This is the first of several overly-restrictive, free-speech suppression, prior restraint, court orders I have collected since 2013. I will be posting each one separately as time permits.
What is unusual about this particular court order is that it was sent by Timothy B. McCormack himself to Linda Ellis and her lawyer, Elizabeth “Betsy” McBride as an example of how they should try to shut me down from ever speaking out or posting on the Internet again! Clearly, he was unsuccessful where I was concerned. But he clearly succeeded with David Simcosky in Washington State.
The core text of the court order has been pasted here for convenience (BOLD is my emphasis):
The parties to this action HEREBY STIPULATE to the following Permanent Injunction against Defendant.
Based on the consent of the parties and the court’s own good judgment it is Ordered:
1. Defendant and any officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and all other persons in active concert and participation with defendant who receive actual notice of this order, are enjoined from:
a. interfering with plaintiff’s contracts or prospective economic relations; b. posting on web sites, sending letters or otherwise discussing in any way information about plaintiff or its Board of Directors or its employees, vendors, channel partners or attorneys; c. doing any other act or thing calculated to, rending to, or likely to unfairly compete with the plaintiff or to unfairly harm the value of plaintiff s stock;
2. Defendant will agree never to mention HOST again, publically, to anyone ever again outside his own attorneys, unless by court order; Defendant will not appear or otherwise participate in any message boards or discussion forums that are affiliated with or that specifically discuss HOST or its affiliates or successors or assigns.
3. Defendant agrees to sign a Clarification Letter regarding misrepresentation of specific facts about the plaintiff and any intemperate or offensive communications for which he was responsible in the form attached to the parties settlement agreement The letter will be sent to David Murphy, the Host America Board of Directors, Channel Partners; plaintiff may use or discuss the letter with anyone in its effort to mitigate any damage caused by defendant or as might otherwise be required by law.
4. Each side will bear their own costs and attorneys, fees, except as noted.
5. The case will be removed from the court’s docket and be considered dismissed and adjudicated but the court will retain jurisdiction for enforcement of this injunction and any judgment that might be filed pursuant to the parties settlement agreement; counsel for plaintiff will retain subpoena power for compliance purposes;
6. If this injunction is violated, upon a good cause showing to the court, the following sanctions against the defendant will be imposed:
a. Payment of attorneys’ fees and costs for any follow-up enforcement action; b. Surrender of any and all personal computers;
c. Agreement to not use the Internet for 10 years, unless for work; and
d. Damages in the amount of $250,000 and $25,000 in attorneys’ fees (in form of consent judgment).
This order shall go into effect immediately and shalt remain in effect until further order of this Court.
Done in Open Court, Dated: 28th of September 2007.
ANNE HIRSCH SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE
As some of you know, my opinions have been greatly shaped and influenced by direct experience of my own cases: Ellis v. Chan and the subsequent appeal, Chan v. Ellis which I was handed a unanimous victory and reversal by all seven Justices of the Georgia Supreme Court.
There are two very influential legal papers that have greatly shaped my opinions of the epidemic of abusive restraining orders / civil court orders that illegally and unconstitutionally restrict and suppress the free speech of individuals:
Anyone who is placed under an overly-restrictive, free-speech suppressive, prior restraint, court order must read these two legal papers. What is extremely troubling is that it is actually quite common and it happens throughout the U.S. in lower courts (where there is little oversight) against individuals unrepresented by a knowledgeable attorney/lawyer.
I will soon be posting more overly-restrictive, free speech suppression, prior restraint, court orders that have come to my attention.
Writing about Todd, his website RestrainingOrderAbuse.com (ROA), and Todd’s alleged court order and instructions to remove all named references of his accuser and legal adversary sparked another unhappy memory. Seattle attorney Timothy B. McCormack twice foolishly interjected himself into legal dispute between myself and the Dash Poet (Linda Ellis). He interjected himself by sharing a copy of a 2007 unconstitutional permanent (lifetime) stipulated injunction/order he proudly crafted that essentially snuffed out the First Amendment rights of an individual, Brent David Simcosky, who made online rants of his unhappiness with Host America Corporation. The following copy of this unconstitutional permanent (lifetime) stipulated injunction/order sat on my desk since March 2013 and it never fully registered with me (until September 2014) how truly damning it was to both McCormack and Host America Corporation.
