EC v. DA bombshell and I’m still #notchilled

Today has kept me off the computer for the most part and the internet exploded while I was away!

The Facts

A)Dear Author / Jane Litte was deposed in the EC v. DA case.

B)Following said deposition, she posted on her blog and admitted to her readership that she’s an author with the pen name Jen Frederick. 


C)Some folks are unhappy with this little revelation. On a popular blog known as The Passive Voice an anonymous poster complained and many have chimed in, including EC owner Jaid Black / Tina Engler.  (Opinion: I repeat again, this woman really needs a PR firm!) Oh and a ton of other anonymous commenters. (Not fact, my opinion: Really, these people need to draw numbers so that we can figure out who is talking/replying. It’s like a huge fucking game of Who’s on First.)

My Take on this Cluster Fuck

A) Jane was deposed. I expected as much it’s standard operating procedure in any suit. Secrets never remain secrets. They always come out. We’ll see more depositions soon. Well, unless the depo fairy posts them online, we won’t actually SEE them. Unlike the court docs that the wonderful Deirdre Saoirse Moen posts on her blog, most depositions and Requests for Production (of documents) won’t be made public.

B) I celebrated the news that Jane/DA is an author. Why? Because…she’s one of us. Because PubNT called her a slushpiler. Because…why not? She’s seeing success as well and I find that celebratory.

C) First, everyone is entitled to their feelings and opinions on the matter. Really. Those who are pissed as well as those who are not. I must say, personally, I was annoyed by those who bitched about donating to her legal fund. Why?

I’ve said it publicly, and I’ll say it again. I actually don’t like Jane Litte / Dear Author. I think she’s mean, rude, and overly aggressive. But she’s a fuckin’ lawyer. Trust me as someone who used to be married to one…it’s in their blood. A good layer is aggressive. A great lawyer is usually shady as hell. You may not like them. But I bet the boat that when you’re looking for a lawyer, you’re not searching for one that reminds you of white fluffy bunnies.

So why in the hell do I support her? First, I respect what she does, especially reporting on the industry. Next, well, I believe in the cause. We have the right to say someone is shady, especially if we believe said person/business/entity is shady. It’s one of our founding principles. She reported on something that others had already seen, gossiped about, etc. That should not be punishable or suppressible.

Plus, I hate bullies. My OPINION is that EC is a huge bully, or at least they’re trying to be. My OPINION is that EC’s business practices are full of…shade. I believe their accounting system to resemble swiss cheese.

I digress. Those who are feeling sore about donating to DA’s defense fund should take a deep breath. You’re still, in a way, fighting for EC’s authors. You’re fighting for our First Amendment rights. Jane/DA never claimed to be poor. She’s even gone as far as to say anything left over, returned in lawyer fees would be donated to a fund, not put in her pocket.

And she threw in TWENTY GRAND of her own money. She’s putting her money where her mouth is…literally.

Look, a lot of us use pseudonyms for one reason or another. I’ve been public and open that my real name isn’t Anita Cox *gasp, choke…the horror!* My real name is Kim Mullican. I’ve Vlogged as both entities disclosing this fact. It was MY CHOICE.  I wasn’t pressured or blackmailed into this situation. I chose to separate my names to  prevent reader confusion so my Kim Mullican readers didn’t buy my erotica by mistake. Plus…the spouse came up with the Anita Cox name and I just HAD to use it. It’s the perfect name for an erotica author.  The interesting side effect is that Anita sells a SHIT TON more books than Kim does. Why? Because you people like your smut and I like writing it!

Jane had to disclose her pseudonym and I daresay anyone posting or commenting anonymously or using a super secret squirrel name should really take a pause for the cause and look in the mirror.

I’m Anita Cox/Kim Mullican and I seductively approve this message.


7 thoughts on “EC v. DA bombshell and I’m still #notchilled

  1. I tend to agree with you, on a lot of points. Personally, I’ve always been relieved my books flew under DA’s radar, 😉 but I definitely respect the site for what it provides to readers, which I was long before I became a writer. And I also think (my opinion) that the suit came about as a bullying tactic and I also loathe them. Though I have to wonder if PubNT knew this info why it didn’t scream it out all over twitter, since it seemed to take a perverse pleasure in doxxing Jane to begin with. So I don’t think it knew that.

