“Secret” ELI Posts and Information to be Revealed and Exposed!

One of the reasons I started Defiantly.net last year is that I needed an alternative communication platform due to the overbroad stalking protective order (now overturned by the Georgia Supreme Court) that forbade me from writing about Linda Ellis, her business, and the Dash Poem extortion scheme on ExtortionLetterInfo.com (ELI). However, Defiantly.net was also created so that I would be allowed to express controversial and “politically-incorrect” statements that might negatively impact people who are associated with me such as my friend and business associate, Oscar Michelen.

In the last few years, I have been vocal about the “Daddy Oscar” phenomenon that occurred on ELI whereby copyright extortion lawyers “secretly” complained to Oscar about me because they were offended or upset that I (along with other ELI members) would write negative, disrespectful, and controversial articles/posts about copyright extortionists and their lawyers (they hate that I use that phrase). I also suggested, shared, recommended, or endorsed unorthodox, non-lawyerly (but entirely legal) tactics and strategies to defend against obnoxiously, heavy-handed extortionate demands.  Not only did I share and endorse those tactics, I encouraged others to speak out loudly and with conviction against those people who would attack them. I have been somewhat successful because there are now independent off-shoots, friends, allies, and connectors of ELI such as copyright-trolls.com, cabalaw.org, aprilbrown.com, rankexploits.com, fightcopyrighttrolls.com, and several other blogs/websites that occasionally “pickup” and report on ELI-related subject matters.  In fact, ELI has over 100 unsolicited incoming web links, referrals,and endorsements throughout the interwebs because of the influential and impactful work we do to combat copyright extortion and copyright trolling.

One of the “issues” that I faced with ELI has been that there are occasionally disagreements in how to “present” ELI to the public. What posts and content are “allowed” and what is not. I would say that 97% of the time, Oscar and I are in agreement of what is permissible content on ELI. But the other 3% (while seemingly small) can be significant depending on the nature or content of the post. I have strong convictions in sharing what I know and think with the public and interested parties. I do so for many reasons.  It is a combination of reasons that come from a sense of altruism, principle, goodwill, empowerment, and the pursuit of truth.

Because of my deep respect and admiration for Oscar, I have occasionally “deleted” or “hidden” certain posts on ELI. I did so for various reasons but mostly because his name and face is associated with ELI and there is some concern of negative “spillover” to him that what I say might be inadvertently tied to him. It is something that I have been mindful of.  I grew to resent the “Daddy Oscar” issue and I communicated my discontent to him. I told him it would be necessary for me to create an alternative (non-ELI) website so that I could share information and opinions that might be too controversial and “politically-incorrect” for HIM to be associated with on ELI.  However, the suppression of certain news, information, and opinions that I wanted to share was not acceptable to me on an ongoing basis.

Before I met Oscar, I was an independent publisher of books, audio programs, and websites. I made this choice over a decade ago in 2002 when I decided I have no interest in working with traditional media or traditional publishing channels. It is also the reason why I am also an independent web broadcaster. My need to have editorial independence and creative freedom is far more important than financial motivations.  I am not going to have my First Amendment right to freely publish, report, and share legal material suppressed by ANYONE if I have anything to say in the matter. What I lack in ability, talent, and resource in other areas is offset by my exercise, practice, and execution of the full power of the First Amendment.  On Defiantly.net, there is no question or disputing that blog posts entirely comes from “Matthew Valor” and stands independent of ELI and Oscar Michelen.

One of the most powerful weapons any  non-lawyer can use against a more-powerful adversary is their First Amendment right to speak their mind and share information they legally obtain.  If I am going to preach this, I have to be willing to practice it.  Talk is cheap. It is entirely appropriate to write NEGATIVE and POLITICALLY-INCORRECT OPINIONS of any person, organization, and their lawyers. There is nothing illegal or defamatory in doing so as long as I stick to facts and opinions. I have always exercised caution to not intentionally engage in defamatory speech (negative opinion speech about someone is NOT automatically defamatory). No matter my personal feelings about anyone, I have done my best to stick facts and opinions because it is constitutionally allowed by the First Amendment.

