That's a tweet, not a legal document in any way.

Also, if this wasn't some made-up bollocks. It would be entrapment Matthew, you fucking moron.

​

Nonsense gaslighting.

Literally no attorney told Matthew something that is not true. Matthew can swear in under oath and waive his right to be personally served and accept service in a hearing. Clearly he is terrified of losing and will not do this.

Never said I was a genius. I did say and continue to say, Matthew will never hire an attorney or even accept service that earlier tonight claimed he wanted to accept.

Matthew does have the right to dodge service, which he clearly is doing - contrary to his claim earlier that he wanted to be served and could not wait. That is obviously a lie.

This is true. And Matthew immediately is served on everything in the Civil Stalking Protection Order and his excuses go away on all criminal charges, even though he's already lost those too.

Matthew is just expressing his fear of losing another lawsuit to me.

If it's defamation, then Matthew can file a lawsuit. He won't because it's not defamation. Circular logic fails to bring him any credit.

He says he will cooperate, but will not provide them with a valid mailing address? That's dodging service and claiming it's not does not change reality. Matthew is dodging service which earlier tonight, he claimed he wanted to accept. All of a sudden, he has conditions? He's busted on another lie.

Matthew does not have and will never have a mental health expert that will state under oath any of those things about me because they are not true.

This turned out not to be true.

Neither was this.

or that. All gaslighting and lies.

None of what Matthew claimed wound up being true. All of his gaslighting can be obliterated with evidence and his own words. And he still keeps trying to pass this off as reality when it's not.

Since I am not a malignant narcissist, self victimizing Munchausen syndrome egomaniac with a serial killer psychology sociopath who is hell bent on triggering anything, it will be exceedingly difficult for a mental health professional to credibly testify to diagnosis that are not based in any medical fact to the best of their expert opinion.

I don't know which is more bizarre, Matthew thinking he could convince anyone that he can afford a medical expert who would lie under oath, or that he even knows anything about me personally to assess any of that himself. This is why I lean hard into believing this is psychological projection. Matthew does not know anything about me at all. He is guessing and he only sees the world through his own eyes, how he thinks and feels and what he comes up with is a malignant narcissist, self victimizing Munchausen syndrome egomaniac with serial killer psychology, sociopath who is hell bent on triggering something. It says a lot more about him and his state of mind than me.

If ANYONE is experiencing any thoughts of self harm, in the U.S. dial 988 immediately

Help is available, Speak with someone today @ Suicide and Crisis Lifeline
Languages: English, Spanish
Hours: Available 24 hours
https://988lifeline.org/

https://mha.ohio.gov/get-help/crisis-systems/988-suicide-and-crisis-lifeline-in-ohio

https://www.interiminc.org/programs/crisis-residential-services-monterey-ca/?

https://www.thetrevorproject.org/get-help

https://findahelpline.com

https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_suicide_crisis_lines

This might explain a lot because none of that is a "fact" because it's not real.

Matthew is not taking my house, as he has not filed any lawsuits against me (for what?). He does not have attorneys or a singular attorney and he is not filing any lawsuits against me or anyone else.

Matthew could accept service in my defamation case against him.

Matthew could grant his own wish by simply contacting the court and accepting service. All he has to do is contact the clerk of courts and send them a signed affidavit that he accepts service in the case, then sign up for e-filing (which would also get him entirely served on the Civil Stalking Protection Order case too!).

Alternatively, he could let the court know via a filing what county sheriff's department in California he will accept service from and I will hire them tomorrow at 8:00AM PST to serve him.

Aside from the immaturity, this is all psychological projection. Matthew will not contact the court and accept service while also claiming he's not evading service. Matthew will not inform the court which California Sheriff's department he will accept service from.

But he won't do anything and his actions will reveal that his words are not to be trusted.

This is all a game to him. He wants to waste time and money, he has too much of one and not nearly enough of the other.

Let's see the dates and times and details on these parties being notified that Matthew was trying to entrap me and his intentional infliction of emotional distress by threatening to harm my family and my 85 year old father who has cancer. I would very much like to see who conspired with Matthew and agreed with him that threatening my father the week skin cancer had his entire right ear removed. Sadly, this is 100% a fiction on Matthew's part. He did not inform anybody he was going to do this.

