Ellis v. Chan: Declaration Regarding Petitioner's Misrepresentations - Opposing Counsel's Misconduct

8/20/2019 Ellis v. Chan: Declaration Regarding Petitioner's Misrepresentations - Opposing Counsel's Misconduct

1/45

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MUSCOGEE COUNTY

STATE OF GEORGIA

**

LINDA ELLIS * CIVIL ACTION FILEPetitioner, * SU-13-DM-409*

v. **

MATTHEW CHAN *Respondent *

*

RESPONDENT’S DECLARATION REGARDING

PETITONER ’S MISREPRESENTATIONS &OPPOSING COUNSEL'S PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT

COMES NOW, Matthew Chan, as Respondent, declares to the Court the as follows:

1. I am the Respondent in this case. In the original hearing, I chose to represent myself "pro se"

in this Court and I continue to represent myself now.

2.

This Declaration may come as a "surprise" because it comes at a relatively late date.

However, I wanted to take the time to think and reflect carefully before I submitted this

Declaration. I have no desire to burden this court with any more pleadings, communications,

or submissions unless absolutely necessary.

3. The purpose of this Declaration is to serve the "greater good" by including it as part of the

court record. I take no joy in filing this Declaration but feel it is necessary. Over the last few

months, I have gone back and forth in my mind whether I should file this Declaration.

Ultimately, I have done so because I have learned that no one will ever advocate or represent

me as passionately or determinedly as I would for myself. If I do not speak for myself on the

matters herein then no one else will. Given the two-plus years that my supporters and I have


2/45

2

devoted in time, energy, money, publicity, and other resources on my behalf, I want to

address residual issues and matters of concern that have arisen during the "aftermath" period.

4. Because I continue to live and work in the jurisdiction of this Court, I have a strong vested

interest in ensuring that every court views me fairly and credibly in any possible hearings in

the future (related or unrelated to this case) and not let any possible bias, animosity, or ill will

from this case negatively affect me or unfairly taint my reputation in any possible court

matters in the future. I don't expect favoritism but I strongly desire and request that any court

be fair and respectful to me in the future whether I choose to represent myself "pro se" or

through counsel I may retain.

5. I was vigorous and passionate in my own defense at the evidentiary hearing (as well as

through two appellate courts and the court of public opinion) and I continue to hold high

respect and regard for all courts. Despite my strong disagreement with the Court's original

ruling and the subsequent protective order that was issued against me, I believe that the Court

was well-intentioned. I believe that because I was not a trained lawyer and chose to represent

myself "pro se," that it contributed to the ruling against me. To what degree, I may never

know. Certainly, in reviewing the court record many times, I feel strongly that I made errors

and did an inadequate job in presenting my case in certain parts. Indisputably, I was less

educated with legal procedure than opposing counsel but I believe the Court knows I did my

best while being respectful to the Court. I have had considerable time to relive, reflect, study,

and analyze the circumstances up to the hearing of my case.

6. One of my larger concerns I want to express in this Declaration is the fact that opposing

counsel, Elizabeth W. McBride is married to Judge Gil McBride, a Superior Court Judge. I

want to be clear that I have never met Judge McBride and have no feelings or impressions of


3/45

3

him one way or another. I did not know at the time of the original 2013 evidentiary hearing

that Ms. McBride was related to, much less married to Judge McBride. I never made the

connection although I had heard of Judge McBride's name prior. This was a point of surprise

and speculative discussion amongst my supporters when we later discovered this

relationship. Some of us were concerned that Ms. McBride's spousal connection to Judge

McBride might have had a subtle influence on the Court in this case. Let me be clear, there

is no evidence that the Court was ever influenced by this. I make no accusations of

anyone that Judge McBride or his spousal relationship to Ms. McBride had any

influence whatsoever on the Court in my case. However, I think it is reasonable that

outside observers might speculate and wonder if cases Ms. McBride represents and wins in

this Court will be entirely based on the merits and not her spousal relationship to Judge

McBride especially given the relatively small number of Superior Court judges that serve the

Columbus/Muscogee County area.

7. Prior to this case, I was already an avid supporter, advocate, and well-informed in matters of

free speech and the First Amendment especially as it relates to the Internet. In particular, it is

one reason that I chose to represent myself without a lawyer. I did not have the belief or

confidence that I could easily find a sufficiently qualified lawyer locally that would

passionately assert or argue my First Amendment rights or my rights as a website owner and

discussion forum provider under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Further, I

did not have the confidence that any local lawyer would take the time to truly understand or

sufficiently explain the intricacies, operations, context, style, and culture of my website,

ExtortionLetterInfo.com (ELI) and its online community.


4/45

4

I want to recap the pertinent facts, events, and circumstances leading to this Declaration:

1. On February 13, 2013, Petitioner Linda Ellis, sought and was granted by the Court a

“Stalking Ex Parte Temporary Protective Order ” against me, Respondent Matthew Chan. A

hearing was then scheduled for February 28, 2013.

2. The hearing did occur on February 28, 2013 as scheduled. Ms. Ellis was represented by

opposing counsel, Elizabeth W. McBride, and I represented myself "pro se."

3. Ms. Ellis, through her counsel, sought a Stalking Protective Order against me. I, as "pro se"

Respondent, vigorously and passionately defended my position by asserting that I never

contacted or stalked Ms. Ellis under O.C.G.A. §16-5-90. But even if the Court concluded that

I had “contacted” Ms. Ellis under said statute, I argued that my speech fell well within the

scope of the First Amendment and did not constitute “stalking”. Ms. Ellis, through her

counsel, attempted to place responsibility of forum posts I had not written upon me based on

the flawed and incorrect argument that because I was able to delete the forum posts and

chose not to do so, as equivalent to me endorsing or authoring the content of said forum

posts. I asserted 47 U.S.C. § 230 (Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996):

"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." This federal law preempts any state laws to the contrary: "[n]o cause of actionmay be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that isinconsistent with this section."

In simpler terms, the author of any forum post is only responsible for what he writes and no

one else. This has been and continues to be well supported in state and federal cases

throughout the U.S.

