Oral Argument video for Chan v. Ellis Posted by Georgia Supreme Court

[Matthew Chan]

The video for the oral argument of Chan v. Ellis from October 7, 2014 has been posted by the GA Supreme Court.

http://www.gasupreme.us/media/oa/100714-S14A1652.php

This video spotlights our own Oscar Michelen, UCLA Law Professor/First Amendment Legal Scholar Eugene Volokh, Linda Ellis' lawyer Elizabeth W. McBride, and Getty Images outside counsel (and prominent lawyer hack) Timothy B. McCormack.

If you watch the entire 40-minute video (20 minutes for each argument side), I think it is self-evident who did the better job represent their respective sides.

==============

UPDATE (October 16, 2014): Because the Georgia Supreme Court takes down oral argument videos after 30-45 days, I have taken steps to preserve the video and have it hosted elsewhere. You can find the entire, uninterrupted 41-minute oral argument video along with its 5 individual video segments here:

http://defiantly.net/chan-v-ellis-georgia-supreme-court-oral-argument-videos/

[Mulligan]

Matt, thanks for posting the video, which made for remarkable watching. I'm pretty cynical about the American judicial system, but I certainly felt that the justices on the court were in tune with our First Amendment rights as I understand them.

If the court doesn't downright reverse or dramatically amend the restrictions of the original decision in your favor, I'll be stunned.

Congratulations to Oscar and Eugene Volokh for their crystal clear presentations of your case and for so competently defending the First Amendment.

[Peeved]

What I found particularly interesting was the mentioning of the pending Elonis case and how it relates to Matthew's case regarding what is perceived to be a "punishable true threat".

Eugene was very clear in his response. He stated that it is believed that statements made in Matthew's case are NOT "reasonably perceived as threatening". Also clear was Eugene's statement that even if the Justices disagree and decide that "some" statements could be perceived as reasonably threatening, ALL OTHER STATEMENTS are CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED".

Overbroad PPO? Just a tad IMHO.

Looking forward to a competent decision.

[stinger]

Fingers and toes crossed, Peeved.

[Matthew Chan]

Mulligan,

We found the comments, remarks, and questions from the Justices quite enlightening. However, I have a healthy amount of caution where the legal is concerned. Whatever the final outcome, I can safely say that I had an excellent and impressive legal and support team.  We are making legal history in the area of Internet free speech in Georgia and beyond. This case will be permanently in the legal record books and will guide the direction of Internet free speech for website owners in Georgia for years to come.

It has been an interesting journey and the scope, coverage, and impact of this case continues to expand outwards in ways we never anticipated. New friends, supporter, and allies have come from very unexpected places. It has been a tremendous team effort to get this far.

We are fighting a battle on behalf of all website owners in Georgia to allow underdogs to speak out against and passionately criticize those that would use misleading legal threats and tactics as part of their arsenal.

Website owners and Internet businesses in the other 49 states will be closely watching the outcome of this case to see if a local court is allowed to entirely and permanently silence and eliminate thousands of messages from any website written by scores of people by way of a stalking order against someone who had never met or contacted the plaintiff.

It has been and will continue to be an interesting journey...

Matt, thanks for posting the video, which made for remarkable watching. I'm pretty cynical about the American judicial system, but I certainly felt that the justices on the court were in tune with our First Amendment rights as I understand them.

If the court doesn't downright reverse or dramatically amend the restrictions of the original decision in your favor, I'll be stunned.

Congratulations to Oscar and Eugene Volokh for their crystal clear presentations of your case and for so competently defending the First Amendment.

[stinger]

Well said, Matt.

[Lettered]

I was surprised at how unprepared the appellee team looked.  A few times there, they appeared to me to actually be anxious for their time to expire.

Admittedly they do have an un-compelling set of facts to work with, but I really thought they'd come out stronger than they seemed to in the video.

Anyway kudos to Oscar, Matt, et. al. who were obviously well prepared and did a spectacular job in my humble opinion.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

If I were Linda Ellis ( glad I'm not!) I would be extremely pissed at her "legal team".. I'm no lawyer, but hell, they made so many dumb mistakes it's not even funny. Betsy McBride practically discredited herself in her opening statement, when asked a question, she did not answer, but tried to go in a different direction, she continually stated "they" as in "they post" "what they do", this case isn't about us or "they" it's about Matthew Chan.

Then naturally we have Seattle Attorney Timothy B. McCormack ( and coincidentally I found myself holding not one but 2 doors open for him, before the hearing..further proof that I'm a nice guy) who proudly took the podium and fumbled his way through.. Who the hell in their right mind mentions cross burning in a GEORGIA court, that just happens to have black justices??...and of course he had to get in the F.A.G.G.O.T. reference which in my opinion was just him trying to interject his own crap..

and Just for Timothy B. McCormack: It is not illegal to burn a cross, If I choose to do that in my own front yard, I have every right to do so, but If I do that on someone else's front lawn who happens to be a different race, than that is another story.

The more I think about this case, the more I feel it is "The Dash Poem" author Linda Ellis and Seattle Attorney Timothy B. McCormack, are the ones "stalking" after all they are the ones who come HERE and look into our window..continually..

[Matthew Chan]

It was my observation that Betsy McBride (the name she goes by and much shorter to type) knew she was getting clobbered by the Justices while their 20-minutes was whittled away. Hence, she took a fast escape the first chance she got a little over the 11 minute mark.  At the outset, she intended for Timmy to get the majority of time (she stated as much). As it turned out, he got less than 9-minutes. He got pounded and it appeared he got so involved on the cyberbullying rant at the end, he didn't even realize the clock had run out on him.

It was interesting that neither Timothy B. McCormack or Betsy McBride cited any cases in support of their position.  It was almost entirely reliant on Linda's testimony that she was in "reasonable fear". Judge David Nahmias appeared to tire of the whole fear argument and practically demanded from McBride what she thought the statutory interpretation of what "safety" meant.

Believe me, when you are there live, those 20-minutes go by very quickly.  As prepared as Oscar and Eugene Volokh were and as few questions as they received, they still had to move through their points quickly.

I was surprised at how unprepared the appellee team looked.  A few times there, they appeared to me to actually be anxious for their time to expire.

Admittedly they do have an un-compelling set of facts to work with, but I really thought they'd come out stronger than they seemed to in the video.

Anyway kudos to Oscar, Matt, et. al. who were obviously well prepared and did a spectacular job in my humble opinion.

[Mulligan]

When will the justices present their decision on this case, Matthew?

[Matthew Chan]

It's hard to tell how long the Justices will take with their workload. The official reply from the Georgia Supreme Court website is 6-8 months from docketing.

Direct Appeals

The Supreme Court dockets direct appeals to one of three terms of Court - January, April or September. The Court is required to decide an appeal by no later than the end of the second term to which the appeal was docketed for hearing, or the decision of the lower court will be affirmed by operation of law. On average, most appeals are decided within 6-8 months of docketing.

http://www.gasupreme.us/faq/how_long.php

Since my appeal was docketed with the Georgia Supreme Court on July 15, 2014, that would put the ruling around January 15, 2014 to March 14, 2014, around the 2nd anniversary of my getting served with my TPO (Feb 16, 2013), hearing (Feb 28, 2013), and PPO (March 6, 2013) timeframe.

[Mulligan]

Matt, thanks for the reply. I'm sorry it's going to take so long to get a ruling, but I'm happy that the presentations went so well and am personally confident that the decision will go your way.