Seven Counts. Five Defendants. One Jury Demand. I Filed a Counterclaim.

Philip L. Ellison filed a lawsuit to silence me. I filed a counterclaim to put everything on the record. He immediately moved to strike it. That is when I knew it landed exactly where it needed to.

What I Filed and Why I Filed It

Philip L. Ellison filed a defamation lawsuit against me on November 3, 2025, the same morning I contacted the Attorney Grievance Commission. He filed it without ever having sent an initial cease and desist, in a proceeding he knew was in violation of a federal bankruptcy stay, against a journalist whose coverage he wanted to stop. He sought both monetary damages and a permanent injunction against my future speech.

I have been fighting that lawsuit for six months. I have filed motions, supplemental notices, emergency applications, and a UPEPA special motion under Michigan’s new anti-SLAPP statute. I have documented surveillance, a fabricated witness, false sworn statements, perjured PPO proceedings in three interconnected Macomb County cases, and a coordinated campaign against my employment, my probation, and my children. All of it is on the public record.

On May 13, 2026, I stopped fighting defensively and started counting.

The counterclaim is seven counts against five defendants, with a jury demand endorsed on the face of the filing. It incorporates six months of documented evidence into a single legal pleading and asks this court to let a jury decide what this campaign has cost me and my family.

The Seven Counts

Each count in the counterclaim is grounded in a specific documented pattern of conduct. Together they map the full architecture of what has been done to me and my children since July 2025.

The abuse of process count documents the improper purpose behind every major act in this litigation: the retaliatory filing timed to my AGC complaint, the void proceeding, the fabricated witness, the false AGC statement to this court, the motion to strike my PPO orders, the listing of PPO-restrained individuals as trial witnesses, and the permanent injunction sought against future speech rather than the retrospective damages remedy appropriate to a genuine defamation claim.

The civil conspiracy count connects all five counter-defendants to the coordinated campaign across seven venues and twelve months. The Through My Eyes Facebook group is at the center of that coordination. Ellison has been a documented member since July 6, 2020. The group published my private financial information four days before he filed a defamatory show cause in this lawsuit. The group celebrated the filing three days after.

The fraud on the court count names five specific acts: the fabricated witness Samantha Aljouny, whose existence I cannot verify in any public record anywhere; the false representation to this court that the AGC investigation against Ellison was closed, when it was open and assigned to a named investigator; three documented misrepresentations in his Court of Appeals opposition; the characterization of the December 15, 2025 stipulated order as voluntary while in possession of my sworn affidavit documenting its coercive circumstances; and the filing of this entire proceeding in a void forum without bankruptcy court authorization.

He Moved to Strike It. Here Is What That Tells You.

Within days of the counterclaim hitting the docket, Ellison filed a motion to strike it.

This is the third time he has tried to erase my filings from the Saginaw record. On March 26, 2026, he filed a motion to strike my Personal Protection Orders against Jamie Murray and Kevin Lindke from the Saginaw case file. On March 31, 2026, he filed a second motion to strike those same PPOs. Now he has filed a motion to strike the counterclaim itself.

I responded with an MRPC 3.7 motion. Michigan Rule of Professional Conduct 3.7 provides that a lawyer shall not act as an advocate in a proceeding in which the lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness. Ellison is a necessary witness in his own case. His September 10, 2025 forwarding of my cease and desist to his client is a documented act that he will have to explain under oath. His September 26, 2025 email claiming he was unable to find my content on Facebook, while his own profile appeared in my story viewer list as an active non-follower viewer, is a documented false statement he will have to explain under oath. His filing of this lawsuit the same morning I contacted the AGC, without ever having sent an initial demand, is a documented act he will have to explain under oath.

He cannot be both the plaintiff prosecuting this case and the witness to his own conduct within it. MRPC 3.7 does not permit it. That is what the motion establishes.

The Compensation Fraud Architecture

Count VII of the counterclaim is conspiracy to commit fraud. It is the count that explains why everything else happened.

Michigan’s Crime Victim Compensation program under MCL 18.351 et seq. provides financial assistance to innocent victims of violent crimes. The innocence requirement is statutory: MCL 18.354(4) provides that compensation shall be reduced or denied where the claimant contributed to the crime or was engaged in criminal activity. For any compensation claim to succeed, the claimant must be an innocent victim. Documentation that the claimant was simultaneously harassing, stalking, and filing perjured claims against the person they identified as their perpetrator would void the claim.

I am alleging, based on documented facts and the logical inferences from those facts, that the Murray and Lindke network filed fabricated PPO claims in Michigan courts for two purposes operating simultaneously: harassing and silencing me as the actual victim of their conduct, and manufacturing innocent victim status sufficient to support compensation claims that required my voice to be suppressed.