4. Although I acknowledge that the Court has no responsibility of what other lawyers have said

to me or about me in the past or might say to me in the future, I want to inform the Court of a


5/45

5

particularly shocking and appalling incident that occurred during an afternoon break of the

2013 hearing. The Court might recall that I openly complained that I, as an untrained non-

lawyer, knew sufficiently enough to produce three sets of exhibits (one for myself, one for

the Court, and one for opposing counsel) yet Ms. McBride, a trained, professional lawyer in

good standing, did not have the respect or professional courtesy to provide me (a "pro se"

defendant), not one extra copy of ANY exhibit during the hearing. Not one. During one of

the afternoon breaks, a female lawyer whom I did not know or ever met before openly

said to me “That is what you get for not hiring a lawyer.” This unsolicited and open

statement directed at me was shocking, appalling, and entitled. Every citizen has the right to

represent themselves "pro se" and expect to be treated fairly, respectfully, and professionally

by opposing counsel and any court. What this says to me is that there is at least one

practicing lawyer (perhaps many others) in Columbus/Muscogee County that has a general

disdain and disrespect towards “ pro se” litigants such as myself. On behalf of myself and all

future "pro se" litigants, I respectfully request this court to consider that in any future

hearings that the simple professional courtesy of additional copies of exhibits for opposing

"pro se" litigants be enforced. This is not a controversial or unreasonable request especially

since most opposing counsel themselves would insist that they receive the same.

5. Coming into any hearing before the Court, practicing lawyers in good standing already have

a substantial "natural advantage" over any untrained non-lawyer “pro se” litigants such as

myself. Given this substantial “natural advantage”, I assert that opposing counsel, Ms.

McBride, was unprofessional and took unfair advantage of me and my "pro se" status during

the February 28, 2013 hearing by not providing me ANY copies of ANY exhibits even when

requested. In fact, because of her "natural advantage" as a lawyer in good standing, she had a


6/45

6

duty to exercise extra caution and act fairly towards me as a "pro se" defendant. Taking

unfair advantage of a "pro se" litigant can result in unintended consequences. In my view, she

wasn't "doing her job". She cheated and deprived my rightful ability to easily reference those

exhibits used against me. And yet, she sat with copies of all my exhibits conveniently in her

possession that she could refer to anytime during and after the hearing. I was forced to rely

on my memory and brief notes I made during one of the breaks.

6. While Ms. McBride can make the argument that she could not immediately leave the

courtroom to provide me copies of any court exhibits, the Court amply provided her at least

two substantial breaks for her to correct this alleged "oversight". Despite my open complaints

in court (which are in the transcript), she chose not to do so. For this, I do not blame her

client, Ms. Ellis, for this. I place full responsibility and blame upon Ms. McBride. She is a

lawyer in good standing and has practiced law for many years. She is not a newcomer to

courtroom procedure. She knows better and she deliberately cheated to gain unfair

advantage against me.

7.

Further, there is no good argument that she can make for not providing copies of the exhibits

to me AFTER the hearing. I reached out to her several times by phone and email (Exhibits A

& B). She was nonresponsive and completely ignored me. Her actions (or lack thereof) were

willful, irresponsible, unprofessional, and unfair. It greatly delayed and hurt my (and my

lawyers') efforts to properly evaluate my appellate position for many months. My grievance

and complaints against Ms. McBride might be beyond this Court's jurisdiction but

nonetheless I state this here and document it for the record.

8. During the days and weeks following the hearing, I sought and received legal advice of

whether I should appeal my case or not. I felt that most appellate cases are generally costly,


7/45

7

uphill battles where lower court decisions are often upheld. I was fully aware of this and it

was told to me by my appellate lawyers. For any appellate lawyer to fairly evaluate my case,

he would need to see the evidence (exhibits) that was used against me. However, I did not

have them due to Ms. McBride's disregard, disrespect, and professional misconduct towards

me as "pro se" defendant.

9. Shortly after the original hearing, I (still acting in “pro se” capacity) attempted to contact Ms.

McBride four times. Twice by telephone (when I left voice messages with her assistant) and

twice by email (Exhibits A & B) I tried to retrieve a draft copy of the final protective order

and copies of Ms. Ellis' court exhibits. I also inquired as to whether or not she wanted to

jointly order the court transcript. She was nonresponsive and ignored me every time.

10.

Although the Court announced a general ruling at the conclusion of the 2013 hearing, I had

no specific instructions and the order had not been immediately written. As such, I, as “pro

se” defendant, appropriately sought to inform and advise Ms. McBride to write an

appropriate and reasonable order that was not overbroad and one that would not likely result

in an appeal filed against her client. I clearly did not want a protective order issued against

me but, if necessary, I was prepared to accept a minimal protective order as a compromise. I

wanted to make sure that any court order against me was fair, reasonable, lawful, and

constitutional. Unfortunately, the final order as written by Ms. McBride and issued by the

Court on March 6, 2013 was not. This was not only my opinion. It was the opinion of many

lawyers (including First Amendment legal scholars) which greatly influenced me to initiate

the appellate process against Ms. Ellis.

11. As I stated, Ms. McBride had the responsibility to ensure that a reasonable and fair court

order was written as to not compel me to appeal the case against Ms. Ellis. That would result


8/45

8

in unnecessary legal cost and expense for both me and her client. It would not surprise me if

Ms. Ellis has since become unhappy with Ms. McBride. Ms. McBride’s poor and

unprofessional choice to ignore my requests to see her draft of the protective order and deny

me copies of the exhibits unnecessarily harmed not only me but also Ms. Ellis, her client. Ms.

Ellis did not have the legal education, background, or experience to understand the negative

ramifications of Ms. McBride's poor choices and actions. Unlike Ms. Ellis, I am far more

informed on such matters. I understand the consequences of Ms. McBride's poor choices. I

assert and make the complaint that Ms. McBride forced both her client and me into an

unnecessary and costly appellate case which cost both sides several thousands of dollars in

legal fees, costs, and expenses in addition to lost time and energy. Although I ultimately

prevailed in appellate court, it was all so unnecessary and could have entirely been avoided

had Ms. McBride simply handled her client's case more responsibly. I cannot place blame

upon Ms. Ellis in this instance. I blame Ms. McBride.

12. An interesting anecdote I want to share is that on October 7, 2014, in the Supreme Court

building where I was represented by three lawyers, Ms. McBride twice approached and

attempted to communicate with me directly. It seemed to be an unusual action to take.

