1

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MUSCOGEE COUNTY
G E O R G I A
LINDA ELLIS, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CIVIL ACTION FILE NO.
) SU-2013-DM-40
)
MATTHEW CHAN, )
) MOTION HEARING
Respondent. )
HEARING of the above cause came on to be heard on
the 28th day of February, 2013, before the Honorable Frank
J. Jordan, Jr., Judge of the above-styled Court, 10th
Floor, Columbus Consolidated Government Center, Muscogee
County, Columbus, Georgia.
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL:
For the Petitioner: HONORABLE ELIZABETH MCBRIDE
Attorney at Law
For the Respondent: Pro se
KATHY S. BOSTIC, R.P.R.
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
CHATTAHOOCHEE JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
The Correct Case # is:
SU-2013-DM-409.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD AND TAKEN:
THE COURT: All right. Call your case.
MS. MCBRIDE: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. Are we ready?
MR. CHAN: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Can we agree that this is
the proper venue for this case?
MS. MCBRIDE: Yes, Your Honor, we agree.
THE COURT: Okay. And is there any --
are there any stipulations that the parties
can enter to shorten the hearing?
MS. MCBRIDE: We might be able to enter
some stipulations, Your Honor. I've not
spoken with Mr. Chan, who is the Defendant.
Your Honor, I represent obviously the
Petitioner, Ms. Linda Ellis. And, Your
Honor, this concerns activity --
THE COURT: You can have a seat.
MS. MCBRIDE: Your Honor, Ms. Ellis is
the author and writer of a poem called The
Dash. And it is now a very well-known poem,
and it was copyrighted in 1996, and I believe
it was -- received its certification, I
believe is the correct terminology, in 1998.
And it is a well-known work. It is known on
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3
the Internet, and it is protected
intellectual property.
And this case concerns basically Mr.
Chan and his Internet website that he
privately owns and operates, and his response
to how she has chosen to protect her property
rights. But basically when there's the
unauthorized use of her poem, she -- it's
legally copyright protected, and she has
attorneys or she, herself, will contact
persons illegally using her property, and ask
them to either stop using it or pay for it.
Now, in response to that, I believe Mr.
Chan has clients -- I think he will testify
to that -- that he assists in responding to
her request to be paid for it. And this case
today before the Court is a petition for
stalking protective order. Ms. Ellis filed
this petition on her own pro se, and only
contacted me after the fact to become
involved for purposes of the hearing today.
What we will prove today is that under
the applicable statute -- and I know the
Court already knows the statute -- 16-5-90,
et al., under the stalking statute, that the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4
Court will be authorized and should in fact
enter a permanent stalking protective order
to protect Ms. Ellis from communications on
the Internet made by Mr. Chan. And that's
what we believe we will show the evidence to
show today, Your Honor. Thank you.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. CHAN: Your Honor, I would agree to
certain stipulations in the interest of
expediency, if that means anything to you.
MS. MCBRIDE: Well, Your Honor, if he
could go ahead and agree to certain things
about his Internet website that would speed
it up a lot.
MR. CHAN: I will agree to -- I'm sorry.
MS. MCBRIDE: Yeah. He is the owner and
operator -- I think I can develop it on
cross, Your Honor. And I had planned on just
going into it in cross very quickly. And if
he'll just stipulate to it as part of cross,
I think we can move through much of it very,
very quickly.
THE COURT: Can we stipulate that she is
the owner of the copyright on the poem?
MS. MCBRIDE: Yes.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
5
THE COURT: And that she has --
MS. MCBRIDE: Legally copyrighted --
THE COURT: -- legal --
MS. MCBRIDE: -- protected interests --
THE COURT: Do you agree to that?
MS. MCBRIDE: -- in her intellectual
property.
MR. CHAN: I would agree to that, Your
Honor.
THE COURT: All right. And what else
can we agree to?
MS. MCBRIDE: He is the owner and
operator of a privately owned and controlled
website called extortionletterinfo.com,
currently on the Internet. Would you
stipulate to that?
MR. CHAN: Yes, I think I can do that,
Your Honor.
THE COURT: Are you an attorney?
MR. CHAN: No, sir.
THE COURT: I just heard her say that
you were giving advice to people.
MR. CHAN: They're conversations, Your
Honor.
MS. MCBRIDE: I think he can talk about
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
6
what was meant by that on some of his
postings on his website, just --
MR. CHAN: I don't represent myself as
counsel, and I never do. My bio is up there.
It's fairly self-evident, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. All right.
MR. CHAN: And could we stipulate that I
have never ever represented myself as an
attorney?
MS. MCBRIDE: I have no knowledge of any
of that, Judge. I don't have a problem if he
goes into it. I think it will be reasonable
taking the time --
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. MCBRIDE: -- if he wants to testify
to that.
THE COURT: Do you want to invoke the
rule? I see there's one --
MS. MCBRIDE: Yes, Your Honor, we'll
invoke the rule. Mr. Jolin will probably be
our witness, and he can --
You'll have to wait outside, sir. Thank
you.
THE COURT: All right. Anything else?
I think you've given me the basic facts. Is
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
7
there anything else in the way of opening
statements that you'd like to say, Mr. Chan?
MR. CHAN: Yes, an additional
stipulation in the interest of saving time is
that we discuss those posts, whatever they
may have, that I'm only responsible for. I
am not responsible for what other people post
on this discussion forum, can we agree to
that?
MS. MCBRIDE: No, we cannot, Your Honor.
I believe that part is in dispute.
THE COURT: Okay. All right. Anything
else?
MR. CHAN: Well, this might be part of
the testimony, but there's like 14,000 posts.
I can stipulate we're going to not -- you
know, they've got boxes over there. Is Your
Honor going to see 14,000 posts here?
MS. MCBRIDE: No, Your Honor. We are
not going to present 14,000 posts, just a
few.
THE COURT: Okay. All right. Let's get
started. Swear your witness.
MS. MCBRIDE: I'd like to swear -- I'll
swear both parties.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
8
Mr. Chan and Ms. Ellis, if you'll both
raise your right hands.
(Petitioner and Respondent sworn.)
THE COURT: All right. One other item
of housekeeping, do you agree to share in the
takedown of the proceedings by the Court
Reporter?
MS. MCBRIDE: It's all the same to me.
We'll pay for all of it, unless he wants to
share, Your Honor.
THE COURT: In other words, here's the
-- if you agree to pay half of the takedown
then you would have the right to the
transcript. If you don't pay then the
transcript would belong to the Petitioner.
MR. CHAN: I don't know how much this
will be or how much time it will take to pay
for this. I would be interested, Your Honor,
in paying for half of it, but I would like an
estimation if possible.
THE COURT: Kathy, can you go off the
record?
THE REPORTER: Sure.
MR. CHAN: And, Your Honor, I have a
request. I was asked by the bailiff to put
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
9
my water -- obviously, I'm unaccustomed to
presenting, may I have a water by me?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. CHAN: Thank you, sir. Can I get
it?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. CHAN: Thank you, Your Honor.
(Brief interruption in proceedings.)
THE COURT: Do you want to share in the
takedown?
MR. CHAN: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay. All right. That's
settled.
All right. Go ahead.
MS. MCBRIDE: Your Honor, I would call
Mr. Matthew Chan, first as a witness. And,
Your Honor, I'd request that he take the
witness stand.
THE COURT: All right. If you would,
come to the stand.
MR. CHAN: Seeing as I'm representing
myself, Your Honor, may I bring a notepad and
pen --
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. CHAN: -- in case I have rebuttal?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10
MS. MCBRIDE: Good morning, Mr. Chan.
We haven't met before, I'm Elizabeth McBride,
obviously representing Linda Ellis.
MATTHEW CHAN,
having been first duly sworn, was
examined and testified as follows:
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MS. MCBRIDE:
Q. Mr. Chan, I believe you stipulated that you are
the owner and operator of a privately-owned website called
extortionletterinfo.com, E-L-I, correct?
A. Yes, we call it ELI.
MS. MCBRIDE: Your Honor, may I approach
the witness?
THE COURT: Yes.
BY MS. MCBRIDE:
Q. Mr. Chan, I want to show you Plaintiff's Exhibit
1, I've marked it 1. And I want to ask you if that is your
picture on your website?
A. It is.
Q. And is this the name of the website,
extortionletterinfo.com, E-L-I?
A. Yes.
Q. And who is this a picture of here to the right
on your website?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11
A. Oscar Michelen.
Q. Now, do you and Mr. Michelen own this website
together?
A. We do not.
Q. Okay. Do you own it alone?
A. I do.
Q. All right. And I'd like to direct your
attention to your welcome page on your website. Do you see
that?
A. I do.
Q. All right. And on your website page it says
E-L-I is a privately owned and privately managed website,
correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And that is a statement you put on your website
that's currently on your website right now?
A. I believe so.
Q. And that says that it is privately owned and
privately managed, and you've already stipulated to that,
correct?
A. Yes, but we've said this many times. Sorry.
Q. Now I'd like to direct your attention to one of
the statements on your website, and I believe you're
familiar with it, where you put My Case By Matthew Chan.
A. Correct.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
12
Q. And it's all about how you started this website.
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And it says: My name is Matthew Chan. I
am an independent publisher and business author that was
unwillingly drawn into this fiasco. That's the first
sentence, is it not?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. So you independently publish this
yourself?
A. Well, I mean, I am the forum moderator. I'm not
the -- I don't publish every single post that's on there.
I accept responsibility for those posts that I write.
Q. And you allow other people to post on your
website?
A. Yes, it's an open forum --
Q. But you delete --
A. -- available.
Q. You delete posts from it sometimes, don't you,
posts you don't think are appropriate?
A. Occasionally.
Q. Okay. So you control whether a post is on there
or not, because you can delete some of them?
A. I can delete them, but there are no controls for
people that post. There are no --
Q. Well, you can delete a post that's on there if
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
13
somebody posts it? You deny that?
A. I have control.
Q. You have control over the posts that are on
there because --
A. I don't have --
Q. -- you can delete them?
A. I can delete them, yes.
Q. And you put posts on there yourself?
A. Yes. I do participate myself.
Q. You participate a lot, don't you?
A. It's -- it goes up and down.
Q. Now, Mr. Chan, I want to show you another part
of your -- this is the front page of your website where you
have these links to various things you have posted on your
website, correct?
A. Yes, they are like blog posts.
Q. Blog posts. And of course you could delete
those if you wanted to, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you have chosen not to delete them?
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay. And they concern Ms. Linda Ellis?
A. No, not all of them.
Q. Do some of them concern Ms. Linda Ellis?
A. Yes, I would say a small fraction, yes.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
14
Q. You would say that some do. Very good. Now, we
have these right here, E-Mail Wars, Part One, April Brown,
auctioneer versus Linda Ellis, author of The Dash poem.
There's a link to that. And there are several e-mails
between her and a lady named April Brown.
A. Yeah, she submitted them to me.
Q. And E-Mail Wars, Part Two, more e-mails, April
Brown versus Linda Ellis, author of The Dash poem?
A. Yeah. It was so long I had to do a second link.
Q. That's right. And then you had to do another
one for Part Three, didn't you?
A. That's correct.
Q. All right. So all of that is content that you
control that is on there concerning Ms. Linda Ellis?
A. That's correct.
Q. And then I think you have some other drop downs
for her, some other links, The Dash for Cash poem that
somebody put on there, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. A Poem For Linda by Ron Trammer (phonetic),
that's on there, correct?
A. Yes, that's correct.
Q. Okay. And you -- all of this you could delete
any time if you wanted to?
A. That's correct.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
15
Q. You can delete anything on there that you want
to?
A. That's correct.
Q. Now I think on your website you say that you're
a cult leader?
A. Yes. That's a colloquial term. It's
tongue-in-cheek and not meant for anybody to seriously
believe in that. I'm --
Q. Are you --
A. Go ahead.
Q. Absolutely.
A. Obviously, I'm not so influential and so magical
that everyone's going to blindingly follow everything I
say. So that has been done in humor.
Q. Your website right now, does it have any terms
and conditions published on it for usage of the website?
A. There are general guidelines.
Q. All right. So if we turn on a computer and get
on the Internet right now, can you show me where your terms
and conditions are on your website?
A. I don't think I have a specific link that says
terms and conditions. There are --
Q. I think you have no terms and conditions on your
website. I mean let's -- to make this quick, let's
stipulate that there are no terms and conditions for usage
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
16
of the website at this time, correct?
A. I didn't know that was required.
Q. I'm asking you -- if you'll answer the question,
then you can explain your answer.
A. Sorry.
Q. So the answer is no, ma'am, there are no terms
and conditions governing usage of the website at this time,
correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Could you please speak up?
A. Yes, that's correct.
Q. All right. Now are you familiar with an
attorney named Timothy B. McCormack?
A. I am.
Q. And I believe that you and Timothy have had some
disputes, correct?
A. I never -- I wanted to backtrack. I mean, I've
never met him personally. He sent me, I believe, one
letter.
Q. And he is a lawyer representing Getty Images?
A. That's correct.
Q. And the purpose of your website, among other
things, is to address letters seeking to prohibit your
followers from cooperating with these attorney letters to
protect copyrighted information such as Getty Images would
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
17
seek --
A. That's not correct. We help people defend
against extortion letters. Because many of the people who
have come to our website are unsophisticated, they have no
legal counsel, and as an open forum for everyone to discuss
these matters in a comfortable, safe way.
