Author Linda Ellis threatens the safety of Matthew Chan!

Marietta Poet Linda Ellis has stooped to a new low, she has now threatened the safety of Matthew Chan after the Georgia Supreme Court reversed the lower court decision to impose a lifetime protective order against him.

“Buy a gun and demonstrate your right to defend yourself and your property and family.”

“Remember your right to bear arms and protect yourself trumps his freedom of speech…”

“chan chan can get his can can kicked if he wants it”

“this guy needs some up close and personal attention.”

“might be time to get some self protection”


If I were matthew i would be contacting Columbus Attorney Betsy McBride to bring this before the honorable Judge Jordan, so he himself can get a protective order against Linda Ellis!


*note: this post is naturally just to demonstrate how Linda ellis likes to take things out of context, mear snarkiness on my part.


  1. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander..I’m sure I’m not the only one who sees how utterly ridiculous this is. Yet Ellis continues to go down the path of taking things out of context, making her look like an idiot..she’s almost making Charles Carreon (sp) look good!

  2. I have been following this and note that while I support free speech, both hers, Matthew’s and the website and its users…what I cannot fathom is the infantile behaviors. Losing with dignity and integrity are important values. As Matthew did, if Linda does not like the court outcome, she should keep her mouth shut and appeal. Secondly what I find interesting, if Linda espouses the girl next door persona in order to further to her feel good business and poetry offerings, I would think she would not want to air her dirty laundry on her website which I assume is easily accessible to people who may find her inspirational services and poetry and coffee mugs, tshirts etc of value. Cannot see how that is good for business. Best advice her lawyer can give her is to keep her mouth shut.

  3. Testycal,

    ELI ( has a unique culture. It is intentionally rebellious, spirited, controversial, hard-hitting, and offensive. As the website owner and figurehead, I encourage it as a way to combat the “civil” “legalese” tone that lawyers and those with lawyers PREFER. It is the fact that they prefer it because it plays to THEIR strengths. As a non-lawyer, strategist, and problem solver, I took it upon myself to find ways to legally defend and fight back against copyright extortionist.

    Part of that is creatively using the First Amendment as much as possible because it is available to everyone rich or poor especially if you have an Internet connection. With some few exceptions, the First Amendment is imminently a powerful tool only IF one knows how to use it.

    The “infantile” behavior is perfectly legal and one doesn’t need approval or permission. No one forces anyone to come to ELI. People come to ELI because they have a BIG problem. That problem is extortionate monetary demands for minor copyright infringements. We provide all kinds of ideas and solutions. People take what they like and need and leave the rest.

    If people don’t like what we do, people don’t have to read or like it. My appeal was brought about because Ms. Ellis doesn’t “get it”. Even with the unanimous ruling and her two lawyers, she still doesn’t “get it”. She was provided with all our legal briefs which explains why her position was wrong and yet she refuses to “get it”.

    And respectfully, the fact you bring up the word “appeal” means you didn’t understand that my case WAS an appeal to the highest court in Georgia. Because it was a Georgia statute, there is no where else to appeal. The matter is settled.

    You bring up many good points regarding her online persona. This is the problem with people who adopt pristine personas. It becomes problematic when you simple human failings. I know I am an imperfect human being and I make mistakes. And so, I don’t pretend to be this perfect human being.

    I do what I want how I want as long as it is legal. I speak how I want as long as it falls into the realm of First Amendment protection. I am the local figurehead that has to be willing to practice what he preaches.

    Given that you have followed this (assuming we haven’t disgusted you yet *wink*), there is more stories to tell. Ms. Ellis has a huge head start on me. I am a bit more strategic and methodical. If you want more of my reasoned comments, the Washington Post is currently hosting a lively discussion now. I am going there as soon as I am done here!

  4. A rather humorous headline for an April Fool’s Day. (opinion of course)

    Funny…I was thinking the same thing last night after seeing all of those
    comments on Ellis’ Facebook page. I thought of saying exactly what you
    pointed out, that perhaps Matthew should file a PPO on Ellis because
    her “followers” seem to be making public threats as I interpret them.

    The DIFFERENCE in my opinion is that those threats of Ellis’ “frans” seem
    to me to be more of a “true threat” verses what was posted on ELI…
    bless their hearts.

  5. sorry for my ignorance of the court system (I am Canadian) – if the decision is final and binding, my comments are even moreso Your site is a great forum for sharing information and assisting others who would otherwise be railroaded into settlements. I have successfully challenged a stock photo company in Canada with your site’s assistance.

    • TestyCal,

      Since you are Canadian, you may find our references to the First Amendment and Section 230 CDA foreign as well. But American bloggers and website owners have strong protections against unfair and unreasonable governmental and “big money” influence. It goes back to why the American colonists broke away from England in 1776. Back then, England was the “oppressor” of the little guys (American colonists). The forefathers of the U.S. Constitution constructed the First Amendment for the reason it is a “weapon” for the little guy to use and speak out.

      Unfortunately, because of the prevalence of social and political correctness, many have essentially caved in and given up their full powers under the First Amendment. That is THEIR choice and it is not mine. Hence, I was willing to do battle and go through 2 appellate courts to ensure MY free speech rights are ensured. And I didn’t hide behind a lawyer to do this. I did my part and used my name and face all the way through.

      I didn’t have to play dirty to ultimately win. The odds were initially stacked against me. Through strategic moves along with excellent supporters and a team, we were able to prevail.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.