Once, she called out to me when I was walking from the sidewalk to the entrance of the

Supreme Court building. I briefly glanced at her and then ignored her. The second time, I

was standing and conversing with my five out-of-state friends/supporters (who traveled to

Atlanta to meet me and watch oral argument) in a waiting area. She approached me (us) and

asked, "Are you with the Chan v. Ellis case?" I was clearly standing there and she

recognized me earlier. She also asked if one of us was Oscar Michelen. This was a

disingenuous question as Mr. Michelen's photo has been and continues to be prominently


9/45

9

displayed on the ELI website for seven years. It is ironic that when I wasn't represented by

any counsel that she would not respond to or communicate with me in any fashion. But

somehow at the Supreme Court, she felt the strange inclination to try to communicate with

me twice despite the fact that I made efforts to physically avoid both her and Ms. Ellis. The

time for Ms. McBride to speak with me was during March 2013, not when we finally arrived

in the highest court in the state for oral argument a year and a half later.

13. Ms. McBride also had the responsibility to vet her client’s exhibits to ensure they were true,

authentic, and representative of the actual forum posts and not let her client submit altered,

modified, or obscured exhibits mislead or deceive the Court. I have since discovered that

several exhibits shown to the Court were not true, authentic, or representative of the

actual forum posts.

14. The point of my presenting "new" exhibits now is not meant as a "retrial". It is meant to

inform the Court and place into the record that the original exhibits presented in the original

hearing were not true, accurate, or representative. I had always been bothered by the poor

quality of Ms. Ellis' original exhibits. I never understood why Ms. Ellis presented such

extremely poor, distorted, cropped, and marked up exhibits. Conversely, I presented to the

Court very "clean", organized, and easily readable exhibits. It was only after the Supreme

Court reversed the order on March 27, 2015 and Ms. Ellis' continued to make defamatory

public statements about me in the media and press as a "stalker" and "cyberstalker"

did I finally feel compelled to go into the forum archives (hidden from public view) and

personally review every single exhibit she submitted against me at its original online source.

I was informed very early on by my appellate lawyers that no new evidence could be

submitted during the appellate process. Thus, no matter how poor quality or cropped the


10/45

10

original exhibits were, they were the only ones allowed to be discussed and referenced in

appellate briefs. I did not like that but I respected the rules. It would be two years later in

April 2015 (after Ms. Ellis' public defamatory statements against me would not cease) that I

finally decided to compare and analyze Ms. Ellis' poor-quality exhibits with the original

source material online.

15. Although I prevailed in the Supreme Court, there were still matters of public perception and

my online reputation I wanted to rectify. Ms. Ellis seemed determined to defame me and my

reputation even after the Supreme Court decision. There is no denying that my own writings

in prior forum posts and one video don't paint me in a flattering light. I (along with my

supporters) became very unhappy with Ms. Ellis' continued online antics of taking my words

entirely out-of-context and distorting the actual meanings. Because Ms. Ellis used such

tactics publicly as her primary weapon against me to damage my online reputation, I had to

discover for myself how far she took it with the original court exhibits. What I discovered in

the forum archives when compared to her court exhibits was upsetting to me.

16.

In Exhibit C, my comment about Ms. Ellis being "dead right" seems to stand alone.

However, my comment is actually an open response to April Brown's comment from June

23, 2012 which was cropped out of the court exhibit and not at all directed to Ms. Ellis. The

cropping and omission was not an accident.

17. In Exhibit D, the court exhibit implies that April Brown embedded the "death" lyrics of the

"Hearse Song" in the forum post. And yet the actual forum post (below the court exhibit

version), never had any "death lyrics" whatsoever. It was simply a lone posting of a "Hearse

Song" YouTube video. I included the follow-up post to the YouTube video which clearly


11/45

11

shows April Brown's comments that have NOTHING to do with death or violence. The

addition of the "death lyrics" was intentional.

18. In Exhibit E, I provide the first three never-before-shown posts of "Ellis – Get Ready – We

Are Coming After You!" as the originating context for that thread of discussion. Ms. Ellis

emphasized (through an oval mark) that boisterous topic title. And yet, if the Court reads the

first three posts, it has to do with April Brown's moral outrage over Kalka & Baer's (Ms.

Ellis' attorneys) $100,000 demand letter issued on behalf of Ms. Ellis to a book author over

an unknowing sharing of her poem. Part of the argument for my position in my appeal was

that the Court was unable to fully view the true and full context of the exhibits because what

Ms. Ellis presented was cropped, modified, obscured, or out-of-context.

19.

In Exhibit F, Ms. Ellis presented her exhibit as if it were "current" as of the February 28,

2013 hearing that ELI user, Robert Krausankas, posted a photo of her home and Ms.

McBride implied that it was still online. And yet in the forum archives, the full post shows

that as of January 17, 2013, Mr. Krausankas modified the post to display only the

hyperlink, not the photo. In other words, on February 13, 2013 when Ms. Ellis applied for

the Ex-Parte Temporary Protective Order, she made the false statement in her petition that

the photo of her home was still being posted online, when in fact, as of January 17, 2013,

Mr. Krausankas had already removed the Google Street View photo of her home of his

own accord! At the February 28, 2013 hearing, Ms. Ellis and Ms. McBride again made the

false assertion that the photo of her home was still being shown online for the purpose of

threatening Ms. Ellis. It was not. The Court was mislead. The full, uncropped forum post

clearly shows that Mr. Krausankas was illustrating what Ms. Ellis publicly reported to the

State of Georgia as the address of her daycare center business (Kindercare Learning


12/45

12

Centers)! Mr. Krausankas did not post the photo to "threaten" Ms. Ellis in any way. Ms.

McBride irresponsibly echoed Ms. Ellis false assertions and helped perpetrate a lie without

checking online for herself her client's "exhibits" prior to the hearing.

20. The four exhibits (Exhibits C through F), are more than sufficient to illustrate my points. I

was both foolish and naïve to assume that any forum posts Ms. Ellis would show to the Court

would be complete and in its full context. I never suspected that she would submit such

extremely altered, modified, and obscured forum posts. Nor did I suspect that Ms. McBride

would not vet her client to ensure that the exhibits provided were in fact true, authentic, and

representative of the actual posts. As an inexperienced non-lawyer, I did not request from the

Court that Ms. Ellis show and display the full forum discussions in its proper context and that

it be printed out for all parties to review and scrutinize. Nor did I ask the Court to instruct

Ms. Ellis to go online while in court to confirm the accuracy of their exhibits. Ironically

enough, the "affidavit" submitted by Seattle lawyer, Timothy B. McCormack (which I fought

to have put aside), provided the "cleanest", most readable, and unaltered versions of forum

posts (although they were still isolated from the fuller context of online discussion.)