Q. All right. So you had -- Mr. Timothy McCormack
is an attorney for Getty Images, correct?
A. Yes, I believe so.
Q. And he has written to you before in the past,
has he not?
A. Once.
Q. And I think you replied to him in a letter to
him, didn't you?
A. I believe it was in an open letter.
Q. And open letter meaning you put that on your
website?
A. I did.
Q. All right. So let's --
MS. MCBRIDE: I'd like to approach, Your
Honor, may I approach the witness?
THE COURT: Yes.
BY MS. MCBRIDE:
Q. Okay. So I'd like to show you Plaintiff's
Exhibit 2 (tendering). On your website here, on
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
18
extortionletterinfo.com -- there's your picture again,
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And you put your open reply to Timothy B.
McCormack on E-L-I?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall putting that on there?
A. I do --
Q. And I think --
A. -- not specifically what day, but --
Q. That's still on there, isn't it --
A. Yes --
Q. -- on your website?
A. -- I believe so.
Q. So we can turn on a laptop computer right now
and pull this letter up on your Internet website right now,
can't we?
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay, good. And you agree we don't have to do
that for purposes of today, you're satisfied that this is a
copy -- if you'll take a look -- see if this is a copy of
your open reply letter that's on your website to Mr.
McCormack.
A. Yeah, it appears to be.
Q. Well, is it or isn't it? Do we need to fire up
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
19
the Internet or not?
A. No, we do not.
Q. All right, sir. Very good. So stipulated.
Okay. Now this is in response -- first of all,
this letter is by Matthew Chan in response to a letter that
Timothy B. McCormack wrote, correct?
MR. CHAN: Your Honor, I would like to
understand what the relevance of all of this
is. She keeps belaboring the point over and
over. My picture? What does that have to
do -- I mean I don't --
MS. MCBRIDE: I'll tell him right now --
THE COURT: Wait just a minute. Just a
minute. What I want to know is, I heard
nothing in your opening statement about
stalking. This is a stalking case.
MR. CHAN: That's correct.
THE COURT: This is not an intellectual
property case. It may be tangential to the
stalking, but let's get to the stalking. I
told you I've got limited time. And that's
why I wanted you to stipulate if you can.
MS. MCBRIDE: Your Honor, he's very
sophisticated, and I didn't want to say what
I plan to prove, but since the Court's asked,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
20
I will tell you that he has encouraged people
on his website to harass Linda Ellis. He has
had some of his followers take a picture of
her home, go to her home. He himself has
threatened --
MR. CHAN: I object to that.
THE COURT: Wait just a minute.
MR. CHAN: She's just --
THE COURT: Wait. Wait just a minute.
MR. CHAN: Oh, I'm sorry.
THE COURT: She's just telling me what
she expects to -- now --
MS. MCBRIDE: Picture of her home --
THE COURT: All right. You've already
gotten into that. Let's go ahead and --
MR. CHAN: I believe that she's
testifying.
THE COURT: -- ask him, ask him the
questions that you --
MS. MCBRIDE: All right.
BY MS. MCBRIDE:
Q. So on this letter from you to Mr. McCormack you
said: "My dazzling hypnotic, persuasive and entrancing
words and prose are somewhat masterful, I must confess. I
can convince the most intelligent, self-determined and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
21
self-motivated person to blindly follow my public" --
"blindly follow any public suggestion I might make." Now
you said that, didn't you, in your letter?
A. I did. But any reasonable person reading that
would not take that literally, that I'm dazzling and
masterful and I'm hypnotic. I'm not a hypnotist. I'm just
an average guy who runs a website. It was meant to be very
sarcastic. And I think the average, reasonable person
would be able to determine that. It was meant to be
sarcastic, and meant in somewhat -- maybe vicious humor.
MS. MCBRIDE: Your Honor, may I
approach?
THE COURT: Yes.
BY MS. MCBRIDE:
Q. All right. So --
MR. CHAN: And, Your Honor, I don't see
how -- you know, it refers to stalking. My
influencing, my masterful, my hypnotic
effects.
BY MS. MCBRIDE:
Q. Well, let's let the Court decide. Now, here you
have a posting on your website, it says, "Re: Linda Ellis
is also a meme...what an Internet icon." And you say:
"Linda wanted to be right. Well, she is "dead" right now.
All of this might be part of her legacy. Nice little
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
22
milestone in her dash" -- meaning on her tombstone, because
The Dash poem you stipulate refers to what we say -- what
people say about us when we die -- "her dash during the
summer of 2012." Did you say that on your Internet
website?
A. I did not. The --
Q. You deny that?
A. I deny the part where Ms. Linda Ellis is a meme,
that was simply a carryon of a threat, and I would also
like to emphasize that the word dead is in apostrophes, it
is not meant -- it was meant to be a figurative speech, and
it was meant --
Q. Okay. You said that. You did say that part?
A. I did say that figuratively.
Q. Okay. Said that figuratively. Okay. Now, next
page, you go on and on talking -- and this is your posting
from that -- and you say: "So, maybe she" --
THE COURT: Let me interrupt just a
second and find out what the status of their
case is.
MS. HARDY: We're going to need a
hearing on that, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. And I've excused
everybody until 1:15. So there's no need in
y'all staying here.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
23
MS. HARDY: Thank you, Judge.
MS. MCBRIDE: Your Honor, I'm getting
through this as quickly as I can.
BY MS. MCBRIDE:
Q. "So maybe she will understand potential
consequences to her personally." You said that about Linda
Ellis, didn't you?
A. Yes, but there was nothing specific, it was just
a boisterous post.
Q. Okay. And another boisterous post: "I was far
more patient and had restraint with Julie" -- who was
another lady you went after -- "than I should have. It
won't happen here. I will pull that trigger much quicker
if need be."
A. Julie was an attorney, much more sophisticated,
accusing us of defaming her when that was not the case.
Q. Okay. "I will pull that trigger much quicker if
need be."
A. Again, a figurative speech, done in public, open
forum, around several hundred people.
Q. "And I don't fight alone." You said that?
A. That's another figurative speech.
Q. But you admit to saying it on your website --
A. Yes, it is in print.
Q. -- posting it on your website?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
24
A. That's correct.
Q. Probably still there?
A. That's probably -- that's correct.
Q. It's still there. All right. Now, you go on
and you say: "I say all this to let Team Ellis" -- who's
Team Ellis?
A. It's an ambiguous -- it was an opened-ended
term, because I don't know her operation. I guess Linda
Ellis is supported by John Jolin and her legal team, such
as yourself.
Q. Okay. So this is all of us. "I say all of this
to let Team Ellis and others know that my client" -- your
client -- is your client April Brown?
A. I don't know the context of this particular
post, off my head.
Q. Well, you may take a look at it and tell me who
your client is in that.
A. Is that relevant to the -- to the stalking?
Q. I submit that it is.
A. It was actually Peter Burwash.
Q. Okay, your client Peter Burwash. And how much
did Peter Burwash pay you to do this?
A. How is that relevant to anything? There was no
legal counsel there, so I don't see the relevance at all.
Q. Well, how was he a client?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
25
A. He's a -- we do PR as well. And as I will
testify later, one of the things we do is online publicity
as well as reporting.
Q. So he is a client for whom you provide some type
of services, but not legal services?
A. No, no legal services. I have --
Q. And how much did he pay you?
A. I don't see how it's relevant, but I think it
was -- I don't see how that's relevant.
MS. MCBRIDE: Your Honor, would the
Court instruct him to answer the question?
THE COURT: Yes, answer the question.
BY MS. MCBRIDE:
Q. How much did he pay you?
A. I believe it was $300.
Q. Okay. So you're paid to talk about Linda and
Team Ellis on the Internet?
A. It wasn't specific, it was open-ended. He did
not give me instructions.
Q. Okay.
A. He wanted help into motivating Linda to settle
the case.
Q. Is the purpose of your website to pressure Linda
to settling the case on behalf of your client?
A. It is not. The website is much larger than
1
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
Linda Ellis, it's much larger. In fact --
Q. What is the purpose of all the postings against
Linda Ellis?
A. Well, Peter Burwash took offense to coming after
a hundred thousand dollar claim over sharing a poem, and
that sparked a lot of anger.
Q. So what is the purpose of communicating with
Linda on the website?
A. I didn't communicate with Linda.
Q. What is the purpose of the postings?
A. I didn't ever communicate with Linda, and that's
part of my testimony.
Q. What is the purpose of the communications about
Linda?
A. It is an open forum which anybody can read.
Q. Well, what's the purpose of it?
A. The purpose was to let people know what I was
doing. And it speaks for itself.
Q. Okay. "Once you get the attack machine going
using the resources that I do, it will be hard to stop it
without a great deal of effort." You said that, didn't
you, on your website?
A. Correct.
Q. Another heading, Collateral Damage: "I already
have an idea of how this might work, but it is all
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27
contingent upon Team Linda's actions and if they become
nasty or not. I predict there will be some collateral
damage to innocents on her side, but it doesn't matter to
me. This could mean exposing information on her family
members." You said that, didn't you?
A. Yes, but I have never done it. I have never
acted on it.
Q. Another, Personal Revenge in Payback: "I
absolutely believe in revenge and payback. I also have a
long memory. I make no secret of it. If pushed far
enough, I am capable of many things. I won't elaborate on
what I might be capable of, and I don't ever want anyone to
push me too far." You said that, didn't you?
A. I did that simply in a colloquial way, I did say
that.
Q. And I suppose this was colloquial too? "I
absolutely subscribe to getting personal revenge and
personal payback against those copyright extortion
employees."
A. It's an -- it's an open statement for people to
read, which I've never acted on.
Q. You said that on your website?
A. I did.
Q. Thank you. Okay. "I am holding back for a
couple of good reasons. One of them is your daughter.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
28
Yes, I know a lot about her." Now I think you're basically
directing this comment to Linda, aren't you, about her
daughter?
A. It was open -- I mean, when I write the tenses
change.
Q. Okay. So you didn't mean Linda personally or
did you?
A. I can't recall exactly. It's possible.
Q. You can't recall if you meant that. It's
possible you meant Linda.
Okay. "I believe she is innocent in all this
and she could be affected by the info I have released."
You said that, didn't you?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. "I hesitate a bit on going more personal
simply because I know there will be a ripple effect" --
A. Wouldn't it be quicker --
Q. -- "that will go beyond you."
A. -- just to admit this as an exhibit instead of
using up the Court's time?
Q. You said that, didn't you, that last statement?
A. Wouldn't it be quicker just to --
THE COURT: This is her case, sir.
MR. CHAN: Oh, I'm sorry. I was just
asking.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
29
THE COURT: You don't get to decide --
MR. CHAN: I'm sorry.
THE COURT: -- what she puts up.
MR. CHAN: Yes, sir.
BY MS. MCBRIDE:
Q. Did you say that?
A. Can you repeat the post?
Q. "But I hesitate a bit on going more personal
simply because I know there will be a ripple effect that
will go beyond you," talking to Linda?
A. I wrote that.
Q. You were talking to Linda, weren't you?
A. It changes from paragraph to paragraph, that's
the whole thing.
Q. So are you saying that's not directed to Linda
personally?
A. I can't remember what my state of mind at the
time was.
Q. So it could have been Linda?
A. It could have been.
Q. Could have been. Okay. Well, it was some
person, some person whose child -- if it's not --
A. It's an open post. But that was never e-mailed.
It was never transmitted. It was never faxed. We have
never had -- I'm going to testify to that. It was never
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
30
directed -- I have never directed anything at her.
Q. "Believe me when I tell you I have a lot on
you." Okay? "There are people who hate you and looking to
put you in the ground."
A. That's a figurative speech.
Q. You said that, didn't you?
A. I wrote it.
Q. On your website?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. You could delete it any time, couldn't
you?
A. Yes.
Q. You wanted the recipient of that to see that,
didn't you?
A. I had no -- I believed that she saw it, but
whether she saw it or not doesn't matter.
Q. Okay. "I do have" --
A. It's an open forum. Anybody participates.
Q. "I do have information that I can post that I am
certain you would like and not do you well." Again,
talking to Linda?
A. Did I write that? Yes, I did write that.
Q. Were you talking to Linda?
A. I have no confirmation, I have no idea whether
or not she ever read it. I suspect that she read it, but
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
31
that's about it. It's an open post.
Q. You intended it for her, didn't you? Do you
deny that? Are you denying that to Judge Jordan? You were
talking to Linda, weren't you? Are you going to deny that?
A. No, I won't deny that.
Q. All right. And, in fact, you go on to say:
"But I will leave a few nuggets to let you" -- meaning
Linda -- "know I mean business. Some of this will mean
very little to most people, but YOU" -- capitalized --
"should get it. 1, Linda Marie Hicks Ellis, 50, her name
and age.
A. Public information.
Q. 2, David Lynn Ellis, 52, her husband.
A. Yes, that was public information.
Q. 3, MEE, the initials of her daughter, and then
museum, where her daughter works. Do you deny it?
A. No.
Q. Okay. 4, Roswell Downs, her subdivision where
she lives. Do you deny it?
A. But no one would know.
Q. She would know, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. So you threatened by letting her know you
know where she lives, you know her daughter and where her
daughter lives?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
32
A. I made no such -- I made no threats, in a way,
it was more because this is a business dispute, as you have
said, in the beginning. You stipulated that in the opening
and that's actually what I would be opening with, but
anyhow.