I revisit this post here on Defiantly because it further supports my assertion that many individuals get their First Amendment, online speech rights snuffed out because of overstepping judges, local courts that have little oversight, “dirty” lawyers, and, of course, legal ignorance by those self-represented individuals ill-equipped and inexperience in the local judicial system.
This obscure “local” case of Host America Corporation (a Colorado Corporation) vs. Simcosky from 2007 in the Thurston County Superior Court of the State of Washington is a prime example and a prelude of local judges and lawyers using dirty tactics to take advantage of a non-lawyer’s legal ignorance to give up his First Amendment rights to speak ABOUT someone.
The full original thread of discussion is on the ELI Forums. However, I have taken the liberty to selectively cut-and-paste parts of that discussion so that Defiantly readers can come up to speed.
I can now come out and say with great certainty that Timothy B. McCormack is not only a copyright extortionist, Timmy is also a free speech thug and a First Amendment butcher.
It is interesting that although I had the information since February 2013 where Timmy tried to insert himself into a case that had nothing to do with him. (Ellis vs. Chan and the subsequent appeal Chan vs. Ellis), it didn’t click with me that Timothy B. McCormack was an experienced Free Speech Thug & First Amendment butcher, not just a copyright thug.
One of the legal scholars, Eugene Volokh, who authored an amicus brief in support of my case and legal position…
… made a casual mention of “cases we may never hear about”. That immediately triggered a memory of one of the “exhibits” McCormack submitted against me.
It was the 2007 case of Host America Corporation (Colorado corporation) vs. Brent David Simcosky.
In Timmy’s effort to silence me, he provided a copy of the restraining order he wrote for his 2007 client Host America Corporation against Brent David Simcosky, as an sample to my local judge to follow. Fortunately, my local judge wasn’t that insane.
It appears that Simcosky had some grievances against Host America and he was quite vocal about it on the Internet. Like many of us, Simcosky used discussion forums to openly vent and communicate his frustrations as well as to legally influence other people through the sharing of opinion and commentary.
I don’t have access to the exhibits but it would appear that Timmy produced what he considered the most offensive comments made by Simcosky. Here is the thing… these are rants and “threats” Simcosky made on a public forum. He threatens to tell others about how Host America wronged him. He uses rhetorical hyperbole, profanity, derogatory, and insulting language. However, nothing that is shown in the complaint (minus the exhibits) qualifies it as a “true threat”.
Unfortunately, Simcosky didn’t have the legal insights I did or he wasn’t lucky or resourceful enough to get access to legal minds like I did. But Simcosky was “forced” to sign an unconstitutional restraining order. Simcosky may be forbidden to talk about Host America but the rest of the Internet and Interwebs are not.
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF THURSTON COUNTY
HOST AMERICA CORPORATION, a Colorado Corporation Plaintiff,
v.
BRENT DAVID SIMCOSKY AKA DAVID BRENT SIMCOSKY, Defendant.
No. 07-2-01732-5 PERMANENT STIPULATED INJUNCTION
The parties to this action HEREBY STIPULATE to the following Permanent Injunction against Defendant.
D. Brent Simcosky
Host America Corporation 9/25/07
Based on the consent of the parties and the court’s own good judgment it is Ordered:
1. Defendant and any officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and all other persons in active concert and participation with defendant who receive actual notice of this order, are enjoined from:
a. interfering with plaintiff’s contracts or prospective economic relations; b. posting on web sites, sending letters or otherwise discussing in any way information about plaintiff or its Board of Directors or its employees, vendors, channel partners or attorneys; c. doing any other act or thing calculated to, rending to, or likely to unfairly compete with the plaintiff or to unfairly harm the value of plaintiff s stock;
2. Defendant will agree never to mention HOST again, publically (sic), to anyone ever again outside his own attorneys, unless by court order; Defendant will not appear or otherwise participate in any message boards or discussion forums that are affiliated with or that specifically discuss HOST or its affiliates or successors or assigns.