21. Another significant factor that influenced my decision to submit this Declaration is that my

appellate lawyer, Oscar Michelen, felt compelled (with my authorization) to send Ms. Ellis a

Cease-and-Desist Letter (Exhibit G) on my behalf on April 13, 2015. This letter speaks for

itself. It was written to clearly inform and put Ms. Ellis on notice that we would not stand

idly by while she continued to publicly and defamatorily refer to me as a "stalker" and

"cyberstalker" when the legal matter of whether I "stalked" her was ruled and settled

unanimously in my favor by all seven Justices of the Supreme Court.


13/45

13

22. During the trial, through my own oversight, I never presented the 18 testimonial letters

(Exhibit H) written on my behalf. These testimonials letters come from supporters

throughout the U.S. and even internationally such as Israel, Canada, and Australia. You will

find that these letters are from intelligent, well-informed individuals who were witness to me,

ELI, and online discussions about Ms. Ellis. I present them now as part of the overall record.

IN CONCLUSION, barring any unexpected developments or follow-up responses by Ms.

Ellis or Ms. McBride, I consider this Declaration my capstone statement on the matter with this

Court. After everything I have seen and experienced, Ms. McBride and Ms. Ellis have proven

to be dishonorable and untrustworthy. I (along with my supporters) remain vigilant and keep

a watchful eye of signs they might falsely attack me or my reputation again. If that happens, I

will once again be compelled to vigorously defend myself as I did before.

At this juncture, I do not request anything from this Court except to respectfully consider

and take into account everything I have written in this Declaration. No one can change or undo

the past but perhaps others can learn and benefit from this case by being informed and cognizant

that things are not always what they appear to be. I have learned much from the last 2.5 years.

This case has been an educational and life-changing experience I will never forget and hope to

never repeat.

This 14th day of August, 2015.

Respectfully submitted,

Matthew Chan, PRO SE P.O. BOX 6391COLUMBUS, GA 31917Phone: (762) 359-0425Email: [email protected]


14/45

14

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that I have this day served RESPONDENT’S DECLARATION

REGARDING PETITONER’S MISREPRESENTATIONS & OPPOSING COUNSEL'S

PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT by filing the same through U.S. Postal Service First Class

Mail to the following attorneys of record:

Elizabeth W. McBridePAGE, SCRANTOM, SPROUSE, TUCKER , FORD 1111 BAY AVE, THIRD FLOOR P.O. BOX 1199

COLUMBUS, GA 31902

This the 14th day of August, 2015.

Respectfully Submitted,

Matthew Chan, PRO SE P.O. Box 6391Columbus, GA 31917Phone: (762) 359-0425Email: [email protected]


15/45

Exhibit A

Subject:PPO: Ellis v. Chan

Date:Fri, 08 Mar 2013 15:17:21 -0500

From:* Matthew Chan *

To:Elizabeth McBride

CC:[email protected]

Ms. McBride,

I have been in touch with Sally at Judge Jordan's office today to find

out when the order was signed and to follow-up on the court transcript

matter. The last I heard was in the courtroom when Judge Jordan proposed

you wrote the language of the PPO for him to sign off on.

As the defendant, I'm not fond of having this PPO served upon me but I

am respectful of the court and have proactively taken steps to comply in

the absence of an actual PPO. I trust if you speak to your client, Ms.

Ellis, she can attest to this. In fact, I believe I am going way beyond

what the PPO might call for regarding Ms. Ellis but I'm not really sure

without seeing the actual signed PPO.

As a lawyer for myself (PRO SE), if you have drafted the PPO or already

received the judge's signed PPO, I respectfully request that you email

me, fax me, or mail it to me within the next 2 business days so I can

review it. I respect that you have a busy schedule serving multiple

clients. Given that, I trust that is NOT an unreasonable request on my

part. If I am incorrect, please don't hesitate to let me know. It is my

intention to have a cordial relationship with you.

Even if I were not the defendant, if I were a lawyer, I would make that

reasonable request to get the PPO to prepare any client so that he

complied properly and NOT inadvertently violate the terms of the court'sPPO. After all, everyone is best served if everyone is in compliance and

following the rules, right?

I'm not sure what the proper communication protocol is but perhaps I

should NOT be using email and communicate via letterhead using snail

mail or faxing a letter to you.

I called your office earlier to confirm that I am using the correct

email address: [email protected]. I have copied your assistant, Ms. Lunford,

in case you are out of office or otherwise unavailable.

Thank you.

Matthew Chan, PRO SE


16/45

Exhibit B

Subject:Shared Transcript Expense: Ellis v. Chan

Date:Thu, 07 Mar 2013 16:00:08 -0500

From:* Matthew Chan *

To:Elizabeth McBride

Hello Ms. McBride,

I've called Judge Jordan's office twice and left a couple of messages for Kathy Bostic (our court reporter) to let

me know how much a copy of our court transcript might be for the Ellis v. Chan case. I understand Ms. Bostic

stays pretty busy and it might take a little while to get a copy of a court transcript.

At our hearing, the court mentioned that it was a shared expense if we both wanted a copy. As you know, when

asked if I was interested in my half of the court transcript, I did answer in open court that I was interested in

sharing expenses with you on the court transcript. I am guessing because our hearing went for so long, it is

going to be an expensive court transcript.

If you happen to be in communication with Ms. Bostic, maybe you can find out her timeline for when you and I

can get a transcript.

In the meantime, can you please provide me with copies of the exhibits you used at the hearing?

My mailing address is:

Matthew Chan

1639 Bradley Park Dr. #500

PMB 110Columbus, GA 31904

Thank you.

Matthew Chan, PRO SE


17/45

Exhibit C

Exhibit submitted in court.

The actual forum post included context of my remark. Note that my comment on Ms. Ellis being "dead" right was

actually an open response to April Brown's comment from June 23, 2012.