Q. Okay. "So there are people who hate you and
looking to put you in the ground." Now you said to the
attorney that you can get people to blindly follow any
public suggestion that you make. Do you recall identifying
that a few minutes ago?
A. That is boisterous statement. No reasonable
person would ever believe that I'm that good. I'm just --
they just wouldn't. If I told somebody to go kill
somebody, they're not going to do it, I can promise you
that.
Q. Okay. "Just so you know, my patience is fairly
low. It wouldn't take much to push me over the edge on
this." You said that right after your list of little
nuggets for Linda, didn't you?
A. I did say that.
Q. It's probably up there right now, isn't it?
A. I wrote that, yes.
Q. You haven't deleted it?
A. I have not.
Q. You're probably going home after this and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
33
deleting it, though, aren't you?
A. No. I generally don't delete posts. Even -- I
knew this was -- I knew there were posts that would be
hurtful -- possibly hurtful and ruin my image, but I left
it up there.
Q. Who is Robert Krausankas?
A. He's a person that lives in Jupiter, Florida.
Q. And he is the host of your website currently,
isn't he?
A. I believe he's a reseller of a host, yes.
Q. Does he host your website?
A. He helps -- he's not the true host, he's a
reseller.
Q. Who's the host?
A. I don't really know.
Q. I think you'd know the host of your website.
A. No --
Q. Are you telling Judge Jordan you don't know the
host of your website?
A. -- I do not know the host. He resells it, I go
through him. But there is a -- he doesn't own the
multimillion dollar equipment.
Q. Is your website established and run through him
as host?
A. I consider him the host, but he truly is not the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
34
equipment owner, I mean, if we're going technical. I guess
-- he doesn't own servers. He's a guy that works out of a
house, okay? We call him a host, but most people -- even a
Columbus, Georgia website here, the government website, I
mean, do we consider the host to be the person that, you
know, services the website, or is it the person that owns
the equipment? So that's the distinction.
MR. CHAN: But I do go through Robert,
Your Honor.
BY MS. MCBRIDE:
Q. Your prior host stopped doing business with you
because of your content, didn't they?
A. I moved -- I actually moved the content and
released -- and cooperated. And that's another --
Q. And they still fired you, didn't they?
A. Yes, they terminated our eight year
relationship.
Q. That's right, terminated an eight year business
relationship because of your content, that's right. Now --
A. No, the content was removed.
MR. CHAN: It was entirely removed in 24
hours, Your Honor. When they brought the
objection, we chose to move it off.
BY MS. MCBRIDE:
Q. Okay. Mr. Robert Krausankas put a comment and a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
35
post on your website. Do you see his picture there?
That's him, isn't it, Robert Krausankas?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. He says: "Matthew Chan visits Linda
Ellis's hometown of Marietta, Georgia."
A. That is true.
Q. And that's on your website today, isn't it?
A. Yes, that is true. That was -- yes.
Q. And he says: "Just spoke with Matthew, he's
en route to none other than Marietta, Georgia for a social
event, dot dot dot. Wouldn't it be ironic if he, quote,
"happened upon Dash author and copyright troll Linda
Ellis"?
A. First of all, I'm not responsible for that post,
but I think he meant that as sort of a jab.
Q. Okay. Then you put a little response on there,
didn't you? "Re: Matthew Chan visits Linda Ellis's
hometown in Marietta, Georgia. I'm not going to say where
exactly in Marietta I was, but let's just say I was in East
Cobb very close to a Kroger grocery store, essentially a
short distance from Roswell Downs," her subdivision.
A. Well, I said that. I don't really know exactly
how far, but I know the East Cobb area is generally fairly
large.
Q. Okay. Now --
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
36
A. And for the record, I was on a date, Georgia
Lipp (phonetic). And that was a reason. It was a
tongue-in-cheek comment.
Q. Now, here's Mr. Krausankas, and I believe he
posted her home?
A. Yes.
MR. CHAN: That's a public photo coming
from Google Street View, Your Honor.
BY MS. MCBRIDE:
Q. I guess you are referring to this house located
at 3349 Preakness Court, Marietta, Georgia, her home?
A. He posted it, but I'm not responsible for what
he posts. And plus, he got it from -- he got it from
Google Street View, where anybody can pull up her picture.
Anybody can pull up my picture, even Your Honor's picture,
any one of these. Google is everywhere.
Q. Okay. So you think it's okay to put a picture
of her house on your website?
A. Well, Google apparently thinks it's okay.
Q. I'm asking you do you think it's okay.
A. I was -- I was neutral. I wasn't -- I didn't --
I didn't bring judgment. I don't --
Q. You could delete this off, couldn't you?
A. I could. There was no judgment on that, one way
or the other.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
37
Q. Okay. This was December the 14th -- so 2012,
it's been up there for awhile?
A. Yes, but I didn't post it. I didn't even tell
him to post it.
Q. And it's been up there since two weeks ago when
you got served with this temporary protective order,
because you just said it's still up there now.
A. It is, because I figured the Court would want to
preserve whatever it is. So there has been --
MR. CHAN: There has been no deletions,
Your Honor, intentionally, good or bad,
because I respect the courts. You know, I
live in Marietta. You know, I sort of know
-- and I file evictions and stuff, and I want
to let Your Honor see these things, good and
bad.
BY MS. MCBRIDE:
Q. Okay. You also say: "If anyone knows me and
how I operate, this is no bluff." You said that too on
your website, didn't you?
A. Yes, everybody knows I'm a big talker.
Q. Now, let's look at this: Ready, Aim, Fire, a
picture. Laughable, isn't it? Sexually explicit,
humiliating pictures --
A. It is not sexually explicit. It's a --
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
38
Q. Do you think it's funny?
A. It is humorous. It is humorous. If you look at
it, these are 1776 uniforms. It's the strike you put on
it.
Q. There's Linda's head put on it, isn't it?
A. You know, in my website, my head's been put on
different things as well, all of us.
Q. I'm asking if Linda's head is on there.
A. Yes. Her head is on this costumed uniform. It
has not moved.
Q. Sitting there, her hands covering her private
area. It says Ready --
A. It's a soldier.
Q. -- Ready, Aim, Fire?
A. Yes, it was humor. And I think anybody that
would ever see that would see that it's very humorous. It
may not be appropriate.
Q. You think it's humorous?
A. I would say that more than one person could see
that as humor. Probably a little mean-spirited, but maybe
it would be -- you know, but it is humorous. There's a lot
of mean-spirited humor in this world.
Q. No Hard Sells is another posting on your
website, and you say: "Even if Peter" -- your client --
"wanted us to stop going after Team Linda, it might be too
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
39
late after a certain threshold is crossed. Once you get
the attack machine going using the resources that I do, it
will be hard to stop it" --
A. This is all talk --
Q. -- "without a great deal of effort."
A. -- of what I might do. I have not done anything
related to stalking. This is all boisterous talk, as I
will testify to, when I present my case.
EXHIBIT TENDERED-PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 3
MS. MCBRIDE: Your Honor, I'd offer P-3.
THE COURT: Okay. Any objection?
MR. CHAN: And, Your Honor, there are --
I would like to offer this. There's 20,000
posts, okay? I mean minus --
MS. MCBRIDE: I don't want to offer
20,000.
MR. CHAN: -- or 19,000, or something
like that. And this is a small fraction of
what goes on, a small fraction. And it's
read by thousands of people every month.
Almost nobody lives in Georgia. Let's put
this in the proper context.
EXHIBIT ADMITTED-PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 3
THE COURT: All right. Plaintiff's
Exhibit 3 is admitted.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
40
BY MS. MCBRIDE:
Q. Now in your letter to Mr. McCormack, the
attorney, you talk about how it's okay to record telephone
conversations in Georgia.
A. I believe that's correct based on the
information that I saw, as long as it's two parties. I
don't remember the specifics, but I did look it up.
Q. So you've made some phone calls?
A. To who?
Q. To Mr. Jolin, who's a witness outside.
A. I have never called Mr. Jolin.
Q. You have called his home, have you not?
A. I have never called his home.
Q. You deny that?
A. I absolutely deny that.
Q. You deny ever calling his home, where his
fiancee has been --
A. I absolutely deny that --
Q. You deny calling his --
A. -- absolutely and equivocally, on my life, never
called anybody, Ms. Ellis or Mr. Jolin.
Q. All right. Do you deny calling Mr. Jolin's
fiancee?
A. I absolutely deny. And I will absolutely
testify and I will swear on my life that I have never
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
41
called anybody. I am a big talker, and that's -- but it
has never crossed the line. And this is what -- the case
is about stalking. And I'd really --
THE COURT: Okay. Let's limit it to the
case of Ms. Ellis against him.
MS. MCBRIDE: Yes, sir. I'll live with
that. Thank you, Your Honor.
MR. CHAN: Thank you, Your Honor. I got
angered.
MS. MCBRIDE: Okay. Your Honor, may I
approach?
THE COURT: All right. While you're
doing that, let me ask Ms. Ford, do you have
any cases?
MS. FORD: Yes, Your Honor, I have one
make proof.
THE COURT: If you'll wait till we get
to a stopping point, we can do that.
BY MS. MCBRIDE:
Q. You have a video currently shown on a website
called Vimeo, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And it's a conversation between you and Mr.
Krausankas?
A. It's a very open conversation, yes.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
42
Q. About Linda Ellis?
A. Yes. We talk about a lot of people in our
broadcast shows.
MR. CHAN: We run a show called the ELI
Factor, Your Honor, which people are
interested in our commentary and feedback.
It's open nature. We do a lot of laughing.
It's not -- you know, we're dressed in casual
clothes. And, you know, it's all done in
good humor.
MS. MCBRIDE: Your Honor, may I approach
the Bench and the witness simultaneously?
THE COURT: Yes.
BY MS. MCBRIDE:
Q. Mr. Chan, that's you on the video, isn't it?
A. That's correct.
MS. MCBRIDE: All right. Your Honor,
I'm not very good with technology. Ms.
Ellis, if she can approach, with the Court's
permission, she's going to press play. I'm
just afraid I'll mess it up.
MR. CHAN: I believe this is a 30-minute
video, Your Honor.
MS. MCBRIDE: It's not -- we've got it
at fast forward to the appropriate --
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
43
MS. ELLIS: We do have the entire video,
but we have it fast forward.
(Video played for the Court.)
MR. CHAN: I did say that.
It's a show, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Wait just a second.
MR. CHAN: I'm sorry.
(Video concluded.)
MR. CHAN: I would like to add that I
was venting, Your Honor.
BY MS. MCBRIDE:
Q. Okay. All the Linda Ellis stuff on your
website's directed to her personally, isn't it?
A. That is not true.
Q. All the stuff regarding Linda Ellis --
A. The ones you pointed out appears to be, but not
everything is directed to her. There's so many. Again, if
you want to produce every single post, you'll find that so
many is not directed to her.
MR. CHAN: And, again, I would like to
emphasize, Your Honor, it is done openly.
You know, I can be a little bit mean, and I
get a little bit irritated. Your Honor just
saw me get a little irritated a little bit
earlier when they were saying things. I do
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
44
get irritated.
I get irritated that she -- it's not my
-- I don't have a dog in the fight, but I do
get passionate about these seventy-five
hundred dollar letters. People keep sending
them to me. They complain. People are
crying. You know, I get all of this. And
this hundred thousand dollar lawsuit just
made me crazy. Maybe it was inappropriate,
but it's not -- I really don't hate Ms. Ellis.
THE COURT: Sir --
MR. CHAN: Oh, I'm sorry.
THE COURT: You must be responding to
questions.
Any more questions?
MR. CHAN: Oh, okay. I'm sorry. Go
ahead.
BY MS. MCBRIDE:
Q. I'd like to show you Plaintiff's Exhibit 4,
which is an affidavit of Mr. Timothy B. McCormack with his
signature on it. This is the original which I'm going to
set here for just a minute, and I'm going to work from a
copy. Mr. Timothy McCormack, the lawyer that you have had
some dealings with by mail --
A. No. I've only had -- he interacted with me once
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
45
and I wrote one open letter. That's not a whole bunch of
interactions.
Q. Okay. Well, let me tell you what he says about
you. He says in Paragraph 7 of his affidavit: "Based on
recent posts attached as Exhibit B" -- which are posts from
your website -- "and on my experience as an attorney, and
based on his own words and pattern of escalating behavior
that I have personally witnessed, I believe Mr. Chan is
likely to follow through on his threats of physical
retaliation against Linda Ellis."
A. That's ridiculous.
Q. You deny that --
A. I deny that --
Q. -- deny what this lawyer says in this affidavit?
A. Oh, no, I don't deny it, but I deny that I would
ever get physical with anybody. I've dealt with landlords
and tenants who have pissed me off so much, but I've never
done anything physical. I always go through the court
system, and I -- you know, that's what I do. And I'm in
the -- well, go ahead.
Q. "I have already witnessed manifestations of
Mr. Chan and his website's threats in the past, my home
property has been vandalized since becoming a target of
extortionletterinfo.com, which I believe to be a direct
result of Mr. Chan's hate and harassment campaign directed
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
46
against me. Members of Mr. Chan's website have visited the
physical location of their targets, taken pictures, and
shared details of these locations."
Do you deny that?
A. This is all news to me, to be honest with you.
Q. You saw the picture on your website of Linda's
house.
A. But that was a Google --
Q. You still deny it?
A. That was a Google photo that Robert posted. I
didn't do that.
