Chris Principe's motion for a five-year harassment injunction against Timothy Curry was denied on January 3rd, a significant setback in the ongoing legal disputes surrounding the OneCoin cryptocurrency scheme. Principe had filed the motion last October, seeking to prevent Curry from contacting him, publishing his name, or communicating with his business associates regarding any topic about Principe.
Principe's requests were highly specific. He wanted Curry enjoined from any direct or indirect contact, including by telephone, mail, email, social media, or other electronic means. Further, Principe sought to bar Curry from publishing his name in any media whatsoever and from reaching out to any of his known business associates concerning Principe in any manner or on any topic.
The court considered Principe's motion, Curry's opposition, Principe's response, and oral arguments from both parties. The denial hinged on a fundamental misapplication of California Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6, the statute Principe cited. This section allows a person who has suffered harassment to seek a temporary restraining order and a subsequent order prohibiting harassment. The court noted that Section 527.6 functions as a remedy once a cause of action is presented, not as a standalone cause of action itself. Principe had not brought an underlying cause of action pursuant to this statute, rendering his motion improper in federal court.
Even if the motion had been procedurally proper, the court found it unlikely that Principe would succeed on the merits. Curry presented evidence arguing his Twitter posts did not constitute harassment because they served a "legitimate purpose." He contended that Principe had published magazines promoting OneCoin and appeared in promotional videos used by the scheme to attract investors.
Curry expressed deep concern that OneCoin had defrauded people worldwide out of billions of dollars. He also pointed to ongoing global police investigations into the alleged Ponzi scheme. Curry described his tweets and messages as part of his "civic duty" to report on OneCoin-related news developments.
The court did not rule on the truthfulness of Curry's underlying claims about OneCoin or Principe's alleged involvement. Instead, the court was persuaded that Curry's stated intentions—to inform the public about OneCoin and encourage investigation into its practices—likely constituted a legitimate purpose. This determination prevented the court from concluding that Principe would likely succeed in showing Curry's conduct lacked any legitimate purpose.
The distinction is critical. Section 527.6 defines harassment as "unlawful violence, a credible threat of violence, or a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, or harasses the person, and that serves no legitimate purpose." Curry's actions, even if annoying to Principe, were found to have a legitimate purpose in the court's view, thus failing to meet the statutory definition of harassment. The denial means that while the broader defamation case may continue, Principe cannot use a harassment injunction to silence Curry's public commentary on OneCoin.