Someone is desperate to keep the world from seeing the interview I conducted with Amelia Martinez, then 16, in December 2023.

Since that interview came out, Dr. Norma Jo Backs, who is the reunification therapist on this case, has been desperate to remove the interview, along with the undercover recordings Amelia made of two sessions.

Dr. Backs got YouTube to remove the recordings that I put on of the sessions, claiming copyright.

She tried something similar with Substack, claiming the photo I used of her was copyrighted. I received a note from Substack on May 9, 2024, stating in part.

This message is to notify you that the Support team at Substack has taken down your post at https://michaelvolpe.substack.com/publish/post/139680192, {that link led to Amelia Martinez’s article) pending the resolution of an allegation of copyright infringement.

Consistent with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), Substack removes allegedly infringing content when we receive a DMCA-compliant “takedown request.” On May 5 2024, Substack received a DMCA-compliant takedown request from Norma Backs alleging copyright infringement.

Substack removed the article temporarily before reinstating it. Backs is going through these machinations because the recordings and interview represent an existential threat to her career.

Not only was she outsmarted by a teenager, who secretly recorded sessions, which are now public, but her abusive behavior during the sessions was the worst kind of advertising. Here’s how Amelia previously described her.

Amelia told me that the quack doctor responded in a subsequent session and stated, “Coercion is a part of therapy.”

In the thirty-minute recorded session, Backs and Nathaniel double team Amelia and even read from the court order. Why? Amelia told me they were trying to coerce her into continuing these sessions. They told her that her mom would be in contempt if Amelia did not continue in sessions.

Recently, Dr. Backs reached out to Tina Swithin, of One Mom’s Battle, over the weekend to try and remove items her website released in stories about Dr. Backs and Amelia. Here’s part of the email Dr. Backs sent to Tina.

I am writing to formally notify you of a violation of my rights under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), 17 U.S.C. § 512, and to request the immediate removal of infringing content hosted on your platform.

Summary of the Violation:
This article unlawfully used copyrighted photographs of me without my permission. These images are not only my intellectual property but are an integral part of my professional identity and brand. They are used in my business, including national and local lectures, seminars, and related advertising.

Her correspondence also bad mouthed me, so Tina reached out for guidance.

After determining Dr. Backs’ request was frivolous, she issued this statement to me.

Norma Jo Backs is a family court professional from Texas who has been on my radar for several years. When I watched Michael Volpe’s coverage of a Texas family court case in which Backs was involved, I found that the case highlighted the concerns expressed by other parents over the years.

There is a very dark and nefarious industry that has been built around the pseudo theory of ‘parental alienation.” When we spotlight professionals who may be involved in this industry, they don’t like the spotlight. Backs sent a request asking that I remove a social media post where we featured her. I have no intention of complying with her request.

Though Dr. Backs couldn’t bully Tina, she has a new ally in her quest to make Amelia’s interview and secret recordings disappear- a new draconian court order.

The order, issued earlier this month, required Elizabeth Spruell, Amelia’s mom, to do many things, while asking nothing more of Nathaniel Martinez.

Elizabeth is required to get anything negative posted about Nathaniel off the internet, even if she did not post it.

This is not the first time that a family court judge has demanded that negative things about one parent be removed from the internet.

Kenton Girard was ordered to remove his two daughters’ Instagram videos. Richard Luthmann and I asked his daughters, Gwen and Grace, about this.

“We started calling out a lot of people in our case- lawyers and judges- and they didn’t really like that originally. They didn’t really like that. So, they threatened- originally- they threatened our parents and told them we had to stop posting.” Gwen Girard said.

They both said that they believed this violated their first amendment rights. Gwen and Grace said they refused to remove the videos and nothing more happened.

In 2021, a judge also ordered something similar in a case from Florida.

The Former Husband and his counsel, Leslie Ferderigos, esquire, upon entry of this Order, shall immediately serve a written request, copying the Wife’s counsel, to Michael Volpe and Kenneth Rosa and any other media outlet or third party, to remove any information related to this case, including, but not limited to, any information broadcasting the minor children’s names, their likeness or otherwise discusses or involves information related to the children or this case. This written request shall be issued immediately.