18/45

Exhibit D

Court exhibit contained superimposed "death" lyrics

The actual post only had "Hearse Song" YouTube video & no "death" lyrics. Read follow-up comment for true context


19/45

Exhibit E

The first three posts of "Ellis –

Get Ready –

WE are Coming After You" discussion thread was part of the lead up to the"Hearse Song" YouTube video that Ms. Ellis considered a "death threat". The originating discussion thread clearly

shows no physical or death threat, nor did I originate the discussion.


20/45

Exhibit F

Exhibit submitted on February 28, 2013 as being "current" now discovered as untrue.

Actual Screenshot from May 2015 (since January 17, 2013 had no photo of her house, only a link to Google Maps). The

purpose of showing the home was to illustrate what Ms. Ellis reported as a daycare center, not to "threaten" her.


21/45

EXHIBIT G


22/45


23/45


24/45


25/45


26/45


27/45

Hi Matthew,

I've been asked why, as a poet, I would be active in ELI forums which dealwith copyright trolling and in particular the effort to expose Linda Ellis, afellow poet.

Here's my answer:

Just as the activities of some used car dealers have damaged the

reputation of all used car dealers, Linda Ellis' inhuman activities of trollinginnocent non-profit users of her poem, "The Dash", is affecting thereputation of today's poets.

I specialize in bereavement poetry, and as I visit funeral homes and attendtheir trade conventions, I have come to realize the damage she is doing topoetry as well as to other poets, Because of her many letters to funeraldirectors asking for huge sums of money for putting her poem (at therequest of a family) on a funeral program, many are very cautious of usingpoetry on their programs. At a recent C.A.N.A. Symposium I had onefuneral director tell me that because of the letter received by a fellowfuneral director friend, demanding money for using “The Dash” poem, theyno longer use poetry on their programs for the fear of being sued.

I can certainly understand one's desire and efforts to protect theirliterary works from those who would use it for profit or gain, but to go afterthe innocent who merely use it because it gives them comfort is so wrong.It's that very kind of use that will give that work greater popularity, andincrease the chances of it being picked up for commercial use, bringingroyalties to the author. I encourage people to use my writings for their ownpersonal use.

Poetry has a way of bringing comfort and hope to those who have lost onedear to them. I have received hundreds of emails from people who havewritten to tell me how much they appreciated one of my poems at theirtime of loss.

EXHIBIT H


28/45

If Ms. Ellis feels so strongly about what she considers illegal use of one ofher poems, she should send a letter asking them to refrain from further usewithout permission. Instead she sends letters demanding huge amounts ofmoney from these good people who have posted one of her poems on

their website, or ask for it to be printed in a funeral program, or who havesimply shared it in an email to a grieving friend because they think it isbeautifully written and will comfort them.

It is obvious to me that her poem, "The Dash" was not written from herheart because her actions so contradict the beautiful writing in the poem.Her interest in her works appears to be strictly money.

Linda Ellis has damaged her reputation, and is damaging the reputationand livelihood of other poets by her outrageous activities against good

people, and I am doing what I can to protect the integrity of poetry andpoets.

Your ELI site has helped so many of the innocent who have receivedletters from Linda, and other copyright extortionists. They need to beexposed, and good people need to be protected from them.

Thanks for all you do.

Best Regards,

Ron TranmerRon Tranmer Poetry


29/45


30/45

Funeral Support Services

In 2012, I connected with Matthew Chan, moderator of the website, Extortion Letter

Info. Com, after being targeted by Linda’s Lyrics for copyright extortion.

I run a funeral event planning and support service in Sydney, Australia. At the time, Ihad a list of suitable poems that could be read at funerals, one of these was the

Linda Ellis poem “The Da sh” . At no time was I aware there was a strict copyright

issue with this poem. I first received my copyright extortion letter in J uly 2012 from

Linda’s Lyrics, citing breach of copyright for showing this poem on my website. The

letter said in words to the effect that “removal of the poem is not enough, there is

also damages to consider” with a fee of $7500 payable. Understandably I wasupset to receive such a letter, but common sense also prompted me to check the

validity of the letter, because it was received by email and not post. This is when I

first became aware of the Linda Ellis copyright extortion scam through the Extortion

Letter Info website.

Whilst I have full respect for copyright and agree that Linda Lyric’s has the right to

protect that copyright, I absolutely do not believe that “The Da sh” is worth $7500.

Particularly when it is a c lear cut case of ‘innocent infringement’. A cease and

desist letter would have been the right, and ethical, approach. It would appear

that I am not alone in this deliberation as thousands of other letter recipients seem to

have the same viewpoint. Linda Ellis shows no remorse in her targets, relentlesslyattempting to extort money from funeral homes, schools, charities, religious entities

and even members of the general public. I firmly believe this makes Linda Ellis and

her assoc iates objects for scrutiny & criticism in the public domain.

In my opinion, Matthew is extremely knowledgeable on the subject of copyright

extortion. He does a worthy job of promoting awareness to prevent more victims of

extortion - clearly showing dedication, integrity and a strong sense of empathy. His

website, and the discussion forums therein, are informative and well researched.

Matthew’s expertise enabled me to make decisions on how to handle my dealings

with Linda’s Lyrics.

It is with great confidence that I commend his character, both personally and

professionally.

Kind Regards,

Nicole Olson

Emerald Creative Funeral Support Services


31/45

David Price

2460 Hover DriveCastle Rock, CO 80104

February 21, 2013

Honorable Frank J. Jordan, Jr.

Judge of Superior CourtsGovernment Center

P.O. Box 1340Columbus, GA 31902-1340

Re: Civil Action File No. SUI3DM409 – Linda Ellis v. Matthew Chan

Your Honor:

The purpose of this letter is to express my support for Matthew Chan and to express my desire that you deny

Linda Ellis’s request for a Stalking Protective Order .

I first came in contact with Matthew Chan approximately a year ago when I was researching the actions Linda

Ellis was taking to extract settlements from those who had allegedly violated her copyright of “The Dash Poem”. My research brought me to ExtortionLetterInfo.com (ELI), a site founded by Mr. Chan. I found thesite to be a tremendous source of information for people dealing with corporations and individuals aggressively

(or over-aggressively, in my opinion) defending the rights associated with their copyrights.

I know the question on the table today between Mr. Chan and Mrs. Ellis is not about copyright law, so I will not

burden you with my opinion on the tactics used by Mrs. Ellis.

