7/27/2019 Press Release (10/3/13): Chan v. Ellis - Appellate
Brief Pro Bono
1/2
PRESS RELEASE
Contact: Oscar Michelen October 3, 2013
Email: [email protected] For Immediate Release
Phone: 212-448-9933
NEW YORK ATTORNEY FIGHTS ALARMING
GEORGIA CENSORSHIP CASE "PRO BONO"
Oscar Michelen, prominent litigation and intellectual property
attorney of Manhattan-based
Cuomo LLC, is prosecuting an appeal on behalf of anti-troll
website founder, Matthew Chan.
Michelen, working with Georgia firm, McKenney & Froehlich,
was admitted into Georgia forthis case on August 27, 2013 and is
the lead counsel for Chan. Michelen is working pro bono
to help Chan challenge and overturn a Permanent Protective Order
issued against him earlier this
year by Judge Frank Jordan of Muskogee County Superior
Court.
Michelen filed Chans Appellate Brief with the Georgia Court of
Appeals on September 30,2013; he also simultaneously filed a motion
to transfer the appeal to the Georgia Supreme Court
because of the Constitutional issues raised in the brief. The
brief is now available online:
http://goo.gl/MoTTPY
In February 2013, Chan and his anti-troll website,
ExtortionLetterInfo.com ("ELI"), became
embroiled in a legal battle against Linda Ellis, poet and author
of "The Dash." In her initialcomplaint charging Chan with stalking,
Ellis claimed that Chan posted her home address, photos
of her house, family information, and made death threats. All of
the activity allegedly occurred
on ELI. Many of the posts Ellis complained about were made by
other forum participants onELI, not Chan himself. Ellis had never
written or contacted Chan to take down the allegedly
offensive posts.
There were also no allegations that Chan ever actually contacted
Ellis directly or in person; Ellisdiscovered the offending posts
when she voluntarily visited and read the ELI website. After a
three-hour hearing where Chan represented himself ("pro se")
against Ellis attorney, Elizabeth
McBride, Ellis was awarded a sweeping Permanent Protective Order
against Chan requiring that
he remove every single post on the ELI website referencing
Ellis.
First Amendment and Section 230 of the Communications Decency
Act
At the Forefront of Legal Arguments
Michelen contends that the Order violates Chans First Amendment
rights and ignores Section230 of the Communications Decency Act,
which provides immunity to website owners for other
people's content.
"I thoroughly reviewed and studied Chans case and the permanent
protective order issued
against him. The local court was excessive and ruled beyond what
is legally allowed by ordering
Chan to remove all 1,900 posts regarding Ellis. This protective
order effectively restricts and
forbids Chan and ELI readers from discussing Ellis and her
business practices forever."
7/27/2019 Press Release (10/3/13): Chan v. Ellis - Appellate
Brief Pro Bono
2/2
In March 2013, Chan quietly removed himself as Editor-in-Chief
of ELI and placed himself in
self-imposed exile in protest of the overreaching protective
order. He no longer contributes,writes, or manages the website
which discusses and reports on copyright trolling and other
intellectual property issues. Volunteer community members have
taken over the day-to-day
responsibilities and the moderation of the website.
Why Michelen Is Working This Case "Pro Bono"
This Order is so unusual and sweeping in its scope and its
potential negative impact so wide,
Michelen volunteered to work on Chans case on a "pro bono"
basis.
Michelen states, "ELI is an active forum very popular among its
readership. The protective order
has chilled and suppressed Matthews and his many readers First
Amendment right to report,
comment, discuss and share information with one another. If this
Order remains unchanged,similar actions may be taken against other
website owners and forum moderators across the
Internet."
The current Order has created unintended consequences. Michelen
explains, "Matthew and theELI readership have paid a high price for
the local court's suppression of open reporting and the
exchange of information on ELI this past year. While ELI
continues to operate in his absence, his
readership has been deprived of his unique and distinctive style
of reporting, commentary, andpassionate advocacy of extortion
letter victims. To have Matthew, in addition, suffer the
financial burden of paying legal fees to reinstate his First
Amendment rights and to reinforce the
validity of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act was
very wrong to me. I felt I had
to do something to help correct this injustice."
Michelen wants website owners to learn from this case and
understand why the outcome of this
appeal is significant. Michelen states, "First, we cannot have
website owners being heldresponsible for the posts of others.
Second, we cannot have local courts apply local laws indisregard of
the First Amendment and federal laws governing free and protected
speech. To let
this pass unchallenged is something I could not in good
conscious allow. Finally, as legal advisor
to ELI, I stand by Matthew and want to do my part to restore ELI
to the way it was, a vibrant
forum for discussions."