The relocation connection is part of this theory. Kevin Lindke’s fiancee filed a PPO against Dean Hines in Macomb County. Kinder and Lindke subsequently relocated to Oakland County. Michigan Crime Victim Compensation covers relocation costs for qualifying victims. If she filed a claim based on the Hines PPO proceedings, the relocation could have been funded through that claim. And a compensation-funded relocation produces a new address held in a confidential file rather than public records, which provides operational cover for a man with multiple active PPO orders, a history of contempt convictions, and significant law enforcement exposure across multiple jurisdictions.

Jamie Murray’s show cause hearings are part of this theory too. She filed two rounds of perjured show causes against me, both of which required her to appear in court as a victim. Both were defeated. The first was defeated at hearing on February 11, 2026, which produced the Personal Protection Order against her. The second was defeated by Meta’s DMCA copyright enforcement process, which confirmed the content she claimed I posted was posted by another party. She abandoned the proceedings once I started winning decisively.

And then there is the permanent injunction. Ellison sought both monetary damages and a permanent injunction against my future speech. Damages are retrospective: they compensate for past harm. A permanent injunction is prospective: it prevents future speech. Ellison knows, as a licensed Michigan attorney, that permanent injunctions against future speech are prior restraints disfavored under Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931). He sought one anyway.

Because damages would not protect the scheme. If I continued publishing after a damages judgment, the documentation of the network’s non-innocence would continue reaching compensation adjudicators. A lifetime gag order would protect the scheme permanently. The injunction was not a defamation remedy. It was the scheme’s most important protective mechanism.

Jamie Murray calling me a criminal in her court filings serves the same function. Michigan Crime Victim Compensation requires claimants to be innocent victims. Perpetrators cannot be victims by definition. If I am the criminal on the public record across multiple jurisdictions, the network are victims by definition, and their compensation claims are protected. The criminal narrative in her filings is not random hostility. It is a specific legal strategy designed to invert the victim-perpetrator relationship on the public record.

What This Campaign Has Cost My Children

The counterclaim documents $171,234.90 in consequential and litigation damages. That number is in the filing. It is broken down by category with a stated basis for each figure. It is now on the public record of Case No. 25-2441-CZ.

But the number I think about most is the therapy projection. Three people. Fifty-two sessions each. One hundred seventy-five dollars per session. Twelve months. Twenty-seven thousand three hundred dollars.

My children are having trouble focusing. They are withdrawn. They are traumatized by people coming to the door. Kevin Lindke threatened to kill their mother and leave them parentless. A domain name containing my daughter’s full legal name was registered as part of this campaign. My children know both of those things happened. I have been stressed and on edge for six months of active legal siege, and that stress does not stay with me. It lives in the household. It lives in them.

They are children. They had no part in any of this. They deserved none of it. And the people who caused it are now counter-defendants in a civil action with a jury demand, facing a record that a new judge in Saginaw County will read for the first time without any prior investment in the proceedings that produced it.

That is not nothing. That is exactly what the court system is supposed to do when the record is built correctly and completely. I built it. It is there. Now we let the process run.

What Comes Next

Judge Borrello recused himself on May 12, 2026. A successor judge will be assigned through normal Tenth Circuit procedures. That judge will inherit the full case file: the UPEPA special motion that was never ruled on, the pending motions adjourned from May 15, the counterclaim now on the docket, and a trial date of July 28, 2026 subject to reassignment.

A new judge reading this record for the first time will see it without the defensive interest that comes from having signed prior orders. They will see the void proceeding argument that was never addressed. They will see the fabricated witness that produced only an unsworn denial. They will see the AGC misrepresentation. They will see the surveillance sequence. They will see the counterclaim with seven counts and a jury demand. And they will see Ellison’s motion to strike that counterclaim, which is itself evidence of consciousness that the filing lands.

The counter-defendants have twenty-one days to respond to the counterclaim after proper service. Ellison’s clock is already running. The motion for alternate service on Lindke, Jamie Murray, and Steven Murray is pending before the court. When it is granted, their clocks start too.

June 8, 2026: Jamie Murray faces two contempt hearings in Macomb County for violating my PPO against her. July 2, 2026: final settlement conference. July 16, 2026: final pretrial conference. July 28, 2026: trial.

I did not file a counterclaim because I think this system is fair or efficient or designed to protect people like me. I filed it because the record I built over six months is strong enough to put in front of a jury, and I intend to do exactly that.

Philip L. Ellison sued me to silence me. The counterclaim is the answer to that lawsuit. Seven counts. Six defendants. One jury demand. All of it on the public record.