s page. http://www. Lalive.com/story/news/local/marietta/2015/03/28/high- court-rules-against-woman-claiming-to-be-stalked-online/70584054/, She knows that this is false. You know that this is false. My client never posted a photo of Ms. Fllis’ home anywhere, It was another ELI user who posted a link to a Google Street View of Ms Ellis’ home. In addition, when you and she submitted that evidence to the trial cour, you submitted a cropped version that took the post out of context, You can see your court exhibit and the actual screenshot of the image on Defiantly net. Furthermore, your cropping of the post took the post out of context as the main reason her address was discussed was to highlight that she was apparently using that address as a business address for a company called Kindereare; to my knowledge she still uses that address for this business of hers so that she herself is putting her home address out there. Had Mr. Chan seen the entire screenshot at the hearing as opposed to a purposefully and carefully cropped version, he would have been able to establish the context of the photo and home address as well as establish that he did not post the link. I therefore demand that Ms. Ellis cease and desist from making this false statement in the future and remove all instances where she is recorded orally or in writing making this statement. Ww n-CUOMOLLE.COMCUOMOe 2, “He posted my financial information” Again, on 11 Alive and other locations Ms. Ellis stated that my client posted “financial information about her.” She knows that this is false, You know that this is false. My client never posted Ms. Ellis’ financial information anywhere. The only thing she could possibly be referring to is that the name of her mortgage company was posted on ELI. The details of the mortgage were not revealed. The name of her mortgage company is public record and of course does not constitute financial information. T therefore demand that Ms. Ellis cease and desist from making this false statement in the future and remove all instances where she is recorded orally or in writing making this statement, 3. “The Hearse Song” In various places, including on a post made in February 2015 on her blog, Ms. Ellis has claimed that my client posted the video and the words of The Hearse Song” on ELL Again, you and your client know that Mr. Chan did not post the link to this video on ELI, another ELI user did, Furthermore, the words were never part of the post made by the user yet you introduce an exhibit which had the words superimposed upon the post. Attached are your trial exhibit and the original post. ‘The exhibit gave the false impression that the words were part of the ELI user’s post of The Hearse Song. You can see the exhibit and the actual post on Defiantly.nct Of course, I again remind you that there was no evidence that he “encouraged or participated” in the posting of The Hearse Song and only Ms. Ellis can think that this video constitutes a “true threat.” I am sure I need not remind you of how the judges saw that claim at oral argument on this matter, No rational person could believe that the person who posted the video meant it as a true death threat. 1 therefore demand that Ms. Ellis cease and desist from making this false statement in the future and remove all instances where she is recorded orally or in writing making this statement. 4, References to “threats on her life.” In comments to the I 1Alive story Ms, Ellis stated that she sought the protective order due to “threats on her life.” For example on March 29 at 5:31pm she falsely wrote: “L only sought to receive protection for my life and my family due to actual threats and this is where it wound up.” She has perpetuated this lie before as well. WwiKicVOMOLLG.cOMCUOMO In further example, ina blog post dated February 4, 2015 on her website she stated there were “threats to the safety of [her] family.” This again is false, There were never any threats to the safety of her or her family. Your side tried to prove “true threats” in your briefs and at oral argument yet you could not produce anything that remotely resembled an actual threat and never submitted such proof to any court. Read for their plain language and taken in context all the posts about Ms. Ellis family, including the “collateral damage” post which Ms, Ellis repeatedly makes reference to, were about their personal (and public) information being mentioned. I therefore demand that Ms, Ellis cease and desist from making this false statement in the future and remove all instances where she is recorded orally or in writing making this statement, 5. References to Mr. Chan as a “stalker” or to the situation as “Stalking” Mr. Chan did not stalk Ms, Ellis That is a fact and it is also now the legal determination of the highest court in the State, The few posts you and Ms. Ellis relied upon at trial and before the Georgia Supreme Court did not constitute stalking. That is a fact and it is also now the legal determination of the highest court in the State and the crux of the Supreme Court’s decision. Yet Ms. Ellis still refers to Mr. Chan as her “stalker,” and to the situation as “stalking,” See, for example her blog post of February 4, 2015. Those terms may have been accurate when she won in the trial court, but they are now defamatory and false as they accuse Mr. Chan of illicit conduet for which he has been cleared by the State’s highest court, Ms, Ellis also stated on a new, recent video that Mr. Chan appealed to fight for the right to engage in “internet stalking.” That is patently false and the exact opposite is true: Our appeal sought to establish and ultimately did establish that what Mr, Chan engaged in was not stalking but speech. We argued before the Court that the actions of Mr. Chan did not come close to ‘meeting several of the elements of Georgia’s Anti-Stalking Statute, We argued that there were procedural defects in the issuance of the order from your use of the McCormack affidavit to your use of section (2)(2)’s language which was never in issue. We also argued that the oppressive and overbroad order violated the First Amendment and ‘The Communications Deceney Act of 1996. Our position was joined in and supported by some of the most prominent and well-respected legal scholars in the country, The Court while discussing most of our arguments favorably, never made it past Point I: that Mr. ‘Chan never “contacted” Ms. Ellis. So for Ms. Ellis say that we sought to protect “a right to internet stalking” strays from opinion and commentary and instead amounts (0 a false and defamatory statement of fact.CUOMO@ ‘Therefore, it is hereby demanded that Ms. Ellis stop referring to Mr, Chan as a “stalker” or make reference to this situation as “stalking” including any mention of “cyberstalking” or “cyberstalker” or that Mr. Chan sought to create a right to “internet stalking.” 