I do want to express my belief that Mr. Chan represents absolutely no threat to Mrs. Ellis (or anyone else) that

warrants a Protective Order. This is based on my multiple interactions with Mr. Chan via email and telephoneover the past year. In fact, I have observed Mr. Chan being the voice of calm and reason in emotionally charged

situations multiple times in the last year.

The internet is a disruptive technology. The history of disruptive technologies teaches us that regulations andlaws cannot change at the same space as technology. This results in periods of time when existing regulations

and laws do not adequately perform their function and need to be updated. While I have no doubt that our

copyright laws will eventually be modified, it is sites like ELI that provide an invaluable service to those thatfind themselves inadequately protected by existing regulations and laws. Mr. Chan is doing society a servicewith ELI and should be commended for the content and community and activism he has created.

While Mr. Chan is a vigorous advocate for his point of view and his advocacy of his beliefs is no doubt an

annoyance to those who disagree with him, my experience has been that his actions are thoughtful and legal, hischaracter is strong, and he has exceptionally high integrity.

Mrs. Ellis’s request for a Protective Order is, in my opinion, without merit, a waste of scarce judicial resources,and should be denied. Thank you for taking time to read this.

Sincerely,

David V. Price


32/45


33/45

To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing today in support of Matthew Chan. In 2009 when I was faced with a copy-right "demand" letter from Getty Images, I discovered his site, ExtortionLetterInfo.com(ELI). It's a community and support group for people that have been hit with copyrightclaims that are disproportionate to the damages. With his help and the help of others on

the site, I was able to formulate a response that got the legal representatives for GettyImages to leave me alone. Over the last several years I have come to know him andconsider him a friend. I have also continued to participate in the ELI community.

ExtortionLetterInfo.com is a clearinghouse of useful and constructive information aboutthe practice of copyright trolling and how one might defend against an extortionateclaim. That is why people involved in copyright trolling go out of their way to find ways toshut the site down.

I'm not going to spend too much time in this letter pointing out the ridiculous claims ofstalking. I trust the court will see through this. What I would hope the court would do isfind a way to penalize Ms Ellis for wasting both Matthew Chan's and the court's time.

I do not know Linda Ellis. However, over the course of the last few years her practice ofseeking outrageous fees for infringing on her sing-song poem, The Dash, have becomequite well known. Hundreds of people internationally have been hit with letters demand-ing thousands of dollars.

Here are some actions that I understand have been taken by Linda Ellis or her agents:

• The extortionate nature of her business was originally exposed by a member ofMatthew's site, April Brown. Linda issued a bogus DMCA complaint and had MsBrown's entire YouTube account taken down.

• I'm told Linda Ellis complained about April Brown to her husband's employer.

• Linda Ellis issued a DMCA takedown notice to Matthew's Scribd account re-garding a document shared for commentary. When Matthew disputed thisclaim, Ms Ellis did not counter.

Motion City 1424 4th Street, #604, Santa Monica, CA 90401 T 310.434.1272 [email protected] www.motioncity.com


34/45

• Linda Ellis complained to Matthew's previous ISP about the same issue shepresents to the court. His ISP did not want to get involved and this led to Mat-thew having to migrate the site to a new host.

• She now is attempting to pursued the court that Matthew Chan is "stalking" herwhen they have never met and Matthew has never threatened her.

It is my opinion that Linda Ellis is trying to use the court to attempt to stifle free speech. Ihope that Matthew will request reimbursement for his time, expenses, and fees for de-fending against this frivolous action. I hope the court will see fit to grant that. The onlyway to curtail people from tying up the judicial system is to send a clear message that

such frivolity has a cost.

Thank you,

Jerry WittMotion City Films1424 4th Street #604Santa Monica, CA 90401

Motion City 1424 4th Street, #604, Santa Monica, CA 90401 T 310.434.1272 [email protected] www.motioncity.com


35/45

Yeah W e D o That .

3023 Ash Court

Mason Oh io 45040-1400

Gregory

A. Troy

513)

544-7069

Owner

To

Matthew,

I

want

to

extend

my

sincere thanks

for all

that

you do

through

the

www.extortionletterinfo.com

ELI) website. I know when I received m y extortion letter from Getty Images a year ago, I was

panicked and

fearful

of an imminent and impending lawsuit which is what these types of letters

are

designed

to do. I had

absolutely

no

idea what

to do and my first

reaction

was

trying

to

figure

out

how I was

going

to pay

this within

the

14-day deadline given

to me by

Getty.

I

went online

looking

for

anything that could

assist

me and I

found

your

site.

As I

read

it, I

started

to

learn

and

understand w hat was going on and what was happening to m e. I ended up posting my story and a

possible plan of action and asked for assistance from the ELI forum m embers, You, among

others, responded

offering

support, guidance

and

help.

Without this site and all you do to educate,

inform

and

assist

extortion letter recipients, I truly

believe that so many of us would have simply given up and paid since it would have been

cheaper than trying to retain legal help, which is why unfortunately these letters are so

often

successful. I

also applaud

the

stance

you

have taken

in fighting

these copyright trolls

by

exposing

the facts, naming names, and calling it as you see it. W hile you and everyone on the ELI Forum s

firmly believes in and respects the intellectual property rights of artists to protect their works,

you

vigorously take to task those who are considered trolls and demand far more than their

product

is

worth

or

they could ever hope

to be

awarded

in

court.

While your site

was set up as a

result

of

receiving

a

Getty letter yourself

and

initially designed

to

support G etty letter

recipients,

you

realized that there were many other copyright

trolls

out

there

such as Linda Ellis. You extended and

offered

your support and provided a place for us all to

gather, compare notes, educate ourselves and others. We learned how to

defend

ourselves

from

unjust and inaccurate claims from copyright trolls.

I

have seen

and

read

the

court documents that Linda Ellis

filed

against you.

As an

avid member

of ELI, I make it a point to read every post that is made so that I can stay current and up-to-date

in

the fight against copyright

trolls.

Based on what is in the ELI Forums, I can say that some of

your

responses

are

edgy

and colorful. In my

opinion, none

of

them have crossed

the

line

and

there was never any time where you threatened to do physical harm to Linda Ellis, stalk her, her

family, or

encourage others

on the ELI

Forums

to do so.