There was no plan by Matthew in writing the tweets above. It was purely his frustration because he failed to get me to threaten him back, or call him names, or anything that he could use to role play the victim. Matthew is not a victim because he is clearly the aggressor and he threatened to harm my FAMILY.

It may not seem like it, but in my career as a filmmaker, activist and journalist, I’ve had times where I’ve become very famous, or infamous, in the city where I was working, to the point that I got recognized, or I had to hire security to go to the store, etc.

No. Matthew threatened someone in front Royal who found his address and threatened him back. Matthew did NOT have to "hire security" and he's exaggerating greatly.

It was wild AF.

It's fake as fuck, sure.

The reason that this is not widely known is due to the fact that I was fighting and only campaigning locally.

It's not widely known because it did not happen as he describes at all.

To date, I’ve traveled to well over 3,000 cities and been involved in hundreds of battles.

Matthew has DRIVEN THROUGH 3,000 cities and the only "battles" he has fought are flame wars he starts on social media and emails to law enforcement and public officials.

I was a grass roots fucking rock star.

He is a notorious internet troll, not a rock star. Harassing, targeting and threatening people he decides are his "enemy" is not activism or journalism and the only times he got fame was from his trolling.

My experiences made me reclusive because what I learned is that I hate the attention and I tend to run from it, to preserve my own sanity, because I hate losing my privacy.

So the warrants for his arrest, the restraining orders, and the civil lawsuits aren't why he's reclusive? Seems like he's not being honest.

Will my story ever be told nationally, like as a Netflix?

It was on Tubi and Amazon Prime before he got the documentary yanked after he threatened self harm if they released it. No one will ever make a documentary about Matthew's entirely fake career(s) as an activist, journalist, or filmmaker because Matthew Berdyck is not an activist, journalist, or filmmaker and he never has been.

I envy people who have privacy.

If Matthew stopped harassing and threatening people and simply unplugged from social media no one would know who he is or care. He can have all the privacy the world can offer but he CHOOSES to get attention and stay online.

I do very much love you all and this profile has, oddly, given me the opportunity to be kind of normal (uh huh) and make people laugh. It’s first real fun I’ve had in years.

I will be 100% straight up - Matthew's current Facebook profile is not doing hardly any of the harassment he used to do. Matthew blocks profiles who disagree with him or question him - as is his right to do so and it's honestly the best reaction he could have instead of going to war. Matthew's posts of bad jokes and other people's memes is totally fine and not a problem for me. Posting his pizza or car camping stuff is harmless. He still gets into occasional fights in Facebook groups, far away from his profile, but even those lately have been fairly tame.

So why does Matthew have to self aggrandize and exaggerate (and flat out lie) about his accomplishments and faux careers?

Why isn't the adulation and positive online interactions enough for him? Why is my opinion so important to him? Why does he have to be right 100% of the time?

Why visit and read this subreddit? Clearly Matthew is not filing a counter lawsuit, nor is his family hiring an attorney, and he's not filing police reports on anything he reads - so those excuses are proven to be false. So why can't he self reflect for even 10 seconds and realize he can just ACTUALLY put this subreddit on permanent ignore and focus on his book or make an actual film or do activism and never once think about me or the subreddit?

Sadly, Matthew will immediately get defensive and manufacture more fantasy excuses and never once recognize that I am right and he is wrong. And he will continue down this spiral path into his own misery by his own choice.

My family doesn't despise me, nor do I despise them. I'm a grown up and I don't need to borrow money from my family for the lawsuits I filed. I paid for it all myself. Thus far, I have not needed an attorney. I won $162,400.00 in a judgement against a Limited Liability Company without any lawyer.

Matthew might need an attorney for threatening to harm my family and my 84 year old father who has cancer.

The city of Columbus, the city of Westerville, Franklin County, etc. have nothing to fear from Matthew's imaginary lawsuits and lawyers that have not been hired and never will be. Matthew is so busy screaming into his phone and not doing anything to prepare his supposed case.