This order directed the litigant, Eric Satin, to ask me and others to remove an things about his child custody case, including an interview conducted by me and {my former friend} Megan Fox.

None of the posts were removed at the time however, {my former friend} Megan has since done the court a favor and removed that interview out of spite.

The order given to Elizabeth directs her to remove offending things from the internet, even though they appear on my YouTube channel, my Substack, and Tina’s website.

Elizabeth has no power to get those things removed. She only has the power to make a request, which she did.

My name is Elizabeth Spruell, and I am the mother and legal guardian of Amelia Martinez.

It is my understanding that you have conducted interviews with my daughter and that these interviews have been made publicly available on your website. Neither I nor Amelia’s other parent were informed of her participation in these interviews.

Please see below the pertinent part of court order from Harris County, Texas, mandating that I have this content removed.

Accordingly, I respectfully request the immediate removal of all videos, interviews, or any other materials featuring or referencing my minor children or their father from your website and any associated platforms.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

I didn’t get either parent’s permission, however the interview helped Amelia. Backs backed off, pardon the pun, after it came out, and she all but stopped having sessions with Amelia. The interview stays.

Backs, in her email to Tina, also made misleading statements about me. She first stated.

Additionally, attached is a court order (Order #3) which mandates the immediate removal of negative and defamatory online content related to me. Despite being served with this order, Mr. Volte (sic) has refused to comply, thereby committing a violation of a direct judicial order.

I was never served. I wouldn’t be served. I’m not a party to the case. The order asks me to do nothing. If it did, it would not be enforceable. A Texas family court judge has no power over me, Substack, or YouTube.

Dr. Backs continued.

The video in question attached my picture which was used by the National Family Law Trial Institute (for profit training) to introduce the Mental Health Experts involved as faculty members. The video specifically discussed reunification therapy methods, procedures and interventions which were chosen by me. The profession of psychology has not developed specific methods and procedures for use in reunification therapy and neither the profession of psychology nor the State of Texas has established specific criteria. Again the criteria that I employ and the methods and procedures that I utilize have been chosen, created by me and utilized by me and are under my copyright. Also in the video the child discussed HIPAA information (Protected Health Information). The federal HIPAA Privacy Rule protects all “individually identifiable health information” held or transmitted by a covered entity or its business associate, in any form or media, whether electronic, paper, or oral. The Privacy Rule calls this information “protected health information (PHI). “Individually identifiable health information” is information, including demographic data, that relates to the individual’s past, present or future physical or mental health or condition, the provision of health care to the individual, or the past, present, or future payment for the provision of health care to the individual, and that identifies the individual or for which there is a reasonable basis to believe can be used to identify the individual. The father discussed in this video did not give Michael Volte (sic) permission to release his PHI, I did not give Michael Volte (sic) permission to release my patient’s information, Michael Volte (sic) did not get written permission from either of the minor child’s parents to release her PHI.

In addition to all of the above provided information the family and the child signed a treatment contract which clearly states no recordings of the therapy sessions are permitted without formal written consent. Consent was not given. The information is also a part of an active court order which also governs and does not allow the release of protected mental health related information.

I don’t need anyone’s permission to interview Amelia about her experiences with her father, Dr. Backs, and the court system. The first amendment is all I need.

The court order also requires Elizabeth not to talk about when Nathanial had Amelia arrested within earshot of their youngest child.

Elizabeth Spruell shall ensure that {their youngest daughter} is not in the presence of or within the hearing of any conversation of any past involvement of the Martinez family and police, including the incident involving Amelia Martinez and Nathaniel Martinez which led to police involvement.

Fortunately, I already asked Amelia about this.

In the first part of the interview, she described how at thirteen her father confronted her while she showered, pulled her out of the bathroom, and forced her into a car wrapped only in a towel.

That incident escalated until police were called, her father lied she told me, and she was detained and thrown into juvenile hall.

In juvie, she was strip searched, thrown into a single cell, and kept isolated.

No wonder everyone is desperate to get this interview removed.