Linda Ellis

failed

to disrupt the

forum

from discussing her copyright infringement business

model

through complaints to your web hosting provider, which caused ELI to have to move to a

new web hosting provider. She is now grasping at straws trying to find a way to stop ELI from


36/45

sharing copies

of her

settlement demand

letters,

experiences

from

those

who

have received

her

letters, and telling the world how she preys upon grieving families and church groups who share

her poem demanding 7,500 from them.

It

must

be

pretty amazing

to

look back

from

ELI s humble beginnings

to

what

it has

grown into

with

close to 1,000 current members and to realize how many people you have helped and

educated over

the five-year

history

of

your site. Thank

you so

much

fo r

everything

you

have

done for me and allowing m e to be a part of your site and try to pay it forward by helping new

letter recipients through their initial dark period of

fear

and uncertainty

after

receiving a

settlement demand letter. I am so thankful that you and your site a re there for us.

My sincere thanks,


37/45

"# $%#& '" &() *#+*,-+

'./ 0123245 3627 893391 24 7:;;;


38/45

February

8,20t3

Matthew

Chan

Leader.

Extortionetterl fo.com

Dear

Matt:

michaels,

oss

and

cole

ltd.

555

Waters

dge

Suite

20

Lombard,

L

60148

www

mrc-productivtty.com

www.mrcuK.com

Asanavid

eader nd

participant

n

your

orum,

hosted t extortionletterinfo.com,

wantedo

takea

few

momentso

thank

ou

or

what

you

have

ut

ogether.

I have een

follower f

your

site

or a littleover

a

year

now, I

foundELIhrough

google

earch

fter

having

eceived letterdemanding

very arge um

of money

roma

arge igital

mageirm.

Your ite

has aved

ea

great

eal

f imeand

money

n

dealing

ith heextort ionate

equest.

With our ite, have iscoveredcommunityf highlyalentedndividualsassionatebout ight ing

the

wrongs

erpetrated

y hose

whouse opyright

aw o extort

unds

rom

nnocent

ndividualsnd

small ompanies

otherwise

nown n

he nternet

scopyright

rol ls.

Your i te

provides:

1. A mechanismo

allow ne o

gather

hemselves

o deal

with copyright

roll hreats.

2. Optionso deal

with he rol ls.

3.

Excellent

ractical

nd

egal dvice

egarding

his opic.

4. A sounding

oard

nd

place

o

"vent"

when

necessary.

5.

A forum o discuss

deas ndstrategies

o deal

with

varyingroll hreats.

6.

A

creative

utlet

hat ets

people ool

heir houghts

o develop

ewstrategies.

7.

A mechanismhat

ust

mightnit iate

omeegal

eforms

n

his

roublingrea.

Matt, amcertainhat

f

you

ookback t he evolution

f extortionletterinfo.com,

ou

will ind hat

t

does

ar more oday

han

you

everenvisioned

hen

ou

began

his

quest.

t has

rown

beyond

he U.S.

with contributors

roundhe

world. Expert ttorneys

ake egular ontributions.

opics ave

one

ar

beyond igital

maging,o things

ikeclass ction

awsuits,igitalrespass,

oetry

opyright,

tc., tc.

I know

ouprobablyet

a otof

ulf i l lmentrom

helping

eople

hrough

hese

ssues. ut ometimes

t

isnice o

know hat he

work

ou

do even

f t snotso

much

moneymaking

enture, uta

hobby

isappreciated.

hank

ou

rom he bottom f

my heart.And

hank

ou

or all hose

ou

have elped

who haven'taken he

ime o express

hat know

hey eel.

"Thanks "

Sincerely,

US

office

555

Waters

dge,

uite

120

Lombard,

L60148

Tet

630.916.0662

Fax

630.916.0663

UK

office

Argyte

House,1 DeeRoad,Richmond, urrey,TW92JN Ter070B:l2z7720


39/45

A R T Z E N I T H3601 Su f fo lk D r i ve • San D iego , Ca l i f o rn i a 92115 • ( 619 ) 241 - 4230

T Wh I' Ma C!ce%!:

Ma''he* Cha! de&e%)e& ' be #(blicl ce!ded f% hi& leade%&hi# i! e+#&i!g 'heab(&e f #%ce&& 'ha' ha& bece a! e#ideic af'e% 'he Digi'al Mille!!i( C#%igh' Ac'lef' a! (!bala!ced #la field be'*ee! c#%igh' *!e%& a!d c#%igh' (&e%&.

M%. Cha! ha& e!' c(!'le&& h(%& c%ea'i!g a f%( f% 'he di&c(&&i! f 'hi& g%*-i!g #%ble. He ha& e+#&ed !(e%(& c#%igh' ab(&e%& *h %e&%' ' di%' '%ick& 'ha' b%de% ! e+'%'i! i! %de% ' i!'iida'e i!!ce!' i!f%i!ge%& i!' #ai!g di%#%'i!-a'e &(& f !e f% 'he (&e f a c#%igh'ed *%k. He ha& #%)ided a! #e#le *i'hlegi'ia'e %e&(%ce& ' defe!d 'he&el)e& f% legal 'h(g& *h #%e'e!d ' be defe!di!gc#%igh'& b(' a%e i! fac' j(&' '%lli!g f% ca&h &e''lee!'& ba&ed ! "&'%a'egic li'iga'i!."

I' ha& al*a& bee! clea% 'ha' 'he f%( i& !' agai!&' c#%igh' *!e%& defe!di!g

'hei% %igh'&, b(' %a'he% agai!&' 'he 'h(ggi&h i!'iida'i! 'ac'ic& a!d di&h!e&' clai&ade b age!'& a''e#'i!g ' !e'ie a! i!f%i!gee!' a!d 'he %idic(l(& &e''lee!'a(!'& 'ha' 'he&e #e#le a''e#' ' e+'%ac' f% i!!ce!' i!f%i!ge%&.