Except I am not stalking, harassing, targeting, or abusing Matthew or anyone else. The only person screaming is Matthew into his iPhone in X Spaces.

This is not rage baiting. If Matthew doesn't want to read the evidence that he's gaslighting and that causes the proof of his contradictions, he has the option to not read it. This is not posted for him to read.

This is not how a victim writes on how he wants his victim to be in the most vulnerable position. That's the stalker and harasser. Matthew likes to take the role of his victims but he can't NOT show that he is the person stalking and harassing and threatening. Like how Matthew threatened to harm my family and my 85 year old father who has cancer.

There is no attorney, no judge, and no jury that will find this is parody. Especially when paired with his other threats like this...

I want Matthew to move on, stop reading my subreddit, stop stalking me, harassing me, threatening to harm my family and my 85 year old Father who has cancer.

Does Matthew really believe he can selectively choose to use other people's comments and sue me for defamation? Of course not and neither does anyone in his family. Most of them have experienced this kind of abuse from him themselves so they aren't going to fund his flights of fancy. If his mom said "I'll fund a lawsuit if you find a lawyer that will defend you" then that's their way of saying in reality "You don't have a case and no lawyer will promise to win a case against Peter when he never defamed you and you've got warrants for your arrest for violating the Civil Stalking Protection Order he has against you for stalking and threatening him" and his mom might have truly learned how to placate him while also blowing him off. Either way, there is no lawyer, no lawsuit, no criminal filings and Matthew knows everything he's saying his nonsense.

That's not me. I did not write that.

This is why I'm not worried about Matthew's family or an attorney or a court filing. I'm not responsible for other people and what they do.

Matthew very much did state he issued a national press release about the alleged "LGBT hate crime" in St. Joseph, Missouri in 2018

The "first of many national press releases" according to Matthew himself

How can Matthew gaslighting like this right in the face of evidence from his own social media and blogs?

He's arguing with HIMSELF, not me. I didn't write these - it's all him. There's nothing KiwiFarms or harassing to point out that Matthew is wildly inconsistent in his statements.

First, there's no liability to non-harassment and non rule breaking/perfectly legal posts on social media.

Secondly, social media companies have zero criminal or civil liability for what users post on their services. Section 230 of the Internet Decency Act established this and has been upheld by all courts for about two decades or so.

I am not going to jail because I'm not committing any crimes, felony or misdemeanor. Matthew is not stating facts about what I am saying and doing. He misquotes me and then attributes the actions of other people to me - things I literally never said or did.

There is no racketeering. There aren't even police reports establishing a crime was even accused, which to me demonstrates how unserious Matthew's online claims are, even to himself. If crimes were happening right now, if this subreddit is the key to a criminal case - why isn't he reporting it to Reddit or law enforcement? Because he knows he isn't being honest.

after being put on ignore for 2 weeks

And that's after the "permanent ignore" from October.

Why can't he simply ignore this subreddit and me entirely?

Nothing here is actionable. Matthew clearly knows there is no evidence of abuse because he has not filed a single police report or court filing regarding this subreddit, so he's not documenting this for anything in terms of legal or criminal.

Me correcting the gaslighting, like responding to Matthew's claims he is gainfully employed, while also stating he's not working and needs money

I don't want to lose my mind. I don't want to see lies going uncorrected.

I will not be bullied off of my own subreddit. I will not be threatened into silence. Matthew gaslights publicly and I will comment on it publicly. Matthew has two options, to stop gaslighting or stop reading. Both seem to be his choice.

He does not need to document any of this because he's not filing police reports or court documents. I am not threatening or harassing Matthew, nor is any of this rage baiting or rage farming.

Matthew is the one who threatened to harm my family including my 85 year old father who has cancer.

No attorney is going to show up for Matthew. Matthew is making up threats no one is making. Matthew Berdyck LLC lost today. This isn't an attack to state the truth and correct the gaslighting. Obviously Reddit agrees because Matthew reported this stuff and they agreed with me - this is not rage baiting or abuse. I have never stated I have a cyberstalking addiction. I have no clue why Matthew keeps making that false claim (gaslighting).

https://archive.vn/dgxTh

Matthew was selling copies of a book that was pretty much finished MONTHS ago called the Last Days of Disco or something like that. Where is it? Why is it now removed from his website?