Q. So you don't deny that they do post location of
your people that you have a campaign against on your
website, location of their home?
A. We stick to publicly available information.
Q. No, but the answer -- you can explain your
answer, but answer the question. You don't deny that
members of your website and people authorized to put on
posts, will post personal information, including the home
and location of --
A. Occasionally, yes.
Q. You don't deny that. That's true in this
affidavit, isn't it?
A. Yes. I just don't want my statements to be
taken out of context.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
47
Q. Okay. Paragraph 9 --
MS. MCBRIDE: Very quickly, Judge, I'm
almost done.
BY MS. MCBRIDE:
Q. "Extortionletterinfo.com regularly posts home
addresses, photos of family members, and other personal
details of its targets. Extortionletterinfo.com has also
targeted other female victims with aggressively
misogynistic and violent threats." Do you deny that?
A. Well, that's a lot right there.
Q. Well, I want to know if you deny it or not.
Read it for yourself.
A. Well, first of all, you're trying to attribute
all of that to me, and I already stated to you that I'm
only responsible for my posts --
Q. Wrong. You said you could delete any post.
A. That's doesn't -- deleting is not the same thing
as posting. I'm not the author. I don't tell people over
there -- like, I didn't tell Robert, hey, go post this
thing. Deleting is not the same as posting, and providing
information. And I think everyone would agree with that.
Q. Paragraph 10: "He" -- meaning Mr. Chan -- "is
effectively using the Internet as a weapon to circumvent
normal legal channels and frighten his opponents into
submission." Isn't that what you use your Internet website
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
48
for?
A. No, because my fight has long been over, back in
2008. It's used -- there's a lot of good information. And
I would like to add, you mentioned in your -- that Oscar
Michelen, he's a New York attorney with 25 years of
experience --
MR. CHAN: Which I have a letter for
you, Your Honor --
A. -- that he would not associate himself with
anybody that would do criminal behavior.
EXHIBIT TENDERED-PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 4
MS. MCBRIDE: Your Honor, I'd offer
Plaintiff's 4, which is the affidavit of
Timothy McCormack. It has an original
signature on it.
THE COURT: Any objection?
MR. CHAN: I object that he really can't
speak to the motives of the people. He's not
anywhere in Georgia. He can't speak to the
-- he's in Seattle, thousands of miles away.
He has no context whatsoever. And he is -- I
don't believe he's ever met Linda Ellis. He
can't speak to that. He can speak to his
opinion about me, regarding him, but he can't
speak to me regarding Ms. Ellis, since we're
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
49
thousands of miles apart.
THE COURT: All right. The objection
goes to the weight, not the admissibility.
MS. MCBRIDE: I trust the Court to give
it the appropriate probative value, Your
Honor.
EXHIBIT ADMITTED-PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 4
THE COURT: I'll admit it over
objection.
MR. CHAN: What' that? I didn't hear
you.
THE COURT: I've admitted the exhibit
over your objection.
BY MS. MCBRIDE:
Q. Okay. Now, Mr. Chan, very briefly, any attorney
that has been -- had the nerve to take you on, you also
start a campaign against them on your website, don't you?
A. What attorney -- that's a very open-ended
question.
Q. Have you ever started a campaign against an
attorney on your website?
A. I would say not.
Q. Not ever?
A. Well, I don't know what you mean by campaign. I
mean -- can I speak out about it?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
50
Q. Did you ever post --
A. When I -- when I was served the TRO, I wanted
help, and I posted on that. I didn't say anything
derogatory. I mean, I asked for help. It's open forum. I
mean, people keep forgetting that.
Q. I think you've posted on your website comments
about Mr. McCormack personally.
A. Yes. You know, there's all kinds of websites
that post all kinds of things. In fact, I have people
write about me, some bad things, it's happened to me.
Q. Mr. McCormack in his affidavit says that there
are attorneys in his law firm that don't want to take you
on because they're afraid you'll go after them on your
website.
A. What --
Q. Is that overkill?
A. What do you mean by going after? Because we
publish information about them? This is publicly available
information. There's nobody visiting that I know of. I
certainly don't sanction that.
Q. Okay.
A. And I have no record. I have no criminal
record. There is no record of this behavior, besides me
talking a lot, and I -- you know, I do use profanity --
Q. Now, you were served --
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
51
A. -- but judge me for my actions, what I have
done.
THE COURT: Okay, Mr. Chan, answer the
question.
MR. CHAN: I'm sorry.
BY MS. MCBRIDE:
Q. You were served with a copy of the Stalking
Ex Parte Temporary Protective Order on February 15th, were
you not?
A. Yeah, that's -- sounds about right.
Q. Sir?
A. I believe so. I don't remember the exact day.
In front of me, I don't have the paperwork.
Q. So it's been about -- on or around February the
15th?
A. Correct.
Q. And you have not taken down any of those
postings I've showed you, since you got this?
A. I -- I feel that it would be much more
inappropriate if I did take it down, in light of this
upcoming court case. That -- it could have been spun the
other way around, oh, okay, he decided to take it down. So
I chose to leave it up.
MS. MCBRIDE: That's all of this
witness, Your Honor.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
52
THE COURT: All right. It's 12, and
I've got to take -- go to a meeting.
MS. MCBRIDE: We've got about five
minutes to go, Judge.
THE COURT: Huh?
MS. MCBRIDE: Five minutes for her to
just testify briefly.
THE COURT: Okay. And then I've got to
take this right here.
All right. Five minutes.
LINDA ELLIS,
having been first duly sworn, was
examined and testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MS. MCBRIDE:
Q. Very briefly, Ms. Ellis. You are author of The
Dash poem, correct?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. Copyrighted in 1996?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you live in -- where do you live?
A. Preakness Court in Marietta, Georgia.
Q. And what is the name of your subdivision?
A. Roswell Downs.
Q. So that list of items that Mr. Chan just
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
53
testified to, your name, that was your correct name, wasn't
it?
A. My name.
Q. And your husband's name?
A. My husband's name.
Q. What's MEE, which he put on that list?
A. That's for Marie Elizabeth Ellis, my daughter.
Q. And where does Marie work?
A. At the High Museum of Art.
Q. Okay. So when he put MEE, museum, did you feel
that that was targeted toward your daughter?
A. I did.
Q. And when he put -- was it Roswell Homes?
A. Roswell Downs.
Q. Roswell Downs. He put that on his website?
A. He put that on his website with a picture of my
home.
Q. And that was a picture of your home?
A. A picture of my home, vehicles and everything
out front.
Q. Ms. Ellis, is this a copy of The Dash poem?
A. Yes.
MS. MCBRIDE: Your Honor, I'd like to
just hand it up to the Court so the Court can
see an example of her work to understand the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
54
context of it. The Court doesn't have to
read it.
BY MS. MCBRIDE:
Q. Very briefly, Ms. Ellis, how did -- how does
this -- first of all, do you believe Mr. Chan has a
campaign of harassment against you?
A. I do.
Q. And is he trying to scare you?
A. He is and has.
Q. Are you scared?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. Are you intimidated?
A. Yes.
Q. Why? Why is that so scary for you?
A. Because of the threats he's made saying that I'm
dead, putting me in front of a firing line. My mother's in
tears when there's a car parked outside my home. We're
afraid to go inside. We have the shades drawn. I take
these threats seriously. If he says they're
tongue-in-cheek, there's no way for others that follow him,
nor myself to know those are tongue-in-cheek. They're not
made as a comedy. They're direct threats to me and my
safety and my child.
Q. One last thing, Plaintiff's 7, is this a posting
that was on Mr. Ellis's website?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
55
A. On Matthew Chan's website?
Q. Excuse me. Matthew Chan's website. I'm sorry.
A. That's okay.
Q. And it says, Re: Ellis, get ready, we are
coming after you, exclamation, exclamation, posted on
December 4th, 2012?
A. Yes.
Q. And then it has pictures of very horrible demons
it looks like.
A. Right.
Q. All right. And then it has these words --
MR. CHAN: I object, Your Honor. These
posts were not -- I mean, she's just
testified to what has been posted, but it's
not by me or -- it's not by me. I object to
this.
MS. MCBRIDE: Can we pull it up on the
Internet?
THE WITNESS: Do you want to hear it?
MS. MCBRIDE: Judge, she'd be happy to
pull it up on the Internet --
MR. CHAN: She can post it, but it
doesn't reveal that it's my name. It's being
taken out of context. I didn't post that.
MS. MCBRIDE: We can go to his Internet
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
56
website right now and pull it up.
MR. CHAN: It's on the website, Your
Honor, but I object to that, because --
THE COURT: All right.
MR. CHAN: -- it's being attributed to
me.
THE COURT: That goes to the weight and
not the admissibility. I'll admit it if
you're going -- are you going to publish it?
MS. MCBRIDE: I offered Plaintiff's 7
and she can -- it's on there right now on the
Internet. The lyrics of The Hearse Song.
THE WITNESS: They have this posted next
to we are coming after you.
(Video starts playing.)
MR. CHAN: I have not even heard this
video at all. It's a song that I have never
even heard.
(Video stops playing.)
THE COURT: Okay. Is this on the
website that we've been talking about?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: Is this a shot from that
website?
MS. MCBRIDE: Yes.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
57
MR. CHAN: We do not post that video,
Your Honor. I apologize. I'm not trying to
-- I'm just saying that they post a link and
it shows up. And it is out there on --
somewhere, on YouTube. I did not post it.
MS. MCBRIDE: It's on your website,
isn't it?
MR. CHAN: Yes, it is.
MS. MCBRIDE: And you can delete it,
can't you?
MR. CHAN: Yes, I can.
MS. MCBRIDE: Been on there since
December 4th of 2012?
MR. CHAN: I believe so.
MS. MCBRIDE: And definitely still on
there since you were served with this
Stalking Ex Parte Temporary Protective Order?
MR. CHAN: Once again, I felt it was
much more inappropriate to do housecleaning
in light of this hearing. I felt that that
was very inappropriate. I'm not a lawyer,
but I didn't think the Court would like that
sort of thing. It sort of makes it seem like
you're trying to cover something up.
BY MS. MCBRIDE:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
58
Q. Ms. Ellis, are you asking for a permanent
stalking protective order?
A. Yes. Yes, please.
MS. MCBRIDE: That's it, Judge. That's
all we have.
THE COURT: We're going to have to
continue this after lunch. And I'll -- I've
got two other cases, and I'll have to see
what the status of those cases are.
How long do you anticipate your
presentation will be?
MR. CHAN: Well, Your Honor, I thought
it was going to be shorter, but, you know,
obviously I got, you know, surprised by some
of the things that were presented. I'm
guessing maybe an hour.
THE COURT: Okay. All right.
MR. CHAN: I mean, I will do everything
I can to expedite, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Be back at 1:30.
MS. MCBRIDE: Thank you, Your Honor.
(Lunch recess.)
THE COURT: Ms. McBride, I believe you
had rested.
MS. MCBRIDE: Yes, Your Honor, we rest.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
59
THE COURT: Mr. Chan, you have
witnesses?
MR. CHAN: I do not. I will be the sole
person. I'll be testifying on behalf of
myself.
THE COURT: All right. And you've
already been sworn, so I'll hear from you
now.
MR. CHAN: You know, we were in such a
flurry before lunch, and I didn't want to
interrupt you, but I never got a copy of the
exhibits. I mean, I've got exhibits for
them, but they didn't give me any exhibits
that they've submitted.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. CHAN: Again, respectfully, because
I am in the cross-examination stage, I would
like the opportunity to review it, because I
was caught off guard. I wasn't prepared for
counsel to --
THE COURT: Here's the exhibits
(tendering). You can come up and --
MR. CHAN: May I have some time?
THE COURT: How much time do you need?
MR. CHAN: Would 30 minutes be
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
60
appropriate?
THE COURT: Okay. I'll have to go on
with another case, and it may -- I don't know
when I will --
MR. CHAN: Okay. Also, I mean, because
I know your time is valuable, I do have a
memorandum of law that I would like to submit
to you, Your Honor. And I have a copy for
both sides. May I give it to you?
THE COURT: Yes. Okay.
MR. CHAN: I guess -- am I allowed to
take 30 minutes, and have you go on?
THE COURT: Okay. We'll give you 30
minutes.
MR. CHAN: Thank you, sir.
THE COURT: All right. If you'll move
back.
(Break in proceedings.)
THE COURT: All right. You may proceed.
MR. CHAN: I'm sorry?
THE COURT: Are you ready to proceed?
EXHIBIT TENDERED-DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT A
MR. CHAN: Yes. I forget to mention
that the memorandum of law that I submitted
to you, I'd like to submit that as Exhibit A.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
61
THE COURT: Any objection?
MS. MCBRIDE: No objection.
EXHIBIT ADMITTED-DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT A
THE COURT: Okay. It's admitted.
MR. CHAN: I would like to cross-examine
Ms. Ellis. Would you take the witness stand,
please?
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. CHAN:
Q. Ms. Ellis, on Exhibit 7, on this video, who
posted that?
A. April Brown posted it on your website.
Q. Okay. So it was not me that posted it?
A. No, you commented afterwards.
Q. But I didn't post it?
A. You didn't post it and you didn't delete it.
Q. Is that a song?
A. Yes, it is. It's a video of a song.
Q. Yes. Okay. Who posted this picture of your
house?
A. This was one of the --
Q. What does that say?
A. BuddhaPi Krausankas, the gentleman in the video
with you earlier.