3. Defendant agrees to sign a Clarification Letter regarding misrepresentation of specific facts about the plaintiff and any intemperate or offensive communications for which he was responsible in the form attached to the parties settlement agreement The letter will be sent to David Murphy, the Host America Board of Directors, Channel Partners; plaintiff may use or discuss the letter with anyone in its effort to mitigate any damage caused by defendant or as might otherwise be required by law.
4. Each side will bear their own costs and attorneys, fees, except as noted.
5. The case will be removed from the court’s docket and be considered dismissed and adjudicated but the court will retain jurisdiction for enforcement of this injunction and any judgment that might be filed pursuant to the parties settlement agreement; counsel for plaintiff will retain subpoena power for compliance purposes;
6. If this injunction is violated, upon a good cause showing to the court, the following sanctions against the defendant will be imposed:
a. Payment of attorneys’ fees and costs for any follow-up enforcement action; b. Surrender of any and all personal computers;
c. Agreement to not use the Internet for 10 years, unless for work; and
d. Damages in the amount of $250,000 and $25,000 in attorneys’ fees (in form of consent judgment).
This order shall go into effect immediately and shalt remain in effect until further order of this Court.
Done in Open Court, Dated: 28th of September 2007.
ANNE HIRSCH SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE
Presented by Timothy B. McCormack, WSBA #28074 McCormack Intellectual Property Law Business Law PS 617 Lee St. Seattle, WA 98109 p. 206.381.8888 / fx. 206.381-1988 tim@McCormackLegal.com
The putz and lawyer hack we call Timmy McCormack unconstitutionally shut down Simcosky and deprived him of his free speech rights. Let’s look at this closely.
In Point 1, Simcosky can’t send letters to anyone any opinions about Host America to anyone? Even non-threatening ones? WTF.
In Point 2, Simcosky can never mention Host America again? WTF, are we in China? He can’t even breathe a word of that company without an attorney? He can’t post anything whether it is true or his opinions on Host America even if it is non-threatening? WTF.
In Point 6, if he violates the order, Simcosky has to surrender all his computers? WTF. Since when can anyone take anyone’s personal or business property over a civil issue? That gives him or Host America the right to just help themselves to Simcosky’s computers? WTF.
And he is going to forbid Simcosky from using the Internet for 10 freaking years except for work purposes? So, Simcosky can’t use the computer to make travel arrangements, make Facebook posts, Twitter posts, play online games, view Netflix movies, make memes on the Internet, make music, write a blog, do Google searches, and all the infinite variety of things people do that don’t have anything to do with work? WTF.
And Simcosky is going to be liable for quarter-million ($250,000) dollars damages/penalties and $25,000 in attorney fees for breathing or posting one word about Host America? WTF.
And the judge who allegedly agreed to this is Anne Hirsch, A Superior Court Judge? WTF.
Someone please tell me, who is the bully and extortionist. This is why Timmy is so well hated by so many people. Timmy uses his alleged legal expertise to be a legalized thug.
He accuses Simcosky of extortion? You be the judge who the true extortionist is.
Timothy B. McCormack abuses the restraining order process and tramples over the First Amendment and free speech.
The funny thing about this extortionate and abusive restraining order that outright crushes free speech for Simcosky, is that McCormack is actually proud of it and presented it to the judge in MY case to set an example on me!
Well, the legal boomerang has swung. I have brought along a few legal allies to my side who truly are legal scholars in this field. I have learned much from them these past months. This extortionate and First Amendment crushing restraining order that Timothy B. McCormack authored will likely receive the “Streisand Effect” it truly deserves. The interwebs enjoy learning about this kind of free speech thuggery.
We, at ELI with its many community members, agree that Timothy B. McCormack is a putz and legal hack.
As I stated earlier, for anyone interested in reading the follow-up discussion and commentary to my opening post, please visit that discussion thread on the ELI Forums.
