I Reported My Children’s Stalker to Federal Authorities. Nine Days Later, His Attorney Filed a Show Cause Against Me

The Case Record

The Sequence Philip Ellison Does Not Want This Court to See

I want to be precise about the timeline, because precision is what makes it devastating.

On November 3, 2025, Philip L. Ellison filed this lawsuit against me. He filed it while I was protected by the federal automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362. That stay was not ambiguous, not disputed, not something a licensed attorney could plausibly claim ignorance of. Filing a civil lawsuit against a bankruptcy debtor in violation of the automatic stay does not produce a voidable case. It produces a void one. Void ab initio. Null from the moment of signing. Ellison filed it anyway.

Fifteen days later, on November 18, 2025, I received written confirmation from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. CyberTip No. 222110727 — my report of Kevin Lindke’s online conduct targeting my minor children — had been received, processed, and transmitted to the Michigan Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force. The confirmation came from Gabriel L., Analyst 1, CyberTipline, NCMEC. It is in writing. It has a tip number. It has a name attached. It is not an allegation. It is a federal agency communication.

Nine days after that confirmation — on November 27, 2025 — Philip L. Ellison filed a show cause motion against me.

I am not suggesting the timing is suspicious. I am saying the timing is documented and the court is entitled to understand it in full. A show cause motion filed nine days after a mother reports her children’s stalker to federal authorities, by the stalker’s attorney, is not a legitimate legal instrument. It is retaliation. Timed and documented.

What Philip Ellison Did When a Mother Told Him His Client Was Targeting Her Child

In early September 2025, after Kevin Lindke registered internet domains in my minor daughter’s name, I sent a cease and desist letter directly to Philip L. Ellison. It specifically cited his client’s targeting of my minor child online. I was not subtle. I named the conduct. I identified the child. I asked him to make it stop.

Ellison’s response was to claim he represented Lindke only in the federal cases. And then he forwarded my letter to Kevin Lindke as a “courtesy.”

Not to counsel his client to stop. Not to express any concern for the child being targeted. Not to document that he had received notice and taken steps. To share it with the man targeting the child, so that man could use it however he chose. Lindke chose to mock me publicly to his followers. Which he did.

I want to be clear about what forwarding that letter means. It means Ellison received written notice that his client was targeting a minor child. It means he made a deliberate choice about what to do with that notice. He chose to route it back to the person doing the targeting. That is not passive indifference. That is active facilitation. The distinction matters, and I have made it in the record.

What His Client Did to My Children

Philip Ellison wants to talk about paper terrorism. I want to talk about what is in the record.

Kevin Lindke — Ellison’s client — registered internet domains containing the full legal name of my minor daughter. There is no legitimate purpose for an unrelated adult to register a child’s name as a domain. Not commercial use. Not parody. Not criticism. Not anything. He did it as part of a retaliatory campaign and announced it publicly. I reported it to federal authorities. Ellison filed a lawsuit against me.

Lindke stole photographs of my children and posted them to his public platforms and to the Through My Eyes Facebook group, exposing my children’s images to his 21,000-member network without consent. He called me at 7:00 AM on a Saturday to tell me he would make me and my children homeless. He broadcast that threat to his audience, who celebrated it with laughing emojis. Members of his network filed false police reports against me designed to have me jailed, which would have left my children without their mother.

Then Ellison sent process servers to my home.

Starting the day after he filed a void lawsuit against me, process servers began appearing at my door after dark. Not once. Multiple times, over multiple days, beginning November 4. My children were inside. The visits happened at night. And every single one was broadcast to Kevin Lindke’s 21,000-member network as entertainment in real time. The man whose attorney forwarded my child-protection letter back to him was now watching, in public, as my children’s home was approached after dark, night after night, by people sent there by that same attorney.

I want to be precise about what this is. Ellison had filed a void case — legally null from the moment he signed it. The process servers were serving process in a proceeding that had no legal existence. My children were frightened in their own home by repeated nighttime visits conducted in service of nothing, broadcast to tens of thousands of strangers for entertainment.

After the visits, I went to traditional media. I am a journalist. I had been harassed, my children had been targeted, my home had been approached after dark repeatedly, and each visit had been turned into content for a harassment network. I spoke to the press about it. That is not a remarkable choice. That is what a journalist who is also a target of a documented harassment campaign does.

Ellison’s response was to file a motion for sanctions against me. The specific basis cited in that motion: that I had complained publicly about the harassment scheme. He sent people to bang on my door after dark while my children were home. He had his client broadcast each visit to 21,000 followers. And when I spoke to the press about what was being done to me and my children, he filed a motion for sanctions for talking about it. That motion is in the record. So is everything it was filed in response to. The court has both.

And then, on April 30, 2026, while sitting in St. Clair County jail serving 105 days for contempt committed twice during his own arraignment on PPO violation charges, Kevin Lindke violated the Personal Protection Order I hold against him. From jail. My children know this. They live with this knowledge.

On Being Called a Paper Terrorist

The term has a meaning. A paper terrorist files baseless legal documents to burden, intimidate, and exhaust an opponent who has done nothing wrong. The term describes someone who uses legal process as a weapon against a party with no legitimate claim against them.

Applied to this record, it describes the wrong party.

I have filed: a motion to dismiss based on a void filing in violation of the federal automatic bankruptcy stay; documentation that Ellison’s witness does not exist in any verifiable public record; documentation that Ellison made a sworn misrepresentation to this court about the status of an Attorney Grievance Commission complaint; documentation that Ellison filed perjured PPO materials into federal proceedings without verification; forensic proof that Ellison’s verified IP address has been systematically monitoring my journalism website; an NCMEC CyberTip confirmation establishing that I reported my children’s online targeting to federal authorities; and documentation that Ellison forwarded my child-protection complaint to the man targeting my child.

Every one of those filings is supported by documentary evidence. Every one identifies conduct that, if credited, constitutes serious professional, ethical, and potentially criminal violations by a licensed Michigan attorney.

Defendant is not a paper terrorist. She is a mother who reported her children’s stalker to federal authorities and was sued by his attorney fifteen days later. She is a journalist who covered a public official and is being litigated into silence by that official’s lawyer. She is asking this court to see both of those things clearly.

The record makes it possible. The record always makes it possible, if someone is willing to read it.

What Unclean Hands Means Here

Philip Ellison is a plaintiff. He is asking a court for relief. The equitable doctrine of unclean hands holds that a party seeking relief from a court must not have engaged in inequitable conduct related to the matter before it. The doctrine is not about whether the plaintiff has ever done anything wrong in their life. It is about whether the conduct that brings them to court, and the conduct surrounding that dispute, reflects the kind of good faith that entitles a party to equitable relief.

Ellison was notified that his client was targeting a minor child. He forwarded the notification to the client. He filed a void lawsuit against the child’s mother. He sent process servers to her home after dark, repeatedly, beginning the day after filing, while her children were inside, with each visit broadcast to his client’s 21,000-member audience as entertainment. When she went to the press to discuss the harassment, he filed a motion for sanctions for talking about it. He filed a show cause against her nine days after she reported his client to federal child protection authorities. He surveilled her journalism from his law office. He supported his case with a witness who does not appear to exist. He misrepresented a disciplinary investigation to this court.

That is the conduct of a plaintiff seeking equitable relief. The doctrine exists for exactly this situation. I have raised it in the record. The court will decide what to do with it.