Q. Do you know where he got that photo from?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
62
A. No, I don't.
Q. Okay. Thank you. Ms. Ellis, have we ever met
before today?
A. In person, no.
Q. Okay. Have we ever spoken before today?
A. Voice to voicemail.
Q. Have I ever e-mailed you?
A. Personal e-mails, e-mail to e-mail, no.
Q. Have I ever telephoned you?
A. Not me personally.
Q. Have I ever telephoned you directly?
A. No.
Q. Have I ever mailed you a letter or a note of any
kind?
A. Yes, I did, I received a letter from
extortionletterinfo.com, which I am currently trying to
locate so I can honestly say yes, I have been notified with
a ransom note type letter.
Q. Have I personally, Matthew Chan --
A. It was from extortionletterinfo.com, which is
what you own, so I say yes.
Q. Okay. Have I ever faxed you?
A. No.
Q. Have I ever text messaged you?
A. Not that I know of.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
63
Q. Isn't it true that I've never contacted you?
A. I feel you have contacted me with open letters
that are on the Internet right now that say open letter to
Linda Ellis.
Q. Okay. But based on the other questions I asked
you, I haven't -- you don't believe I've contacted you?
A. The other question -- an open letter is a
contact to me.
Q. Okay. Have you ever seen me or come over --
come over to your house?
A. Seen you come over to my house?
Q. Yes.
A. No, I have not.
Q. Have you ever seen me follow you?
A. I've never seen you follow me.
Q. Okay. Do you have any evidence I've ever
followed you?
A. I have your postings on the Internet that you've
been near my home.
Q. On surveillance. Okay. Have you ever seen me
drive by your house?
A. I've only read that you've posted that you've
driven by my subdivision, on more than one occasion.
Q. Can you show us that?
A. We did, it's in the exhibits, yes. It's in Tim
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
64
McCormack's exhibit -- affidavit, the postings by you on
your website where you say you went by Roswell Downs, my
home.
Q. Okay. That's not true, but okay.
A. Oh, I have them. They're in proof.
Q. That's fine. Have I ever placed you or your
home under surveillance?
A. I believe -- no, not that -- except for your
postings on the Internet, that's all I know. I'm sorry.
There is one post where you say that you're coming to my
home with high powered lens cameras, video cameras. And we
do have that proof. So I believe that's surveillance.
Q. Would it be a fair statement to say that
everything that you're complaining about is a public
Internet post on an open forum?
A. It's also for the world to see.
Q. So it's public?
A. You're on a privately-owned site that you own --
Q. Anybody can see those.
MS. MCBRIDE: Let her finish. Let her
answer your question.
MR. CHAN: No, I'm asking the questions.
THE COURT: But she can explain her
answers.
MR. CHAN: Yes. Okay.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
65
THE WITNESS: Posted on a website that
you own and control.
BY MR. CHAN:
Q. On your petition --
A. I'm sorry?
Q. This petition (indicating), is this your
handwriting?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. Okay. Okay. It says here that I've posted --
I've posted threats of death.
A. Right.
Q. Is that true?
A. Yes. You said you are dead. You said -- you
put pictures of me in front of a firing squad that says
Ready, Aim, Fire. You've -- you've let be posted on your
website and did not delete --
Q. But that wasn't me that posted.
A. But you're in control of your website.
MS. MCBRIDE: Excuse me. I'd like for
her to be allowed to finish answering and
explaining her answer.
MR. CHAN: Okay.
THE WITNESS: You had the ability to
delete the post that says we are coming after
you, but you participated in that discussion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
66
with a video, with a video with a song that
said you are the next to die. I take that as
a threat.
MR. CHAN: But we -- but I wasn't the
one that posted we are coming after you.
THE WITNESS: You participated in the
forum and you're in control.
MR. CHAN: Nonresponsive.
THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. No, you didn't
post it. You didn't delete it either.
BY MR. CHAN:
Q. Okay. To the best of your knowledge, have I
ever visited your daughter's employer?
A. No. You posted my daughter's initials and where
she works.
Q. No. It says here on the petition that -- boasts
about driving --
A. It says he boasts about driving --
Q. -- like boasting.
A. -- by my subdivision and --
Q. I boasted, but I didn't.
A. -- and boasted.
Q. But I just want to be clear, it says boast --
that I'm boasting.
A. The petition is one hundred percent correct.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
67
You boasted about driving by my subdivision, and that's
what I wrote.
Q. To the best of your knowledge, I didn't actually
follow through?
A. That's not what the petition says, and I don't
know if you followed through or not.
Q. That's fine.
A. That's what surveillance is. I don't know if
you followed through or not.
Q. Have you ever called the police?
A. I have.
Q. And what have they done?
A. I called the police in Cobb County. I've called
the F.B.I., the GBI. I've called Columbus Police.
Q. Have any of them contacted me?
A. Yes, they have. I called the Columbus Police,
and came down here and asked for advice.
Q. But prior to the --
MS. MCBRIDE: And I'm going to object to
any hearsay evidence that he's trying to
bring out. He could have subpoenaed the
police department if he wanted to have them
testify.
MR. CHAN: I'm asking if she has
personally contacted the police.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
68
MS. MCBRIDE: And he can ask that, and
she can answer that, but he can't ask her
what they said.
BY MR. CHAN:
Q. Okay. You state in the petition that I've
boasted by driving your subdivision and get -- got photos
of your home and daughter's employment. Isn't it true I
really -- I have not done these things?
A. Matthew, I don't -- you boasted about doing
these things. If you're saying you didn't, then you've
lied on your own website. How am I to know that what you
said you did you didn't do? It's what you said you did.
Q. Okay. Have any of your representatives ever
issued or authorized a DMCA copyright takedown complaint
was Scribd against our attack?
A. Yes.
Q. Was it done on one of your settlement demand
letters that was taken down?
A. I -- we've done, I believe more than one and --
Q. Isn't it true that you are unhappy that we
posted the letters for others to read?
A. I'm unhappy about your forum against me and
everything you post for others to read, that is derogatory,
defamatory and threatening.
Q. So the answer is you were unhappy that we posted
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
69
letters for others to read?
A. Yes.
Q. Isn't it true that Scribd agreed with our
position and restored the document?
A. I wasn't involved in the issue of that, and I
believe --
MS. MCBRIDE: Also, if it's getting into
any hearsay, again, I'd object.
MR. CHAN: That's fine.
BY MR. CHAN:
Q. Is it true that you made complaints about ELI to
Eapps, my old web posting provider?
A. Absolutely.
Q. Isn't it true you threatened to file a lawsuit
to hold Eapps accountable, if they didn't convince me to
remove content that I was --
A. Never.
Q. After I decided to move ELI to another web host,
isn't it true you made a complaint to my second web hosting
provider?
A. I made a complaint about the sexual content, the
measuring of certain body parts, that is on with my name
and videos --
Q. But I'm not the one --
A. -- which breaks -- which breaks the terms of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
70
service.
Q. -- that did it, right?
A. No, it's on your website.
Q. Okay. But I'm the -- I didn't personally do it.
A. But I'm complaining to your host.
Q. Isn't it true that the second web hosting
provider agreed with our position of free speech and
wouldn't shut down our website?
A. Actually, with court documents, that's still
pending.
MS. MCBRIDE: And also hearsay. Again,
he's asking to have her testify to outside
comments for the truth of the matter
asserted, and I object.
THE COURT: Yeah. Don't ask her --
BY MR. CHAN:
Q. Isn't it true that you were unhappy with their
position, their response?
A. Their response?
Q. Yes, to you, on your second complaint about us.
A. I haven't complained yet about the harassment,
what I complained was the sexual content that broke their
own terms of service, so yes.
Q. Isn't it true that after your two attempts to
take down the ELI website you then decided to file the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
71
petition for temporary protective order against me?
A. Clarification, I did not attempt to take down
your website, I requested that they take down your threats
against me. They decided to take down your website. I
didn't ask for that, ever. They decided because of your
harassment, and your publication of my personal information
that broke their terms of service, their officers met and
decided to make that decision to take your website down,
not me.
What was the second question?
Q. That was it.
A. I wanted to address that.
Q. That's it.
A. There was another part that I wanted to address.
Q. It was just one question, isn't it true that
after your two attempts to take down the ELI website, you
then decided to file the petition --
A. Wrong.
Q. -- for temporary protective order against me?
A. Wrong. After seeing the video where you say
that nothing -- I understand nothing but brute force,
that's what's convinced me to file a restraining order
against you, protection for myself and my family.
Q. You were complaining -- is it a fair statement
to say that you are complaining today solely because of the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
72
Internet posts?
A. No. I'm complaining because of your
intimidation, harassment and threats on my family.
Q. But it's based on Internet posts?
A. Based on open letters, Internet posts, and your --
Q. Thank you. Thank you.
A. Sorry.
MS. MCBRIDE: She can finish her answer,
Your Honor.
THE COURT: You can finish.
THE WITNESS: And it's not just the
visitors of your website, you were second on
a search for my product and my reputation.
And I believe that people can follow your
threats and harassment.
BY MR. CHAN:
Q. Okay. Have you ever registered a user account
on ELI forums?
THE COURT: Say again?
MR. CHAN: Oh, I'm sorry.
BY MR. CHAN:
Q. Have you ever registered a user account on the
ELI forums?
A. Possibly in the beginning, when I intended to
defend myself, before I realized that you would post the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
73
things that you posted about me.
Q. Isn't it true that you visit and read the ELI
forums more than once a week?
A. Not me, no. I have other people do it for me,
because I'm so stressed, that I have others make sure that
there's no imminent danger to me or my family.
Q. So you never read the ELI forums?
A. Oh, I read them, but not as often as you say.
Q. Isn't it true that ELI publishes a lot of
negative and unflattering comments about you, your
business, and your demand letters?
A. Yes.
Q. We're pretty mean-spirited, aren't we?
A. You are dangerously mean-spirited.
Q. Okay. Would you say we mock you?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you say we are sarcastic?
A. One doesn't know sarcasm if one doesn't know the
person who is posting.
Q. Okay. All right. Isn't it true that you make
money off of your letter program?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And ELI's a threat to that money source,
isn't it?
A. No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
74
Q. Okay. Isn't it true that everything I have
published about you came from publicly available resources
of websites?
A. I did everything I can to make myself unlisted,
so where you obtained personal information about me is not
-- I don't know. I don't know who took the picture of my
home. It never ever -- you never posted with that picture
that it was a Google image, ever. That image of my home
was posted right on the same page where you said you were
driving by my house to take photos. I put the two and two
together.
Q. Isn't it true that I was not the first person
who posted your home address?
A. I don't know anyone else who's posted my home
address, except for you and Krausankas, Robert?
Q. But I was not the first person to post your home
address?
A. You are the first person that I know of to post
my home address on the Internet, as a threat against me and
my family.
Q. Do you know that real estate records are a
matter of public record?
A. The real estate records that you posted -- all
of my mortgage is not my concern, nor my complaint. Those
are not threatening or harassing to me. I don't care if
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
75
people know that I refinanced my home, Matthew.
MR. CHAN: Okay. That's all I have on
-- oh, I'm sorry, I've got a couple more.
BY MR. CHAN:
Q. Have you ever met Tim McCormack?
A. Not in person.
Q. Okay. Where is he from?
A. Seattle.
Q. Okay.
A. You mentioned that earlier in your statement.
Q. Is Tim McCormack licensed in the state of
Georgia as an attorney?
A. How would I know?
Q. Is it a fair statement that he isn't an expert
in Georgia law?
A. How would I know?
MR. CHAN: Okay. Thank you.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MS. MCBRIDE:
Q. You said that you were never contacted by
telephone indirectly. Isn't Mr. Jolin your employee?
A. Yes, he is.
Q. And wasn't his family contacted by telephone?
A. Yes, she was.
MR. CHAN: I object, Your Honor. He's
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
76
not the one being accused of being stalked.
MS. MCBRIDE: Your Honor, it --
THE COURT: You opened the door, so she
can go into it.
MS. MCBRIDE: Thank you, Your Honor.
BY MS. MCBRIDE:
Q. Mr. Jolin is outside ready to testify, is he
not?
A. Yes. Actually --
Q. And he will testify to an incident where his
family was contacted by the telephone number that is Mr.
Chan's telephone number?
A. Yes.
Q. Could you tell us about that incident, please?
A. Yes. Mr. Jolin had a trip, and he had later in
hindsight realized that he posted where -- that he was
going away one weekend. That same weekend his fiancee and
small child were called at home. She called that number
back and it was Matthew Chan's voicemail.
MS. MCBRIDE: That's all.
THE COURT: You may step down.
Do you have any other witnesses?
MR. CHAN: Well, let's see here. Your
Honor, I already submitted to you the
memorandum of law, okay, it's Exhibit A. And
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
77
basically what I'd like to do is make a
motion to dismiss this case on the following
grounds. The statute prohibits specific
conduct, none of which I engaged in. I
didn't do any of the actions in the statute.
None of the majority of the -- the
majority of her complaint is actually covered
here in the petition. And I have a right of
notice of conduct that is objectionable. And
no one ever sent me anything, in any way,
shape or form. I didn't do the allegations
in the petition.
And in the matter of posting content on
the Internet, the Georgia Court of Appeals
already decided this in two different cases,
that posting on the Internet is not contact.