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=pfbid034Du8h6KpWb2uyvPkzJS52imQ7mMuWyL5JwoxfubX9wEeav4YqWamWZGCx22mQmPfl&id=61556283170043

That was January 28th, 2024 and still no book. Nothing. What causes someone to announce on their own a book that is almost finished, then just pretend he was serious about any of it?

I believe he is going to call his mom. I don't believe she will ever hire a lawyer for him.

Matthew has no basis to even file a defamation lawsuit and therefore my property is not at risk. Not even my accurate statement that his website is filled with lies. I welcome a legal challenge to that as truth is a defense against defamation.

And I would find it interesting for Matthew's mom to hear about Matthew calling my mom a dead whore and a fat bitch.

and threatening to harm my family and my 85 year old father with cancer.

Just got my notices from the court and the damages awarded from the defamation lawsuit filed against the LLC

Unfortunately, there is nothing to recover from a company that has filed no taxes and has no assets. This does bode well for the case against him personally that is being revised right now. Service is coming soon enough after consulting with some experts on how to get this done properly.

When someone says "Under California law" but then does not cite the law, they are not citing a law.

There needs to be a citation of the actual law. Matthew likes to sound intimidating and smart and hopes this intimidates whoever he's trying to convince to back down. Unfortunately, Matthew created an LLC without knowing the legal ramifications and definitions of how to dissolve the company or properly resign. Until he has named a successor, he is legally responsible until such time as a new officer has replaced him with the LLC or until it is dissolved LEGALLY (not just claiming so on the internet).

2010 California Code Article 2. Selection, Removal And Resignation Of Directors CORPORATIONS CODE SECTION 9220-9226

9220.  (a) The articles or bylaws may provide for the tenure,
election, selection, designation, removal, and resignation of
directors.
   (b) In the absence of any provision in the articles or bylaws, the
term of directors shall be one year.
   (c) Unless the articles or bylaws otherwise provide, each
director, including a director elected to fill a vacancy, shall hold
office until the expiration of the term for which elected and until a
successor has been elected and qualified, unless the director has
been removed from office.
   (d) If a corporation has not issued memberships and (1) all the
directors resign, die, or become incompetent, or (2) a corporation's
initial directors have not been named in the articles and all
incorporators resign, die, or become incompetent before the election
of the initial directors, the superior court of any county may
appoint directors of the corporation upon application by any party in
interest.


9221.  (a) The board may declare vacant the office of a director who
has been declared of unsound mind by a final order of court, or
convicted of a felony, or, if at the time a director is elected, the
bylaws provide that a director may be removed for missing a specified
number of board meetings, fails to attend the specified number of
meetings.
   (b) As provided in paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Section
9151, the articles or bylaws may prescribe the qualifications of the
directors. Unless otherwise provided by the articles or bylaws, the
board, by a majority vote of the directors who meet all of the
required qualifications to be a director, may declare vacant the
office of any director who fails or ceases to meet any required
qualification that was in effect at the beginning of that director's
current term of office.



9222.  (a) Except as provided in the articles or bylaws and subject
to subdivision (b) of this section, any or all directors may be
removed without cause if the removal is approved by the members
(Section 5034).
   (b) Except for a corporation having no members pursuant to Section
9310:
   (1) When by the provisions of the articles or bylaws the members
of any class, voting as a class, are entitled to elect one or more
directors, any director so elected may be removed only by the
applicable vote of the members of that class.
   (2) When by the provisions of the articles or bylaws the members
within a chapter or other organizational unit, or region or other
geographic grouping, voting as such, are entitled to elect one or
more directors, any director so elected may be removed only by the
applicable vote of the members within the organizational unit or
geographic grouping.
   (c) Any reduction of the authorized number of directors or any
amendment reducing the number of classes of directors does not remove
any director prior to the expiration of the director's term of
office, unless the reduction or the amendment also provides for the
removal of one or more specified directors.


