This article concerns active litigation in which I am a named defendant: Outside Legal Counsel PLC and Philip L. Ellison v. Rita Williams, Case No. 25-002441-CZ, Saginaw County Circuit Court. The Supplemental Notice described herein was filed by me, pro per, on May 13, 2026, and is part of the public court record. All factual claims are sourced to filed documents, confirmed federal agency communications, and timestamped records. I am the journalist. I am also the party. Both are true, and you are entitled to know it.
On November 3, 2025, Philip L. Ellison filed a lawsuit against me in Saginaw County Circuit Court — void from the moment he signed it, because it violated the federal automatic stay then in effect. The day after filing, he sent process servers to my home after dark, repeatedly, while my children were inside, with his client broadcasting each visit to 21,000 followers as entertainment. On November 18, I received written confirmation from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children that my CyberTipline report — concerning his client Kevin Lindke’s online targeting of my minor children — had been transmitted to the Michigan Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force. Nine days later, Ellison filed a show cause against me. On Mother’s Day, May 10, 2026, I spoke to traditional media about the documented harassment of my children. Three days later, on the evening of May 13, Ellison filed a Court of Appeals sanctions motion. I responded by providing the appellate court with the full context, including the Michigan ICAC report. That sequence is not coincidental. It is documented. It is now in the record at the circuit court and appellate level, and I am publishing it here.
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 a party protected by a 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 party protected by a federal 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 reported his client to federal child protection authorities. Nine days later, his attorney filed a show cause against me. That is the sequence. It is timestamped. It is in the record. It will remain in the record.
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.
A licensed Michigan attorney was notified in writing that his client was targeting a minor child’s name for domain registration as part of a harassment campaign. His response was to forward that notification to the client. He then filed a lawsuit against the child’s mother fifteen days after she reported the conduct to federal authorities, and a show cause against her nine days after federal authorities confirmed they had transmitted her report to law enforcement. Michigan Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4 governs conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, and conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. The conduct is documented. The rule exists.
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.
File a void lawsuit. Send process servers after dark, repeatedly. Have the client broadcast each visit to his network. When the target goes to the press, file sanctions for talking about it. This is not aggressive lawyering. This is a documented pattern of using legal process and legal-adjacent conduct to terrorize a woman and her children into silence. The word for that is in his own motion. He used it about me. The record disagrees with his application of it.
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.
Ellison has been a documented member of Lindke’s network since July 6, 2020. He received my cease and desist in September 2025 identifying the minor child targeting. He received my October 2025 message telling him the abuse needed to stop. He had notice. At every point, he escalated. He filed the void lawsuit. He sent process servers to my home after dark with my children inside, starting the next day, while his client broadcast each visit to 21,000 people. He filed a motion for sanctions when I went to the press about it. He filed the show cause. He did not intervene once.
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 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.
I filed evidence-backed documents identifying documented conduct. Ellison filed a lawsuit against a party protected by a federal automatic stay, supported it with a witness who does not exist in any verifiable public record, misrepresented an open disciplinary investigation as closed to this court, filed his client’s perjured PPO petition into federal cases without verifying a single claim, forwarded a mother’s child-protection complaint to the man targeting her child, sent process servers to that mother’s home after dark over multiple nights while her children were inside, had his client broadcast each visit to 21,000 followers as entertainment, filed a circuit court sanctions motion when she spoke to the press about it, filed a show cause against her nine days after she reported his client to federal child protection authorities, and filed a Court of Appeals sanctions motion three days after she spoke to traditional media on Mother’s Day about the harassment of her children.
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.
Mother’s Day. Then a Court of Appeals Sanctions Motion.
On Mother’s Day — Sunday, May 10, 2026 — I spoke to traditional media about the harassment campaign that has been directed at me and my children. I described what is documented in this record: the domain registrations in my daughter’s name, the stolen photographs, the after-dark process server visits, the broadcast of those visits to 21,000 followers, the forwarded cease and desist, the void lawsuit, the November show cause filed nine days after I reported Lindke to federal child protection authorities.
