No problem in discussing or clarification.
First, no documents will be released without permission and all personal information / identifying information will continue to be redacted. However, there is always the small chance that the stock photo agency could find out who they are. However, most of us know that there is really no meaningful impact even if they know who sent in the information.
Second, most of the people who voluntarily send in information do so with the expectation of receiving some response or help from us. It is sort of a quid pro quo. If it is something we have seen before, I simply don't use it and tell the person it is nothing we can use. In that case, he needs to go through traditional Help & Support channels (ELI Support Call or Defense Letter Program.)
If it is something really "new" as in the case of the Jennifer Sherrouse case, I typically reach out. I did correspond with "John" a bit, the letter recipient, before I ultimately called him. John got 30 minutes with me for no charge because I found out Evan was trying to get vindictive against John. If John had not had the good sense to inform me of what went down, I would never have wrote the scathing follow-up against both Jennifer and Evan. I think John did the right John because Jennifer and Evan have so much more to lose reputationally than John does. I saw the emails and wasn't going to let Jennifer and Evan get away with it.
John was concerned with my approach and didn't really understand the huge significance of the information he gave me. He did not understand how it could be "useful" to him. It was only when I wrote the open letters about Jennifer and Evan that he seemed to "get it" that Jennifer and Evan really had more to lose with everything fully coming out than John did.
It is a bit of a delicate balance because the people sending information are typically fear-based and new to all this. Many aren't exactly jumping to spend The $200-$250 for Oscar's help either. They can't really tell if what information they have is helpful or not. It isn't until I see the documents and information that I can really know if it is truly significant. In the case of John, what he shared in a public post piqued my interest and I followed up.
However, sometimes things "go wrong" as in the case of Peter Holt's letter recipient "Dave" who was a web developer last year. I explained to Dave that by coming out with Peter's letter, putting the letter out with ELI, and standing up would likely push Peter Holt back. However, it resulted in Peter Holt accusing Oscar and I of defamation which we publicly responded to and a time suck. I told Dave there was no guarantees it would work but it would cost him nothing and he could still hire Oscar at anytime.
Peter Holt ultimately "retaliated" with another letter to Dave and told him the settlement would now be higher. Peter disappeared for a few months during the whole Julie Stewart fiasco. Dave later came back in a frantic because his client received another letter. After a few email exchanges where I tried to tell him it was a calculated risk that worked for a while, he basically said I made it worse for him and his client. That set me off in a big way.
That is when I blasted Dave and called him an idiot fully copying Oscar on the email. Like so many others, his own ignorance and lack of spine allowed a letter to possess him. He also wanted "free", but was too cheap, and didn't want to pay for Oscar's help then. He wanted to play it out but he had no ability to hold it together. But he blamed me when the Peter came back to knock on his door. If he hired Oscar originally, it would have been a non-issue even if he shared the letter publicly. I believe it might have been 1 or 2 images with HAN and HAN had no history of filing lawsuits on anyone but Dave couldn't see that.
Ultimately, he did hire Oscar because he never "got it" and I told him he was too stupid and spineless to help and I wanted nothing to do with him. By that point, Oscar was his only option for help since he had zero ability to handle it himself.
It was Dave, Dieselfish, and another guy who somehow got it in their heads that because I was interested in sharing their documents (which ultimately would have helped their own cases in a big way if they had the first fucking clue how to play it) that they felt like they had "leverage" with me and wanted to use it to "barter" with me.
I would try to help them in a very unique ELI way but they wanted "guarantees" which most of us know there are none except by paying the money. No matter how many times you say it, some still don't listen. They live in a bubble and only focused on what they want, not facing the reality of how extortions work. They can't see that the universe doesn't revolve around their one little case out of thousands. They think they are so "special" they will be targeted for a lawsuit. However, there is one small "guarantee" you can get. Hire Oscar to stop all the letters but they are too cheap to hire him and yet complain when more letters arrive later. These are the absolute worst people to try to help because they contribute very little and complain a lot. They want someone else to take the arrows for them.