Wi'h %ega%d ' Li!da Elli&, Ma''he* Cha! ha& bee! !'hi!g b(' h!e&' a!d (#f%!'ab(' 'he (gli!e&& f he% b(&i!e&& del./ She ha& #&i'i!ed he%&elf a& a W%ld-Cla&&C#%igh' T%ll a!d de&e%)e& 'he a''e!'i! !' !l f% Ma''he* Cha! a!d ELI b('f% a!!e el&e *h i& c!ce%!ed ab(' f%i)l(& &'%a'egic li'iga'i!./

A& a )e% f%e$(e!' )i&i'% f 'he ELI f%(, I fi!d 'he !'i! 'ha' Ma''he* Cha! %a!!e ha& ade #h&ical 'h%ea'& ' a!!e el&e ' be %i&ible. If a!!e e)e% did, I *(ld be 'he fi%&' !' ' *a!' a!'hi!g ' d *i'h 'he g%(#. I! ac'(ali', Ma''he* Cha! ha&

#laed a )e% bala!ced %le a& de%a'%, &e'ie& c%%ec'i!g ebe%&0 #&'& f% acc(%ac a!d fai% #la. The clai 'ha' Ma''he* Cha! i& &'alki!g a!!e b%de%& ! 'hedel(&i!al. Pe%ha#& M&. Li!da Elli& &h(ld &eek c(!&eli!g if )e%bal c%i'ici& f he%(!e'hical legal b(lli!g ake& he% feel #h&icall 'h%ea'e!ed.

M%. Cha! ha& *%ked )e% ha%d ' #%)ide a #(blic &e%)ice 'ha' hel#& bala!ce 'he#la field b ed(ca'i!g c#%igh' (&e%& a!d kee#i!g a! ee ! 'he (!e'hical #%ac'ice& f ke i!d(&'%ial #lae%&. I a #e%&!all g%a'ef(l ' Ma''he* Cha! f% all f hi& eff%'&#(''i!g 'ge'he% 'hi& f%( a!d f% c%ea'i!g 'hi& c(!i', a!d ecificall f% &heddi!gligh' ! 'he $(e&'i!able #%ac'ice& f 'he like& f M&. Li!da Elli& a!d he% c#%igh' 'h(g&.

We !eed %e ha%d-*%ki!g a!d dedica'ed i!d(&'% *a'chdg& like Ma''he* Cha!.

Si!ce%el,

Albe%' Ze)all&O*!e%, A%' Ze!i'h


40/45


41/45


42/45

Matthew

Chan

1639

Bradley

Park

Drive

Suite

500, PMB

110

Columbus,

GA37904

Dear

Matt:

I

said

on the

forum

that I'd

send

you

$100

to help

you

resolve the Linda

Ellis

matter.

Unfortunately,

upon digging

deeper into this

month's allocated

money,

things

are tighter

around

here than

I

thought

so

I'm

only

able

to contribute

$50

to

your

defense

fund.

I wish

we could

afford more...

With

that

said, I

appreciate

very much everything you've

done with ELI

to

help me

work

through my

case

with Getty

Images.

Your

dynamic

personality

and

obvious

devotion

to fighting

copyright

extortion on

your

website and

forum

has

helped

people

around

the

world fight

the various

copyright

extortion

and

speculative

invoicing

schernes now'so

rampant

on

the Internet.

Your information

on

ELI

represents

one of

the few

tools

individuals

have

at

their

disposal

to respond

to

the

lies,

threats,

and misrepresentations

being

sent

out

by

various

companies

and

individuals

to

twist

and

pervert copyright

laws

and

thus

enrich

themselves

with

outrageous

payment

settlements

paid

by

naive

and

fearful

victims.

Because far

too many

people

fall for

threats from

fast

buck lawyers and

unscrupulous

individuals

like Linda Ellis who

makes

absurd

payment

demands

for what

any

judge

would label as

de

minimus use

of

her

lame

poem,

The

Dash, it's

vitally important

that

you

and ELI be

allowed

to continue

your

work, work

that

I feel

is

fully

protected

by

the First Amendment.

Sincerely

yours,

Slw Mu11,r4a-a,


43/45


44/45

Submitted by email from [email protected] on 2/19/2013, 9:02pm

To Whom It May Concern,

I was recently the victim of an attempted $2000 extortion over two small images I used on a free blog for singers. Upon receiving the letter I immediately found Matthew Chan and his ExtortionLetter Info site.

As a small business owner I am indebted to Matthew Chan and the ELI community. They aretruly providing a service to business owners everywhere who are increasingly being targetedover innocent infringement.

I know Matthew routinely suffers the wrath of companies and individuals, who have turned thethreats of lawsuits on small business owners into a lucrative profit center.

Linda Ellis in particular has gone after Matthew and the ELI forum. She is obviously notinterested in free speech and the sharing of information as this is damaging to her business modelof financially fleecing churches and bereaved families over innocent infringement of her short poem.

A personal story to illustrate what Matthew is fighting for: A friend put the lyrics of PaulMcCartney’s song “The End” on her mother’s headstone. As fate would have it, she met Mr.McCartney on a flight a few months later. When she told her story he was so touched hegrabbed her hand and asked her to sit with him and talk. This world famous musician wasgenuinely moved by what his lyrics meant to my friend in her time of grief. Linda Ellis would

have presented a demand for $7500 to be followed by escalating threats and dollar amounts.

Widows, non-profits, churches, the list of Linda Ellis' victims continues to grow. This is whatMatthew Chan and ELI fight against every day. I, for one, am glad he is there.

John Henny12722 Riverside Dr., Suite 201Valley Village CA 91741


45/45

On Feb 18, 2013, at 7:46 PM, Vintage Logos wrote:

02/18/2013

To Whom It May Concern:

Although I have never personally meet Matthew Chan, I can say that he has given me and other

members of the extortionletterinfo.com website a way to discuss, vent and learn about thelawyers, companies and people involved in copyright extortion tactics.

Linda Ellis and her lawyer have contacted a large amount of people with letters written in a formof extortion and demand payment upon receipt of the letter; For using her copyrighted

material. She is now being called out by the forum because what she is doing is morally wrong

and corrupt. She does not send a cease and desist notice, she DEMANDS payment! People needto know that they do not need to pay someone just because they say so. It is my first amendment

right and duty to speak up and discuss these issues with everyone willing to listen because I andothers find her ways of using lawyers to extort people for money offensive!

We need more people like Matthew Chan to bring these types of people out into the open. Long

live Liberty.

SincerelyShawn P McNamara

Vintage Logos Inc - Custom Drumheads & More2692 Madison RdSuite N1-304

Cincinnati OH 45208-1320USA

888-351-0075Toll Free USA & Canada

www.VintageLogos.com

Documents

Ellis v. Chan: Declaration Regarding Petitioner's Misrepresentations - Opposing Counsel's Misconduct