And Marks versus State -- well, let me go
higher. On Collins versus Bazan, Court of
Appeals 256 Ga. App. 164, it discusses the
publishing and discussing the ex-girlfriend's
private medical condition. "The question
therefore" -- I'm just quoting an excerpt --
"The question therefore is whether the
Court's power in Subsection (d)(2) to
prohibit a party from harassing or
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
78
interfering with the other party authorizes a
prohibition against publishing or discussing
the other party's medical condition with
third parties. We hold it does not."
The other part that I thought might be
relevant is: "Thus, under Johnson, O.C.G.A.
16-5-94(d)(2) can only authorize prohibiting
speech that at least places the victim in
reasonable fear for her safety or that of her
immediate family. Here there was no evidence
publishing or discussing Bazan's medical
condition with others would threaten her or
her family's safety.
This author notes that this conduct is
extremely insensitive and unacceptable;
however, at most, knowledge of the condition
would be embarrassing to Bazan. Accordingly,
the court lacked authority to prohibit
Collins from publishing or discussing that
condition with others."
Now the other case is Marks versus
State, 306 Ga. App. 824, and it was relating
to the posting of untrue statements about
ex-wives -- about his ex-wife, on several
websites. We note that we have previously
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
79
found that the term contact is readily
understood by people of ordinary intelligence
as meaning to get in touch with and
communicate with.
While a probationary condition that
forbids a defendant from contacting the
victim may also be interpreted as proscribing
indirect contact, such contacts still must be
for the purpose of getting in touch with or
communicating with the victim. This -- this
other part is: This case is more like
Collins versus Bazan, which I quoted earlier,
in which we found that a defendant's
publication and discussions with third
parties regarding his ex-girlfriend's private
medical condition obviously does not
constitute contacting that person.
Your Honor, respectfully, the most
danger -- I -- the most dangerous thing about
this petition is that it shows that the --
this statute with these cases specifically
exempts constant -- constitutionally-protected
speech. The constitution protects uncomfortable,
controversial, offensive, profanity, bravado and
the like.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
80
In conclusion, to allow this petition to
go forward would have a chilling effect on
free speech on Internet. That's my motion to
dismiss, Your Honor.
MS. MCBRIDE: Judge, I think I get to
respond to his motion.
THE COURT: Sure.
MS. MCBRIDE: It's my understanding,
since he's made a motion to dismiss, that
he's rested, he's closed his evidence.
THE COURT: Have you rested your case?
MR. CHAN: I have not rested, Your
Honor. I wanted to dismiss it to save the
time, Your Honor, and I am prepared to move
forward if I must, but I wanted to save time
and not do it at the very end, where I'm over
time.
THE COURT: All right. I'll reserve
ruling on your motion until you've rested.
MR. CHAN: Okay. I stringently --
MS. MCBRIDE: And then I would ask to be
able to argue my part of that motion.
MR. CHAN: I stringently -- I mean, I'm
not telling you your job, Your Honor, I mean,
I know you're an expert, but a lot of what's
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
81
been articulated is better articulated in
written form in the memorandum of law, I am
not as well articulated in verbal form. So
you're going to -- you reserve, okay.
Okay. I've written an opening
statement, Your Honor, if that's okay. I
mean you already know that I'm Matthew Chan,
and locally I'm best known as a local
landlord. I've lived in Columbus --
MS. MCBRIDE: Your Honor, I think he's
already given an opening statement, and he's
already gone into his evidence. I mean he
was supposed to --
MR. CHAN: No, Your Honor, I actually
have not.
MS. MCBRIDE: He's arguing twice.
MR. CHAN: I have the right to present
my -- I mean my side of things. I ask for
latitude. I'm trying to move this quickly,
Your Honor. Please give me some latitude.
MS. MCBRIDE: I don't have a problem if
this is his testimony, if he's testifying.
THE COURT: If this is your testimony,
go ahead.
MR. CHAN: Okay. All right. I'm best
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
82
known as a local landlord. I've lived in
Columbus for 12 years, and I'm a civic-minded
registered voter with no criminal record.
I'm 46 years old. In the 14 years I've been
a landlord, I've never had any physical or
violent disputes with anyone.
As it relates to the Internet, I'm known
-- better known as an author, book publisher,
blogger and Internet broadcaster. There have
never been any physical or violent disputes
with anyone in this arena -- any in this
arena either. However, I am here today
because I am also a passionate and zealous
reporter, advocate and commentator for
victims of copyright trolls and copyright
extortionists. Those are colloquial terms
for people who abuse copyright law for
financial gain.
Central to this case, we are here
because of a business dispute between Ms.
Ellis and me and my website. She is
initiating an attack on my business and
website, not because I've actually stalked,
harassed or committed any crime against Ms.
Ellis. I can unequivocally say that Ms.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
83
Ellis and her family have never been or ever
will be in any danger -- physical danger from
me.
Ms. Ellis is the author of The Dash
poem, a popular poem that's been spread
widely through word of mouth since 1996. The
poem is often shared by the bereaved and
passed to the bereavement industry, like
funeral homes. It is also shared by those in
the medical comfort industry.
For those who dare share her poem in
print or website, it's a financial deathtrap.
Okay. You have in the exhibits a copy of her
poem on the little bookmark.
Now, Ms. Ellis with the help of her
legal team secretly earns significant income
from her copyright enforcement letter
program. Moneys come from charities,
nonprofits, churches, funeral homes,
educational institutions, medical and dental
businesses and even the bereaved individuals
themselves.
Recent letters I've seen are currently
$7,500 per infringement for accidentally
sharing the poem or -- or cut and print or
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
84
website. And I have this for you.
MS. MCBRIDE: Judge, I'd like to see it
before he hands it up.
MR. CHAN: Yes, I have a copy for you.
And I also have a recent lawsuit or a
threat by -- this is one of Ms. Ellis's
attorneys for a hundred thousand dollars.
The backside on the first page (indicating).
Her letters instill fear to the legally
ignorant and unsophisticated. Her letters
mislead victims with absolute worse case
scenarios, and distort interpretation of
copyright law. Ms. Ellis, despite how she
would appear, is a sharp, savvy business
woman who knows her way around lawyers and
the legal system. She isn't just a housewife
working for babysitting money, this is a
serious business for her, she knows her
victims well and knows how to get them to pay
exorbitant amounts of money without ever
going to court.
How does this relate to me, Ms. Ellis,
in this case today you may ask, Your Honor?
This part -- this is part of a series of
ongoing attempts to shut me up, my online
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
85
community, and shut my website down.
Prior to 2012, to the best of our
knowledge, Ms. Ellis operated with little
resistance. No information was ever put
online about her copyright extortion
operation. Her victims simply rolled over
and paid. In June of 2012, I, through April
Brown from Seattle, Washington discovered and
was informed of Ms. Ellis and her copyright
extortion operation.
I opened up a dedicated discussion forum
to solicit information and invite discussion.
Over time, prior Ms. Ellis' letter victims
secretly informed us through April Brown
about their unhappy and fearful experiences
and provided me copies of Ms. Ellis'
extortion letters, which I have with me
today, which I've submitted. They are
fearful of retaliation themselves. ELI
reported and commented on them and continues
to do so until today. Since that time, my
website and I have been subject to her
multiple attacks.
MS. MCBRIDE: Judge, let me just
interject. I've let him go on --
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
86
MR. CHAN: I'm still presenting, Your
Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. She has the right to
object. Tell me what that objection is.
MR. CHAN: Does she? Okay.
MS. MCBRIDE: Your Honor, I've let him
go into this because he is pro se, and I want
him to get as fair a hearing, and I know he
will get a fair hearing today, but, Your
Honor, we are not here to resolve the
business dispute, we just want him to stay
away and stop harassing her and making
threats. We are not trying to do anything to
his website or to stop his work in that
fashion, and he would be --
MR. CHAN: Your Honor, there's a bigger
picture.
THE COURT: Just a minute. One at a
time.
MR. CHAN: I'm sorry.
MS. MCBRIDE: No, but we basically want
this stalking protective order to be made
permanent. And since he has no personal
dealings he says, I don't know why he would
object to -- in other words, the stalking
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
87
protective orders are very limited in their
scope, in the sense of making him have to
stay away, and making him stop making threats
towards her and her family via any
communications, Internet or otherwise.
But that has nothing to do with the
business dispute. And I understand he's
basically telling the Court why he thinks
he's justified in harassing her this way, but
that is --
MR. CHAN: That's not true.
MS. MCBRIDE: -- but that is not before
the Court. We're not here on a business
dispute, and we're not trying to shut his
website down. So I would object on the
grounds of relevancy at this point. He's
gotten in one example that he says is an
extortion letter, quote/unquote, which is a
letter -- and it is into evidence, the Court
has it now, but he does not need to be
allowed to go on for hours today --
MR. CHAN: I'm not going to go on hours,
Your Honor.
MS. MCBRIDE: -- on a business dispute.
MR. CHAN: Believe me. I have no desire
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
88
to stay here any longer. Please. I am
moving through this as quickly as possible
and I just feel like it's a much bigger
picture, because I don't have a --
technically, a dog in this fight.
But, anyway, I was getting into the
attacks. I guess you can't really see it
that well, but I'll go ahead and read it off.
Basically, on June 6th, was Ms. Ellis' first
attack, where there was a DMCA copyright
takedown notice by John Jolin. And it was
subsequently restored on June 27th, 2012.
On December 1, 2012, we received -- I
received a victim's copy of a hundred
thousand dollar lawsuit threat from Ms.
Ellis' attorney, and of course I posted it
for everyone to see, and the ELI community
was morally outraged.
Attack number 2 was January 17, 2013, we
received an abuse notice from Ms. Ellis'
complaint regarding death threats, posting of
personal info from Eapps, the web host.
Voluntary shutdown -- we voluntarily shut
down our website and moved it to the RK web
host provider.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
89
On January 23rd, as was testified
earlier, Eapps terminated the eight year
business relationship with me due to the
complaint.
Attack number three, Your Honor, was
February 6th, 2013, she makes a complaint to
the web hosting provider. And on February
11th, on or around February 11th, 2013, the
RK web host provider did not -- I guess
denies that Ellis complaint.
Attack number 4, Your Honor, was on
February 13th, when she filed this bogus
stalking complaint and tried to get a TPO
against me. And on February 16th, by my
record, I was served with the TPO. So that's
the four -- that's the timeline.
An example of this attack on me and the
website is here. This is a letter of their
complaint by Mr. John Jolin and the counter
response (tendering).
Okay. Now to move forward here, this
chart, Your Honor, is a diagram, a schematic
of how we work, to make it easier for you to
understand.
MS. MCBRIDE: I'd like to see it.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
90
MR. CHAN: Yeah, I'm looking for a copy.
MS. MCBRIDE: And I may object to it.
MR. CHAN: Oh, here we go. I've got a
copy (tendering).
Okay. Going through this quickly, Your
Honor, this is a schematic of how the ELI
website works, okay? The central area --
this is what I control directly. On the left
side is the ELI blog, okay, where there's
articles and editorials, but by far the
busiest area is what we call the ELI
discussion forums.
Ms. Ellis is not being singled out.
There's the Getty Images from -- that covers
the USA, Getty Images for the United Kingdom,
of course Ms. Ellis, the legal -- a general
Legal Controversies forum, a P2P Bittorrent
lawsuits, Righthaven lawsuits, and Riddick
and Imageline extortion letters. She is one
of many topics that gets discussed.
The nature -- oh, I'm sorry. Right
here, on this particular diagram, ELI
Discussion Forums Access, its publicly
accessible and it requires specific
intentional mouse clicks. There's no
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
91
accident to getting on -- you can't just
stumble onto it. Somebody has to consciously
visit the website to read anything.
Each forum is topic specific, and it's
sort of a moderated chat room. Contributors
register with a user account with validated
e-mail addresses. Each contributor is
responsible for what they post. Each post
has an identifiable author.
Now, regarding the content, Your Honor,
in trying to make this easy for everybody,
is, it's a communicate platform for letter
extortion victims and their advocates. The
primary focus is education, reporting, open
dialog, and publicity.
Now we do have announcements and news,
legal research and analysis. There's
commentaries and there's editorials. There's
humor, sarcasm and parody on there. There's
speculation and prediction, and there's also
venting of emotional rhetoric for people that
are just simply upset.
The language usage, okay, we do have a
military motif in what we talk about, okay?
And it's the military culture. And so like
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
92
we use words like war, weapons, fight,
battle, collateral damage, attack and defend.
But it's a copyright issue, Your Honor. No
one would -- you know, would reasonably
assume that -- you know, if we were going to
fight or attack somebody, we're going to do
it, you know, in a physical format, given the
subject matter.
We do use flamboyant and colorful and
spirited language, like extortionist. We use
trolls. We talk about shakedowns. We talk
about troll thieves. We use euphemisms,
slang, colloquialisms and rhetorical
metaphors. I, myself, have engaged in many
of them. It doesn't paint me in a very good
light, but that's not -- it's
constitutionally protected.
There's name calling, there's insults
and profanity. I admit I've done my share of
that. There's ranting, raving, blustering,
venting and bragging. And the one thing I
want to emphasize, Your Honor, is that it's
legal and it's constitutionally protected.
Now, Your Honor, this is really actually
too small up here, but on your copy if you
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
93
flip to the last page you will see that Ms.
Ellis is by far not being singled out at all.
It's the web of this industry that we're
talking about. So that's to give you a
concept of ELI.
Okay. Now, I'm moving on to the
stalking charge, Your Honor. I know time is
short. So, what I want to offer here is that
Chan, that's me, I have never contacted and I
have no intentions of ever contacting Ms.