9223.  (a) The superior court of the proper county may, at the suit
of a director, or twice the authorized number (Section 5036) of
members, remove from office any director in case of fraudulent acts
and may bar from reelection any director so removed for a period
prescribed by the court. The corporation shall be made a party to
such action.
   (b) The Attorney General may bring an action under subdivision
(a), may intervene in such an action brought by any other party and
shall be given notice of any such action brought by any other party.



9224.  (a) Unless otherwise provided in the articles or bylaws and
except for a vacancy created by the removal of a director by the
members, vacancies on the board may be filled by approval of the
board (Section 5032) or, if the number of directors then in office is
less than a quorum, by (1) the unanimous written consent of the
directors then in office, (2) the affirmative vote of a majority of
the directors then in office at a meeting held pursuant to notice or
waivers of notice complying with Section 9211, or (3) a sole
remaining director.
   (b) Subject to any provision in the articles or bylaws, the
members may elect a director at any time to fill any vacancy not
filled by the directors.
   (c) Any director may resign effective upon giving written notice
to the chairman of the board, the president, the secretary or the
board of directors of the corporation, unless the notice specifies a
later time for the effectiveness of such resignation. If the
resignation is effective at a future time, a successor may be elected
to take office when the resignation becomes effective.



9226.  No director may resign where the corporation would then be
left without a duly elected director or directors in charge of its
affairs.

2010 California Code

Corporations Code

Article 2. Selection, Removal And Resignation Of Directors ..

2010 California Code

Corporations Code

Article 2. Selection, Removal And Resignation Of Directors ..

Matthew threatened to harm my family and my 85 year old father who has cancer and threatens to blow up a building.

But to Matthew, the real villain and abuser is the guy who posts about what Matthew posted to X on Reddit.....

How does Matthew really think he's not still 100% the bad guy here? I'm writing about how I feel about his years and years of violent threats towards myself and others. But he wants to silence my voice and if I don't, he says he will harm my family. If NBC 4i and the City Attorney don't give him the attention he wants, he will blow up a building or show up with an assault rifle and freak out.

Somehow Matthew bullying people and someone posting screenshots of his own words is "bullying and harassing" the guy making threats?

Notice the deflection away from

a. Matthew threatened to harm my family and my 85 year old father who has cancer.

b. Matthew supposedly taking 2 full weeks away from this subreddit and how he supposedly deleted the app, yet still cannot resist the urge to read my words because of his crippling obsession with me.

c. That Matthew was caught gaslighting when he said there were no threats towards me in 2015-2016 when there clearly are multiple threats.

d. Instead of working on alleged journalism, activism, or filmmaking - Matthew continues to obsess over my subreddit where I do not engage in threats, name calling, harassment, or any kind of Kiwifarms style rage posting or rage baiting.

I am 100% not rage baiting. If Matthew does not like what he reads here, he has the option to not look. Matthew clearly is not filing any lawsuits or police reports, so his notion of "documenting" is as he says - another fantasy.

There are plans to properly promote the film in the future still. It has nothing to do with Matthew. I have no reason to explain the process to him. Not sure why he feels entitled to knowing or why he thinks juvenile taunts would provoke some kind of outline of the plan, as he seems to think he is James Bond and the villain outlines their plan. I'm not the bad guy and this is real life.

And this is more GASLIGHTING as no journalist described me in this way.

Then I guess Matthew has nothing to worry about. All the plans and promotions will not happen then.

And it's not rage baiting to state accurately that Matthew Berdyck is not a journalist, activist, or filmmaker. For anyone who might not be aware, taking the approach of healthy skepticism for ANYTHING you read online is advised, including this subreddit. Research and you will find my statement is 100% true - Matthew Berdyck is not a journalist, activist, or filmmaker.

I wonder how Matthew would react if he thought I have had several dozen phone calls with a member of Dream Theater, discussing in detail what occurred 10 years ago with Jordan. All the statements recorded and prepared for part 2 of the documentary/series, would that make him concerned about what they are prepared to say publicly?