    The brouhaha I don’t quite get. I’ve read a good deal of the anon comments (my eyes still hurt) and I do understand their reasons for feeling the way they do, but I don’t necessarily agree that people should be so outraged. This industry is filled with folks who have a ton of different personas, roles and jobs. Always has been, likely always will. And the thing is, most of those in those situations do a hell of a job keeping them separate. I think Jane has done the same. People are screaming she reviewed books for her own publisher, but I’m not clear on the timing of all that anyway, and Jane is not the only one who reviews books at DA.

    So I’m keeping an open mind, and my support as far as the suit goes remains firmly in Jane’s corner. I say more power to her to be able to juggle everything she does – wish I could do that.

    And yes, if I ever need a lawyer, I want the dirtiest, sneakiest and most underhanded one I can find! lol

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Jane reviewed one book from her publisher right around the time she signed her contract. I can’t say for certain but it was likely read, reviewed and the blog post pre-scheduled before she signed her contract with Berkeley. The site (not just Jane) didn’t review any Berkeley books again.

      I only skimmed the comments on TPV, but it seemed many just had a bone to pick with Jane for their own personal reasons and were using any excuse to point their finger at her. I do understand their gripe about the lack of transparency during a a couple of instances over three years. But they sorely lack perspective! They are overlooking all that she has done NOT to abuse her role and responsibilities with DA.

      I do feel for those upset about giving to the DA fund, but I am not one of them. My money was never for Jane, it was for the fight against a publisher bullying Jane to remove her content and quit posting about EC’s financial problems. Keep in mind Jane could have deleted the post and negotiated a quick ending by giving EC all they asked for. But she didn’t because she does have principles.

      I am not going to lie and say I wasn’t a little bit disappointed along with everyone else, but when put into perspective it doesn’t overshadow all that she has done. The way I see it she made some tactical mistakes while trying to keep two large identities separate, but I can’t blame her at all for feeling she needed to keep the two identities secret.

      Great article Anita!!


      1. Somehow I expected the Berkeley situation to have played out the way you described. Jane can be brutal and snarky, and I get why people are put off by that. But the key to me, is ultimately, for the most part she’s what I call my husband – brutally honest. And I respect that, whether I agree or not, and sometimes I do, sometimes I don’t. Sure, maybe there were some missteps in the process, but people make decisions at the moment based on the current situation. If everyone waited to see what could possibly happen down the road, no one would ever do anything.

        Another twist, that, to my perception, doesn’t change the fact a lawsuit was brought with the intent of bullying and silencing those who raised very valid questions.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. Maybe I’m deluded..but I just…don’t care. Was it ethically questionable? Possibly. Do I take a single review or reviewer as Gospel anyway? No. I’ll damn well read every single book Jane hates if I want to, and her blog isn’t going to stop me. Now if the gals over at SBTB tell me not to read a book…..

    Just kidding. I’ll still read it. Actually, the more awful the review, the more I have to read the book. I’m kind of perverse like that.

    Thumbs up to Jane for writing books. I mean, I haven’t done it. If I did, it would be an unmitigated disaster. So props on that. I peeked at ’em on Amazon, and I haven’t read them and forgotten. They didn’t look like my kind of thing. And let’s be real here. Unless you announce that you’re Jane Mothereffing Austen, I’m not exactly likely to pee my pants while squee’ing.

    Anyway, if someone donated money to help the FIRST AMENDMENT case and not JANE PERSONALLY, then no need for butthurt. If it was personal, cause you liked Jane and felt sorry for her…well…then that was probably a mistake in logic. After all, you didn’t really know her. That’s the problem with thinking you know someone when you don’t really have intimate connections. Whatever slice of life or part of the brain that Jane (or me, or you) conveys over the internet isn’t the whole of the person. Everyone has secrets.

    So unless Jane’s big announcement messes with my right to be a twatwaffle on the internet (via lawsuit), I’m pretty much feeling the same as I was on March 22…a little tired and struggling with seasonal allergies.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s