The people who have been the most problematic have been the cheapest people and didn't want to hire Oscar and their fears were nearly irrational. However, there are some who are genuinely pissed and they send in their information as payback against the extortionists. Needless to say, I get along with those folks the best and it works out great.
ELI is interested in reporting and helping but we won't be held hostage by anyone especially someone who is new to the game. We cannot constantly be thinking about the irrational fears of those people who send us information. ELI has unquestionably affected lots of changes but the newbies have no clue how easy they now have it now vs. 4 years ago. There are really many ways to fight it but most don't have the creativity, spine, or perseverance to pull it off. If they are that concerned about the extortionists of asking for help then they should stay silent, don't post on the ELI Forums, and go handle it themselves.
Even on the ELI Forums posting anonymously, letter recipients have to share enough information for anyone to help them. If there is something distinctive and they share that fact, they already run the risk without ever having contacted or submitted ELI.
The Linda Ellis/Dash Poem Forum has nearly come to a dead halt after a blazing 3 weeks. You know why? Those letter recipients and victims don't share anything and there is nothing more to discuss or share.
No one has to share any stories, information, or documents but they will have to depend on themselves and what already exists on the ELI Forums or they will have to use the ELI Support Calls or Defense Letter Program. There is no way any letter recipient can get any help without stepping out and sharing their story or information.
With the exception of Oscar, none of us in the ELI Community are attorneys. We don't play by the same rules as attorneys. We can't play by the same rules if we expect to push back most attorneys. ELI has shared many strategies to equalize the fight. Taking the secrecy out and publicly reporting in detail of what goes on behind closed doors of the extortionists is a great way to fight back.
That is ELI's greatest tool in concert with uniting with like minds as we do within the ELI community. I spearhead certain efforts but no way I could do everything. Gathering, analyzing, and reporting information is one of my biggest assets. Along with creating unorthodox strategies as additional tools to fight back.
So back to the original concerns. Most of the rules for sharing documents and preserving privacy has not changed. But we won't let anyone intentionally hold ELI hostage in withholding important information that helps the greater cause. We will still do everything we can to alleviate and acknowledge the concerns of those who submit information to us. But we cannot work at the lowest common denominator. If we worked at the lowest common denominator, no way ELI could have grown the way it has and attained the influence it has.
If you are not convinced, go look to the eerie silence with the Linda Ellis/Dash Poem extortions. That is what happens when EVERYONE is so scared they clam up entirely. Team Linda has resumed their ways but not much ELI can do at the moment. I have little sympathy for the victims because no one is saying or reporting anything.
As much as I, April, and the rest of you guys have helped to stand up to Team Linda, we aren't the victims. The silent ones are.
Sorry for the length of this post. It is obviously a loaded topic which I wanted to make very clear where I stand and why I take the position I do. It isn't for trivial reasons I can assure you.
Good interview as always!!
Something that's quite important was touched on in the interview.
It was my understanding that in the past, info/documents sent to ELI were treated as confidential, unless the sender said that it was ok for them to be released.
If I heard correctly, this has changed. I know that there was never any formal confidentiality agreement, but, this is a significant change in procedure.
While there is no onus on ELI or its owner to keep things confidential, it's my opinion that permission should be sought before posting anything that was sent "privately".
Additionally, info may have been sent to ELI in the past by its participants under the assumption of confidentiality under the old (albeit informal) terms.
I know that less interesting news may be released if confidentiality is stricter.
On the other hand, participants may be hesitant to submit information that's valuable to the cause, even if it can't be broadcast on the forum.
We haven't had many Linda Ellis victims come forward, for example.
Those are only my opinions. But, I think that this merits discussion, or least clarification.
S.G.
Topic: Big ELI Video Update (June 23, 2012): Matthew Chan & Robert Krausankas (Read 10728 times)