Ellis. I have never met her, I've never seen
her in person up until today, never spoken to
her, never phoned her, never faxed her, never
mailed her, never text messaged her, I've
never e-mailed her.
There has never been any personal or
property danger to Ms. Ellis or her family
whatsoever, now or forever from me.
Now in examining the statute, Your
Honor -- and I'm not telling you how to do
your job. I mean, I had to bring myself up
to speed, you know, and learn. You know, I
got quite an education. So there's -- my
understanding is all elements of the statute
needs to be met. The first is have I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
94
followed her. Okay. The second point is
places -- have I placed her under
surveillance.
Okay. Have I ever contacted her,
meaning by phone, text message, mail, e-mail,
fax, et cetera. Another person -- I'm just
going word-by-word, Your Honor, from the
stalking statute -- which is Ms. Ellis -- at
or about a place or places. The place is her
house. Except that, Your Honor, I live,
aside from social trips -- socializing up
there or, you know, my rental house, there's
some affairs I do take care of.
And I'm not -- I live here, Your Honor.
Ms. Ellis' home is 130 miles away. It's two
hours away. It's four hours minimum round
trip, if I decide to go up there and then
come right back.
So -- and like I said, I don't want to
-- I'm not trying to tell you -- I mean, you
know more law than I do, but I felt that
Collins versus Bazan and Marks versus State
acknowledged this directly, you know, as it
pertains to Internet posts.
On a personal note, Your Honor, I really
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
95
-- I've never met Ms. Ellis, I bear her no
malice. I talk a lot and she has made me
unhappy at times, but believe it or not, I've
told a number of people, I don't hate Ms.
Ellis. What I dislike is her tactics. And
that's -- that's all I can say. Let me see.
Now, personally, Your Honor -- I mean,
you are the judge, and personally -- but, I
mean, I've talked about this with a lot of
people, legal counsel, I've spent some money.
And, you know, I do feel like that this is an
abuse of the stalking. What I do is -- is
unpleasant, and I've said some bad things,
but if you look at my record, I've never done
anything.
If I was going to do something, I would
have done it much younger. I'm not getting
any younger. I'm not looking forward to
doing anything. And to counter counsel's
point this isn't a big deal, it is a big
deal, because, Your Honor, it's my
reputation. I mean, I take this very, very
seriously. I've taken this whole thing to
heart, okay? But it does matter. I don't
want a permanent injunction. She has nothing
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
96
to fear from me. But I don't want this.
It's not right, Your Honor.
You can criticize me for a lot of
things, okay? I'm a bad person. I've said
some mean things, and stuff like that, but
you cannot attribute the things that other
people do to me. And the last point -- and I
really didn't want to bring this up, simply
because -- you know, mostly because of the
time thing, but the section -- Section 230 of
the Communications Decency Act -- this is my
last submission -- and this is a Wikipedia --
it provides immunity to people like me who
host forums and websites, okay, because --
and I don't want to get into why they did
this, but I do have immunity, I can't be held
responsible for other peoples posts.
I mean, we launched ELI in 2008. It was
much smaller back then. There are -- today,
there are about 14,200 posts, Your Honor,
across 740 threads of discussion. And Ms.
Ellis' forum has 1,900 posts under what would
cross 180 topics. So I just want to make
sure you've got a perspective of that, Your
Honor.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
97
I guess the last thing that -- without
reiterating the point -- on a personal note,
she has nothing to fear from me. There has
been no -- I have not -- I have not even come
close to violating the stalking statute, Your
Honor. I hope you will look at that closely,
and I know you will.
And I'm a businessman in Columbus,
Georgia, and that's what I intend to do.
And, you know, I intend to continue to keep
my nose clean. I have no criminal record.
I've got maybe one traffic ticket in this
area in 14 years. Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
Rebuttal?
MS. MCBRIDE: The only rebuttal I would
have, Your Honor, would be the testimony of
Mr. Jolin, who was the employee of Ms. Ellis,
due to the telephone contact that he denied
in his cross-examination this morning.
MR. CHAN: Absolutely deny.
MS. MCBRIDE: So that would be the only
rebuttal evidence, you know, at this time. I
hate to waste the Court's time with it,
because I feel you already heard from her. I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
98
know we're pressed for time, Your Honor.
Very briefly then, if I could call the
witness?
THE COURT: Yes, call your witness.
MS. MCBRIDE: Okay. Mr. Jolin.
SERGEANT MCANENY: Come forward, please,
sir.
JOHN W. JOLIN,
having been first duly sworn, was
examined and testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MS. MCBRIDE:
Q. Mr. Jolin, could you state your name for the
record, please?
A. John W. Jolin.
Q. And, Mr. Jolin, I hope that I represented to the
Court correctly, I just got in this case yesterday, but you
are the employee of Ms. Ellis?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. All right. And tell me what you do for her.
A. I help her with her copyright infringement
enforcement.
Q. All right. And have you had -- well, let me ask
this question. Was there an incident where Mr. Matthew
Chan contacted by telephone your fiancee?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
99
A. Yes.
Q. Could you please start from the beginning and
tell the Court as precisely as possible what happened?
A. I was going out of town with a friend for two
days, and before I left town, I posted on my Facebook, hey,
going out of town, can't wait for this trip. I get into
town from my trip, and I get a call frantic from my wife --
well, at that time fiancee, stating that she got two calls,
one was a local call and one was from Columbus, Georgia.
So she called the number back from the Columbus, Georgia
number and reached Matthew Chan's voicemail.
Q. Now, I'm going to approach --
MS. MCBRIDE: Your Honor, may I approach
the witness?
THE COURT: Yes.
BY MS. MCBRIDE:
Q. Tell me if you can identify this document I'm
giving you right here (tendering).
A. That's a picture of my wife's phone with the
call on it from Matthew Chan.
Q. All right. And show me Matthew Chan's phone
number.
A. Right there, the 762 number.
Q. 762-359-0425?
A. That's correct.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
100
Q. And how do you know that that is his phone
number?
A. I Googled the number, and as soon as I Googled
the number it was related to four different websites of
Matthew Chan.
Q. All right. And I think you gave me a copy of
the Googling.
A. Yes, I did. That's from the Whois website.
Q. So let me hand you this. I'm going to mark that
as -- I believe it's going to be Plaintiff's 8, and then
this one I'll mark as Plaintiff's 9. Plaintiff's 9, tell
me what that is, please.
A. This is Whois, which is a record of websites,
and the information about different individual websites.
And this phone number's related to actually, excuse me, six
different websites, extortionletter --
Q. Say the phone number again.
A. 762-359-0425, which is related to
extortionletterinfo.com, turnkeypublisher.com,
ownerfinancehomes.com, webdomainstrategies.com (sic),
turnkeyinvestment.com, tempestbroadcasting.com.
Q. So linked to extortionletterinfo.com, which is
owned and controlled by Matthew Chan?
A. Correct.
EXHIBITS TENDERED-PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBITS 8 AND 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
101
MS. MCBRIDE: Your Honor, I'm going to
let Mr. Chan take a look at these, but then
I'd offer Plaintiff's 8 and 9.
MR. CHAN: Okay. Can I have a rebuttal?
THE COURT: Do what?
MR. CHAN: Am I allowed to say
something?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. CHAN: I don't challenge that this
is my phone number, I don't challenge that
these are my websites, so we'll get that out
of the way. Okay. This is my phone number
on here, all right, and I'm actually
flabbergasted --
MS. MCBRIDE: He doesn't get to testify.
He can object or not.
MR. CHAN: They brought up new
information, Your Honor, I have to have the
opportunity to discuss it.
MS. MCBRIDE: To rebut --
MR. CHAN: I'm rebutting her for
rebuttal.
THE COURT: Okay. You're just making an
objection. What's your objection?
MR. CHAN: Well, the thing about it is,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
102
I'm actually very stunned about this. Okay.
Number one, if I was going to call somebody,
I wouldn't use my phone number. But number
two, I want to let you know there are
spoofing programs. Now people know that I'm
the one that does this thing. I have no
vested interest in calling Mr. Jolin and Ms.
Ellis.
I mean, she reached out to me last year
and I didn't want to talk to them. I mean,
there is no incentive. I don't have a dog in
this fight. It's not my fight. I don't have
it. The only thing I get incensed about is
this, but I don't -- I am not a victim of
them, per se, up until this point. There is
no vested interest in me to -- to harass
them.
Yes, I mean I don't deny that Mr. Jolin
is providing an accurate record, but all I
can say is the only -- it's either being
spoofed, okay, or that when people call me
sometimes I get curious, and I'll just say,
well, who called me. And that's the only
possibility, Your Honor. There's no vested
interest.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
103
EXHIBITS ADMITTED-PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 8 AND 9
THE COURT: Okay. They're admitted.
MS. MCBRIDE: Your Honor, may I hand it
up?
THE COURT: I think the exhibits were
right down there on the --
MS. MCBRIDE: Oh, okay.
BY MS. MCBRIDE:
Q. Mr. Jolin, did you pull a copy of your telephone
records from your account with your phone company?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. Is it with Sprint?
A. Sprint. My wife and I both have a phone with
Sprint, with one account.
Q. All right, sir. And is this a copy of what you
printed off from your Sprint records from the Internet?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. All right. And you have done a blue highlight
on one of the phone numbers, and the date of the call was,
I believe --
A. January 6th.
Q. -- January the 6th. And tell me what phone
number is on there.
A. 762-359-0425.
Q. And was that call made to your phone number?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
104
A. It was made to my wife's phone number.
Q. To your wife's phone number. And what's your
wife's name?
A. Teresa Mixon.
Q. Now, did Ms. Ellis ask her to testify today or
to sign an affidavit for today?
A. Yes, she did.
Q. All right. And did she refuse?
A. Yes, she did.
Q. And why did she refuse to sign an affidavit?
A. She's in fear of Matthew Chan, you know, pulling
up information on her.
Q. Explain that.
MR. CHAN: That's hearsay.
A. Fear of Matthew Chan.
MR. CHAN: It's hearsay.
Q. Fear of Matthew Chan and --
MS. MCBRIDE: Withdrawn. It's
withdrawn.
THE COURT: It's hearsay.
MS. MCBRIDE: Yes, sir.
BY MS. MCBRIDE:
Q. And based upon this record on your wife's Sprint
account, you believe that that's how --
MR. CHAN: May I see that?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
105
A. We share the account -- we share the account,
and it's on both of our numbers --
MR. CHAN: May I see that, Your Honor?
A. -- both of our numbers are on the same account.
THE COURT: She hasn't tendered it yet.
MS. MCBRIDE: I haven't offered it into
evidence. I'd like him to finish.
THE WITNESS: We have one account with
both of our phones on it.
BY MS. MCBRIDE:
Q. All right. And is that this account?
A. That's that account. You can see the last page,
her phone number is the number -- well, there's one
highlighted that related to all these numbers here.
Q. Okay. Were you out of town on that day?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. And did you post on your Facebook page that you
were going to be out of town that day?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Was your wife afraid after that?
A. Yes, she was.
MS. MCBRIDE: Your Honor, offer
Plaintiff's 10.
MR. CHAN: May I cross-examine him since
she brought him up?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
106
THE COURT: No, we're --
MS. MCBRIDE: It's not time for any
cross.
THE COURT: You can cross-examine him
once she gets through.
MR. CHAN: Well, that's what I meant,
just on this one matter.
MS. MCBRIDE: That's fine. Actually,
I'm done. He can go ahead with his cross.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. CHAN:
Q. I just want to get clarification. Is this the
-- in the time, Mr. Jolin, in the time since last year, is
this the only call you've seen?
A. That's the only call from you, yes.
Q. Okay. What does it say? How long does it say?
A. One minute.
Q. Okay. Is it a possibility at all that it was
done by mistake?
A. How would you get my wife's phone number and
call her by mistake?
Q. Is it possible? One minute. What would I have
accomplished in one minute?
A. I have no idea.
Q. Okay.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
107
A. I mean, why were you calling my wife? How did
you get her phone number?
MR. CHAN: I didn't get her phone
number. But anyway it's less than one
minute.
EXHIBIT ADMITTED-PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 10
THE COURT: 10's admitted.
MR. CHAN: There is no pattern.
THE COURT: Any other questions?
MR. CHAN: Your Honor, I forgot
something. This is very relevant. This is
extremely relevant, in fact. There is no --
my cell phone, I just updated it. When I
call somebody, and I can demonstrate it to
you, that is an incoming number, it's a
Google voice number. I have actually tried
to get that number to be outgoing, because
when I call out, all right, it always
displays the number that I don't want to
share. So --
THE COURT: Do you have a question for
this witness?
BY MR. CHAN:
Q. Are you familiar with Google Voice?
A. Yes.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
108
Q. Do you use Google Voice?
A. No, I do not.
Q. Are you familiar that you can set up a Google
voice number?
A. Yes.
Q. And it's a voicemail service?
A. Not necessarily.
Q. I'm sorry. Do you use it?
A. No, I do not.
MR. CHAN: Okay. Thank you.
THE COURT: Okay. You may step down.
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
MS. MCBRIDE: We rest.
MR. CHAN: May I add to that?
THE COURT: Do what?
MR. CHAN: I just wanted to just go
ahead and finish my statement on the Google
Voice thing, that I've actually tried to have
that feature activated. When I call out that
number displays -- that gives me an
additional reason to be very, very skeptical
about that.