6. Mailing a letter with threats and calling John Jolin’s girlfriend Ms Ellis posted this on her Facebook account in reply to someone who commented on her post about the decision: Cindy Sparks-Smith Lindo... would NOT take this personal threat lightly. dont believe u are safe and please keep fighling thi... cannot imagine anyone saying u are not in danger here...please protact yoursolt. Like Reply 6 March 3* al8.dapm Linda Efis - AUTHOR, SPEAKER, POET Thank you Cindy Sparks- ‘Smith ~ Lam trying to step outside ofthis and think how any rational person could read all thatthe posted and take itightly. He had ‘threatening letters mailed to my home. Phone records proved in court thathe called! my employee's wife at nome while ste was alone with a small child (and he knew 10. He encouraged and partcipated in posts on his web site where tha hearse song was posted to iy attention ‘under te te: WE ARE COMING AFTER YOUI The tyres chanted: “You will be the next to DIE. (On no,..n0 threats there...what he heck?) Like March 39 at 8:25pm - Edies Never in all of the litigation in this matter have you or Ms, Ellis ever established, proven or shown that Mr. Chan mailed a letter of any kind ~ much less a threatening letter - to Ms. Ellis’ home. ‘There is no chance that Ms, Ellis would have received such a letter and not kept a copy of it. This statement is a complete fabrication and is per se defamatory. I therefore demand that Ms. Ellis cease and desist from making this false statement in the future and remove all instances where she is recorded orally or in writing making this statement, Never in all of the litigation in this matter have you or Ms. Ellis ever established, proven or shown that Mr. Chan called John Jolin’s girliriend; through hearsay evidenee you showed that a phone number associated with Mr, Chan appeared on his girlfriend’ phone. As a litigator, I am sure you know that showing that a phone number came up on someone's phone is not proof of who made the call. There was certainly no evidence at wwn.cuOMOLLE.com,CUOMO all that showed that Mr. Chan knew that she was “alone with a small child.” This is pure fantasy and fabrication on Ms. Bis’ part and she must stop making these fulse tunprovable claims in a vain attempt to continue to paint herself as a victim. therefore demand that Ms, Ellis cease and desist from making these false statements in the future and remove all instances where she is recorded orally or in writing making these statements, . Use and dissemination of the YouTube of Mr. Chan This whole episode between our clients arose out Ms. Ellis’ attempts to collect on infringement claims over the unlicensed use of “The Dash.” Yet Ms, Ellis readily and repeatedly disseminates and makes use of a piece of a video created by Mr. Chan where he discusses, with a man named Robert Krausankas, his issues with Ms, Ellis. While this video has not been registered as of yet with the Copyright Office, copyright in the video rests exclusively with its ereator, Matthew Chan, Mr. Chan, however, will not act in the ‘manner that your client has in the past by sending out DMCA notices to the webhosts of the sites where Ms, Ellis has posted this video, including YouTube and possibly other sites, However, as a professional courtesy, I do request that you advise Ms. Ellis take down the video to prevent any more unnecessary legal disputes and entanglements, Of course, like so many of your client’s posts and comments about this case and this decision — indeed, like so much of the evidence that was presented by you and her before Judge Jordan - the video segment she chooses to disseminate is taken wholly out of context, But Mr. Chan and I have come to expect this as Ms. Ellis’ modus operandi She continues to post only the short snippet of the video having most recently done so to our knowledge on April 11, 2015 on the website Cineinnati.com, This lotter serves to notify you and Ms. Ellis that Mr. Chan claims copyright in the video; reserves all rights and remedies; and does not waive any of his rights and remedies by choosing not to demand that Ms. Ellis take the video down wherever she has posted it. Conclusion Rest assured that Mr. Chan does not seek to restrict Ms. Ellis’ speech in any way. He is and will always be a staunch defender of a person’s First Amendment rights, He, in fact, welcomes a continuing dialogue over Ms. Ellis’ copyright infringement methods and has no issue with Ms. Ellis accurately and fairly describing the events that occurred WwrkcuOMoLLG.coM,CUOMO which led to the protective order and its subsequent vacatur. But the key is “accuracy” and “fairness.” Inall your many pleadings, brief, arguments and Ms. Ellis’ writings against my client and ELI, there was never an instance in which you or she claimed Mr, Chan stated anything about Ms. Bllis that was false or even misleading, Instead, you and she relied on cropped versions of posts made by others and statements about Ms, Ellis made by Mr. Chan that were taken wholly out of context and which have now been determined to be completely legal and to not constitute stalking, So let the dialogue continue if they so choose to do so, but let it continue based on facts and truth, My client will not sit idly by if Ms. Ellis continues to rely on demonstrably false and misleading statements of fact; he will take such legal action as he deems proper and appropriate. Here are links to my client’s website that set out some of the many inaccuracies and misstatements Ms. Ellis has made since the decision: hitpy/defiantly.net/cleaning-up-the-chan-v-ellis-mess-part-1/ http://defiantly.net/cleaning-up-the-chan-v-ellis-mess-part-2/ http:/defiantly.net/cleaning-up-the-chan-v-ell http://defiantly net/eleaning-up-the-chan-v-elli hitp://defiantly net/cleaning-up-the-chai Sincerely, Milo —~ OSCAR MICHELEN www.cvOMoLLe.com