I spoke about it on Mother’s Day because I am a mother, and because what has been done to my children is documented, and because journalists report documented things. There is no version of that choice that constitutes sanctionable conduct.
On the evening of May 13, 2026, Philip L. Ellison filed a Court of Appeals sanctions motion in connection with the Saginaw case.
The pattern is now documented twice. In November, I reported his client to federal child protection authorities and he filed a show cause nine days later. In May, I spoke to traditional media on Mother’s Day about the harassment of my children and he filed a Court of Appeals sanctions motion three days later. The forum escalated from the circuit court to the appellate level. The mechanism shifted from show cause to sanctions. The trigger in both instances was the same: I spoke about what was being done to my family, and he filed something.
My response to the Court of Appeals sanctions motion was to provide the appellate court with the full context of this record — including the Michigan Internet Crimes Against Children report, the law enforcement transmission of CyberTip No. 222110727. The Court of Appeals now has the complete picture: the NCMEC confirmation, the ICAC report, the documented harassment of my children, the forwarded cease and desist, the void lawsuit, the after-dark process server visits, the November show cause, and the Mother’s Day sanctions motion.
Every time Ellison escalates, he produces more record. He does not appear to have considered that the record accumulates, that courts read it in sequence, and that the sequence tells a story he does not control.
Philip L. Ellison has now filed sanctions motions in response to two separate instances of me speaking publicly about documented harassment of my children — once at the circuit court level in November, once at the Court of Appeals level in May, three days after Mother’s Day. Both are in the record. The Michigan ICAC report is now before the appellate court. Whatever Ellison hoped a sanctions motion would accomplish, what it has produced is a more complete record at a higher level of the court system.
Today, the Michigan Court of Appeals accepted my supplemental filing. The screenshots, the domain registration analysis report connecting Lindke and Ellison, and the NCMEC CyberTipline report are now part of the official appellate record. Ellison filed a Court of Appeals sanctions motion in response to a Mother’s Day press appearance about the harassment of my children. The appellate court’s response was to accept the full evidentiary package documenting why that appearance was warranted. Every escalation has produced more record. The record is now before the Court of Appeals, accepted, complete, and permanent.
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 circuit court sanctions motion for talking about it. He filed a show cause against her nine days after she reported his client to federal child protection authorities. On Mother’s Day, she spoke to traditional media about the harassment of her children. Three days later, he filed a Court of Appeals sanctions motion. She responded by providing the appellate court with the Michigan ICAC report and the full context of this record. 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.
Sources
Rita Williams, I Reported My Children’s Stalker to Federal Authorities. Nine Days Later, His Attorney Filed a Show Cause Against Me., Clutch Justice (May 13, 2026), https://clutchjustice.com/ncmec-report-ellison-show-cause/.
Williams, R. (2026, May 13). I reported my children’s stalker to federal authorities. Nine days later, his attorney filed a show cause against me. Clutch Justice. https://clutchjustice.com/ncmec-report-ellison-show-cause/
Williams, Rita. “I Reported My Children’s Stalker to Federal Authorities. Nine Days Later, His Attorney Filed a Show Cause Against Me.” Clutch Justice, 13 May 2026, clutchjustice.com/ncmec-report-ellison-show-cause/.
Williams, Rita. “I Reported My Children’s Stalker to Federal Authorities. Nine Days Later, His Attorney Filed a Show Cause Against Me.” Clutch Justice, May 13, 2026. https://clutchjustice.com/ncmec-report-ellison-show-cause/.
One More Thing
This behavior — the after-dark visits, the broadcasts to thousands of followers, the retaliatory filings every time a woman speaks publicly about what is being done to her and her children, the forwarded letters, the deliberate indifference when a mother begs you to make it stop — is so strikingly similar to what Kevin Lindke has done to the mother of his own child that I understand completely why he does not have custody.
I say that not as an accusation. I say it as someone who has now lived inside this pattern for years, who has documented it in federal court filings and NCMEC reports and forensic analyses and timestamped records, and who recognizes it for exactly what it is. It is traumatizing. It is horrific. And it does not stop on its own. It stops when courts see it clearly and act accordingly.
That is what I am asking for. That is what this record makes possible.