MS. MCBRIDE: Your Honor, may this
witness be excused?
THE COURT: Do what?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
109
MS. MCBRIDE: And may he remain in the
courtroom now?
THE COURT: Yes. He's excused.
All right. Any other witnesses in
rebuttal?
MS. MCBRIDE: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Do you have any
-- okay. I'll give each one of you five
minutes to do a summation.
MS. MCBRIDE: I think we have the right
to open and close. We'd waive opening and
close after he finishes.
THE COURT: All right. You have five
minutes.
MR. CHAN: Well, Your Honor, obviously
I've never had a stalking charge, and the
only thing I will ever emphasize is I have
never reached out to her. I bear her no
malice. I am very zealous in what we do,
there's no question about that. Have I used
some profanity, have I made fun of her, have
I been a little mean-spirited? All of these
things are true. But for it to become
stalking and to put me under a temporary -- I
mean a permanent injunction is ridiculous --
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
110
I'm sorry, not ridiculous, but I mean it's
just -- it's unnecessary. It really is
unnecessary.
Because she lives 130 miles away, two
hours. I don't have a vested interest in
doing that. And I implore you, Your Honor,
to take the big picture involved. There are
20,000 posts. And what you've seen, clearly
I wrote some of those, there's no question,
but in the bigger context of things, this
thing is just -- it's not me. The majority
of all this is not me.
I'm just one of many members. I just
happen to host it, Your Honor. There is no
need for it. Plus, what I do is
constitutionally protected. And obviously we
-- you know, we feel that like we have a
right to say certain things, and -- but I
cannot emphasize enough, I bear no malice to
Mr. Jolin. I bear no malice to Ms. Ellis. I
certainly don't bear any malice towards her
children or anything.
I mean, it was just talk. And there is
no need for a protective order. I don't
think there's any reason. And I think that
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
111
the courts -- the Court of Appeals pretty
much covers a lot of it, Your Honor. And I
hope you will take that into consideration.
THE COURT: Okay. Ms. McBride?
MS. MCBRIDE: Thank you, Your Honor.
The constitution -- the constitution is very
important, and constitutionally protected
speech is also important. And while I agree
with Mr. Chan that there is some speech,
especially on the Internet, that is
constitutionally protected, what has been
demonstrated and proven today is not
constitutionally protected.
I know the Court is aware of the
relevant stalking statute under 16-5-90, and
let's talk about that. A person commits the
offense of stalking when he or she follows,
places under surveillance, or contacts
another person, at or about a place or
places, without the consent of the other
person for the purpose of harassing and
intimidating the other person.
First of all, what we have proven today,
this website has as its purpose to harass and
intimidate various people. Ms. Ellis is one
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
112
of those people. The website is owned
privately and controlled completely by Mr.
Chan.
MR. CHAN: I am not responsible --
THE COURT: Wait a minute. No answer.
No response.
MS. MCBRIDE: He admitted in -- this
morning for an hour, he admitted over and
over again that he can delete any content
that comes on there. He can delete it if he
wants to. He lets it come on there, he
encourages it to come on there, and he
refuses to delete it.
He also admitted that he refused to take
off the things we presented after he received
a copy of the temporary protective order,
which means he has absolutely no respect for
this Court, he has no respect for the
restrictions on that speech, and he doesn't
want to restrict any of his speech.
16-5-90 says the terms computer and
computer network shall have the same meaning
as is set out in Code Section 16-9-92. The
term contact shall mean any communication,
including without being limited to,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
113
communication in person, by telephone, by
mail, by broadcast, by computer, by computer
network or by any other electronic device.
Now what was proven today under this
statute? We proved that, first of all, he
contacted by telephone the employee of Ms.
Ellis, who routinely deals with him on his
website. That's number one. He did it, he
contacted the fiancee, made a call to her,
when he was out of town, and he knew he was
out of town, because he had put it on his
Facebook. That was the first thing.
The second thing is it says by computer
or computer network. The postings, and its
massive postings on the Internet, on his
website that he controls, that he controls
and can delete from, basically are personally
addressed to Linda Ellis.
Well, it's more than just saying mean
things about her and insulting her. It's
true that that's on there, but this goes
beyond that. He specifically threatened her,
by listing her -- Roswell Downs, her
subdivision, by listing her daughter's
initials, and the place where her daughter
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
114
works, her relatives, and listing her
husband.
He allowed a picture of her home, that
someone drove by and made a picture of, to be
placed on his website, and said that he had
driven near it. He said that he -- he said
he didn't make the picture himself. But,
Your Honor, if he causes or tells another
person to do the surveillance, that meets the
standard of the statute. And he has done
surveillance. The picture of her home that
he put on his Internet website proves that.
He stated on his website that he's
visited her hometown.
He put on his website a video that we're
coming to get you, to Linda Ellis, we're
coming to get you, with The Hearse Song on
it. And it's stayed up there. It's been up
there as of today. He said it was still on
there, in violation of the protective order.
He said on his website that he can make
a public suggestion and people will follow
it. That's what he said in his letter to the
attorney, that he posted on his website.
So, Your Honor, his intention is more
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
115
than just to bloviate. His intention is to
intimidate a specific person, to contact a
specific person for the purpose of putting
the heat on her.
And I would like to finally draw the
Court's attention to this document that he
entered into evidence, his own document, this
brief. And I'll just point out a couple of
things that he admits in his brief. First of
all, this morning, he said that Linda Ellis
was just a small portion of this. But in his
brief on page 9, he said, This discussion
forum allows people to post anonymously and
openly describe their experiences dealing
with this issue, referring to Linda Ellis' --
The Dash poem and her lyrics.
This discussion forum is popular, and is
now six pages deep on the ELI site with 170
different and separate topics housing 1,900
individual posts. This discussion forum
continues to grow steadily in content and
popularity.
If you look at that one exhibit that we
submitted with the drop downs for Linda,
there are about six or seven for her, just
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
116
specifically for her. So she's specifically
targeted and communicated.
On page 11 of this document, he admits
that he received an abuse notice of Ellis'
complaint, parentheses, death threats,
posting of personal information from Eapps
web host. Chan voluntarily shut down the ELI
forum and moved the ELI website to RK web
host provider, RK being Mr. Krausankas.
So, in other words, Eapps consequently
terminated the eight year business
relationship after Ellis filed the complaint.
So he did voluntarily shut down his death
threats, posting of personal information.
That's no longer there. So he has been
contacted in the past, by his own admission,
and had to take some things off. In other
words, he's going to push this as far as he
can, and keep those postings on there as far
as -- as much as he can. Encouraging people
to go by her house, threatening her that he
knows who her daughter is, that he knows
where his daughter works.
The other thing the evidence proved
today is that she is afraid. He has
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
117
succeeded in scaring her and intimidating
her. His purpose is to harass and
intimidate. And that meets the standard
under this statute.
Subsection (2)(A) -- excuse me,
16-5-90(A)(1) continues to say: For the
purposes of this article, the term harassing
and intimidating means a knowing and willful
course of conduct directed at a specific
person. Well, I think if you look on his
website right now you can see a course of
conduct that's willful and directed at a
specific person, Ms. Ellis.
Which causes emotional distress. And I
think she testified and very credibly, that
she's naturally afraid. Sometimes when she
sees a strange car across the street from her
house, she's afraid to go in. She's afraid
for her daughter.
Which causes emotional distress by
placing such person in reasonable fear for
such person's safety or the safety of a
member of his or her immediate family, by
establishing a pattern of harassing and
intimidating behavior which serves no
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
118
legitimate purpose.
The video of The Hearse Song, saying
we're coming to get you, Linda; the postings
of her house; the picture of her house; the
listing of her daughter's initials; the
numerous comments about her, everything he
has on his website, show a pattern of
harassment specifically directed to her, that
is designed to intimidate, and it has
succeeded, she is intimidated.
So, Your Honor, I would ask that this
Court grant a permanent stalking protective
order on behalf of Ms. Ellis. Thank you.
THE COURT: Let me just try to clear up
one aspect. The lawsuit that you handed up
was against Peter Burwash and not against
you, correct?
MR. CHAN: I couldn't hear you, Your
Honor.
THE COURT: The lawsuit, or a copy of a
lawsuit -- I don't know if it was ever filed
or not -- in the exhibits that you handed
up --
MR. CHAN: Yes.
THE COURT: -- there was a demand for
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
119
damages for copyright and trademark
infringement on behalf of Ms. Ellis' lawyers,
but that was against Mr. Burwash and not
against you, correct?
MR. CHAN: Correct, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. Looking at the
statute O.C.G.A. 16-5-90(A)(1) a person
commits the offense of stalking when he or
she follows, places under surveillance or
contacts another person. And in this case
we're dealing with whether there was a
contact or not.
Also, there was a question about
surveillance. And you handed up, Mr. Chan,
two cases, Collins versus Bazan and Marks
versus the State, which dealt with the issue
of contact.
The Court finds that those cases can be
distinguishable. In the Chan case -- I'm
sorry, the Marks case, the court specifically
found that no evidence was presented
suggesting that the boyfriend actually
authored the web postings. Okay. In the
second case, which was the Collins case, the
court found that there was no evidence that
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
120
the postings or the prohibited speech places
the victim in reasonable fear for her safety
or that of her immediate family.
And there was no evidence that
publishing or discussing this medical
condition would threaten her or her family.
In this case, I find that there has been
evidence that the contact did place the
Petitioner in fear for her safety, and
reasonable fear for her safety or that of her
immediate family.
Furthermore, the definition of --
contained in the article 16-5-90 (A)(1)
provides that -- this article -- the terms
computer and computer network shall have the
same meaning set out in 16-9-92. The term
contact shall mean any communication including,
without being limited to, communication in
person, by telephone, by mail, by broadcast,
by computer, computer network, or by any other
electronic device. The Court finds that the
contact here meets that requirement.
Further, for purposes of the article in
this Code Section, harassing and intimidating
means a knowing and willful course of conduct
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
121
directed at a specific person, which causes
emotional distress by placing such person in
reasonable fear for such person's safety, or
the safety of a member of his or her
immediate family, by establishing a pattern
of harassing and intimidating behavior which
serves no legitimate purpose.
A person also commits stalking when that
person broadcasts or publishes, including
electronic publication, the picture, name,
address, or phone number of a person for
whose benefit the condition was made and
without such person's consent in such a
manner that causes other persons to harass or
intimidate such person, and the person making
the broadcast or publication knew or by -- or
had reason to believe that such broadcast and
publication would cause such person to be
harassed or intimidated by others.
I find that the conduct -- the contact
by virtue of the website was not
constitutionally protected, it did harass and
intimidate Ms. Ellis, and it placed her in
reasonable fear of her safety and the safety
of her family when -- even though there was
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
122
public documents, those documents or that
information was used to place her in a
position to where she and her family were
intimidated, or feared for their safety.
I'll issue a permanent restraining order.
The next question will be how to frame
that order, okay? And I've got a courtroom
full of people here waiting to have their
case heard as well, and I will have to work
on that based upon my notes and the facts,
and I'll have -- try to have the order done
within seven days.
In the meantime, the temporary
protective order shall continue, and that was
a protective order that was dated -- I will
mention too that there was an admission on
page 21 of the letter brief that you
submitted, and specifically it says: "This
again establishes that Respondent and ELI are
trying to get Petitioner to see the errors of
her ways to stop extorting people for their
use of The Dash."
There's no question that The Dash is a
constitutionally-copyrighted document, and
the illegal use of -- a violation of the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
123
copyright certainly gives her the right to
enforce all the copyright infringement laws,
and that is not a grounds or basis to give
the Respondent in this case the
constitutional right to use the website to
intimidate her, which he says has been his
intent.
All right.
MS. MCBRIDE: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I'll get a permanent order
out within seven days.
MS. MCBRIDE: Thank you very much, Your
Honor.
MS. ELLIS: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. We'll take about
10 minutes.
Let me make sure that we have all the
exhibits here. If y'all would come up and
check the exhibits.
MR. CHAN: I wanted to -- I just want a
clarification on what that means. Obviously,
I don't want to be accidentally arrested, so
I want to be clear on what I'm supposed to
do.
THE COURT: Well, the temporary order
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
124
provided --
MR. CHAN: Well, it never mentioned
anything about removing posts or anything, so
am I supposed to go and remove posts or -- I
mean, it's -- because it's really unclear. I
mean, because clearly there's no physical
stuff, I mean, there's no physical, you know,
encounters or anything. Am I being asked to
just remove posts or --
THE COURT: It's the intent of this
Court that you immediately remove all posts
referring to Ms. Ellis.
MR. CHAN: Okay.
THE COURT: Okay?
MS. MCBRIDE: Thank you, Your Honor.
Thank you very much, very much.
MR. CHAN: All posts?
THE COURT: All posts.
MS. MCBRIDE: Thank you, Your Honor.
May we be excused?
THE COURT: You may be excused.
MS. MCBRIDE: Thank you, Your Honor.
(END OF PROCEEDINGS.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
125
STATE OF GEORGIA
COUNTY OF MUSCOGEE
C E R T I F I C A T E
The foregoing transcript of the proceedings was
taken before me and reduced to typewriting under my
direction and supervision, and I certify that it is a true
and correct transcript of the proceedings.
WITNESS MY HAND this 19th day of June, 2013.
KATHY S. BOSTIC, RPR
Official Court Reporter for the
Chattahoochee Judicial Circuit
Certificate No. B-1863