Retired Forums > ELI Responses: Media Coverage of Chan v. Ellis Case

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

<< < (2/3) > >>

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.


--- Quote from: Lettered on October 10, 2014, 12:21:21 PM ---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.

--- End quote ---

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

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page