Thanks in so small part to the unwise decisions of Linda Ellis and her lawyer Elizabeth W. (Betsy) McBride, I am now much better connected to First Amendment advocates and talents (such as First Amendment legal scholar, Eugene Volokh) who will help me, if necessary, protect and defend my (and other people’s) First Amendment rights.

I will be making further announcements of special reports and books I will be publishing in the months to come.


Follow Defiantly on Twitter at http://twitter.com/defiantlynet or the Defiantly Facebook Fan Page at http://facebook.com/defiantly.net. Subscribe by Email to the Defiantly Blog in the Blue Box in the Upper Right Corner.



About Matthew Chan 101 Articles
Matthew is the Publisher and Editor of Defiantly.net. He is also the Founder, Editor, and Host for ExtortionLetterInfo.com. Matthew is the author of several business books & audio programs. He is an entrepreneur, real estate investor, and First Amendment advocate.

1 Comment

  1. A dear friend was also the victim of copyright trolls for posting an image of a (blank-too specific and I don’t want these dirtbags to know I’m helping him) on his site. It wasn’t LE, but another troll. Long story short, he took it down immediately, but as you know these dirtbags don’t care about this, they just want to extort money from the victim. Well, the guy has less than zero money. He presented his financials to their attorney. No joke, this guy is not only broke, but he does get food stamps. He has NOTHING. When they saw they would be putting a man with a family out on the street (one of his kids has a developmental disability), they actually stopped harassing him. He did cooperate fully and sent their attorney everything to show his financial state (lack thereof). These dirtbags are horrible, but it seems they don’t want to be known as the trolls who put a family out on the street. While ordinarily I would have encouraged him to fight it, I researched the law firm that was sicced on him I realized that they had so many financial resources that he could never successfully defend himself. This was the only way out and it was the truth, anyway. So, if any of the posters here are in this position there are times when rolling over and cooperating can be the best way to get them to stop.
    Now, this isn’t what I’d advocate to most people, but if you have NOTHING especially no money for an attorney, then it might help them get off your back.

    I read a book (and have a copy of it, if you want to borrow it) called Soap Opera, The Inside Story Procter and Gamble. by a former Wall Street Journal reporter named Alicia Swasy. In this book she details the ways in which this mega corporation has consistently been able to defeat ANYONE AND EVERYONE who has ever ‘crossed’ them because they have attorneys on salary. The potential plaintiffs do not. Or, most do not. So, every continuance, every additional request for information, etc costs the little guy so much money they simply either drop the suit or give in. This tactic was employed by P&G against doctors who complained about their tampons that caused TSS. No contrary clinical studies were allowed to support those honorable third party physicians who felt the “Shove this tampon in you for a week and forget about it” was a recipe for poisoning women who used them. It wasn’t until after more and more women fell ill and/or passed on that P&G admitted this product was the cause of TSS (now you know why all those TSS warnings on tampon boxes).

    Now, lets bring this situation over to the copyright troll situation. Since their lawyers have a financial interest in the success of the copyright lawsuits (as would any attorney representing any plaintiff), but these folks are IN THE GAME with the ‘alleged’ victim. These attorneys can bankrupt anyone who fights them or tries to fight them. This is a huge peril for the average Joe or Jane who wants to fight back, but knows they can go broke and not even lose the case.

    I have a law degree but do not practice. The degree is 30 yrs old, now, but I still know A LOT about the law. I help people when I can for free (I can’t and don’t represent anyone in court) but I read over stuff like this extortion letter and I can see how these dirtbags win. If I can do anything to help you, I volunteer! Lexis Nexus was just coming out when I was in law school, but I am computer savvy. Let me know.

Leave a Reply to JG Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.