Tomorrow I Go Back to Court. Here’s What I Actually Want Answered.

Ahead of a hearing where I’m being blamed for content I never posted, while the man who targeted my minor child with a domain built around her identity, and who has an active protection order and pending charges against him, keeps posting in public without consequence.

Tomorrow I have to sit through another hearing because a Through My Eyes admin is blaming me for content I did not post and did not supply to anyone. Tomorrow I get to explain, for what feels like the millionth time, to a room full of people who have already decided they know the answer, that I do not know who operates random Facebook pages or how those pages ended up with images I never gave them. I have won two back to back Facebook DMCA takedowns on exactly this kind of content. Both were removed. Twice.

Here is the bright side. Tomorrow is not just another flimsy accusation aimed at me. It is a chance to finally force answers out of people who have spent months hiding behind anonymous accounts, third party posting, selective outrage, and legal process.

Through My Eyes is a Facebook group with roughly 25,000 members, built over the better part of a decade, and the admin blaming me for that content runs it. She is not a confused bystander. Running a group that size means understanding posting permissions, account access, anonymous publication, and exactly how material gets online while the person who actually supplied it stays hidden. Her attorney of record understands the same mechanics. And still, month after month, someone has tried to pin anonymous content on me without producing the basic records that would actually prove it.

While that was happening, someone with direct access to that group and a personal connection to the admin was allowed to target my fourteen year old daughter, and it went unaddressed on her own watch. I am not naming my daughter here, and I am not naming the person involved in that either, because a minor may be involved on that side of it too. But I am naming the pattern. Harassment of a child, excused by the adult running the platform where it happened.

Meanwhile Kevin Lindke, who has an active personal protection order requiring him to stay away from me, was using that same network. In September 2025, around the same time his own attorney was fielding my cease and desist letter, he posted publicly that we were now “playing” back and forth, and that it was his turn to spin the wheel. He tagged it #dadsdontquit. That is a man courts have already ordered to leave me alone, posting in public, while the letter demanding he stop was sitting in his own lawyer’s inbox.

His own retained counsel, Philip Ellison, received a cease and desist letter from me laying out exactly what needed to stop: contact with me or my children, direct or through proxies, any website or account targeting us, any attempt to obtain our personal information, images, or location. That letter noted that one of the domains involved was built around my minor daughter’s identity. I did not name that domain in the letter that is now part of the record, and I am not naming it here either. I asked for the domains surrendered, the evidence preserved, and written confirmation of compliance by a deadline. Ellison’s response was that he represents Lindke in certain federal civil rights matters, that he is not general counsel for this dispute, and that he forwarded my message to Lindke as a courtesy. He recommended I deal with Lindke directly.

Kevin has pending charges with the St. Clair County Prosecuting Attorney’s office tied to allegedly harassing conduct. His evidentiary hearing is on July 23.

Let me say plainly what I mean when I call this a double standard, because I do not want it buried in the middle of a paragraph. Tomorrow I am the one who has to sit in a courtroom and defend myself against content I did not write, did not post, and did not supply to anyone, on the word of people who have never produced a single account log to back it up. Kevin is the one who targeted a minor child. His own domain registration, the one described in my cease and desist letter, was built around my daughter’s identity. He is the one operating under an active personal protection order and pending criminal charges, and he is still posting publicly, still taunting, still timing his mail to the exact week I have to go back to court. I am the one being questioned under oath. He is the one who gets to keep talking.

A domain built around a child’s name is not an ambiguous gray area that needs a hearing to interpret. A public post threatening retaliation while a protection order is in place is not subtle. The fact that any of this still requires a cease and desist letter his own attorney would not stand behind, and a hearing where I am the one answering questions, tells you which of us the system currently finds easier to hold accountable. It is not him.

It does not stop with Facebook, either. Kevin is currently incarcerated at the St. Clair County Jail, and he has been allowed to send me mail directly from there, despite an active personal protection order and despite my own request to the court that anything from him go through the court with protective handling, specifically so I would not have to interact with him directly. That request was not honored. A man behind bars under a protection order still has a more direct line to me than the safeguard I actually asked for was supposed to allow.

Yesterday, I informed Ellison that his client had once again violated my protection order by sending mail to my home. His response was the same one he gave me in September: that he represents Lindke in certain federal civil rights matters, and that he is not general counsel for this dispute. Nearly a year apart, two separate documented violations, and the same sentence both times.

It goes further than mail and Facebook posts. In March, Lindke filed his own motion asking the court to terminate the protection order against him, claiming I had fabricated my allegations. That claim is false, and his filing offered absolutely nothing to support it beyond making the accusation. The same motion argued the order violates his First Amendment rights and pointed to a federal case, Lindke v. King, that Ellison’s firm had filed on his behalf in the Eastern District. In December, Ellison’s office put out a press release about that same lawsuit, arguing that Michigan’s use of protective orders amounts to unconstitutional prior restraint on speech. So while I am the one being asked tomorrow to explain content I never posted, Kevin and his attorney are in federal court arguing that the legal protection keeping him away from me should not exist at all.

There is a smaller detail in the case management side of this that says just as much. In the separate litigation Ellison has against me, his own witness list tried to include people who are subject to active protection orders, the Through My Eyes admin and Kevin Lindke among them, which would force exactly the kind of contact those orders exist to prevent. I flagged it in a formal notice to the court, because putting someone I have a protection order against on a witness list against me is not an oversight. It is a workaround.

None of that is speculation. It is a paper trail. A cease and desist letter. A lawyer’s reply admitting he forwarded it rather than resolved it. A public post from Lindke, made while that same protective order was active. Mail sent to me directly from jail despite a protection order and a standing request for protective handling that the court did not enforce. A federal lawsuit trying to invalidate the very framework protecting me. A witness list trying to put protection order restrained individuals in a room with me anyway. And two DMCA takedowns that prove exactly where the content people keep accusing me of did not come from: me.

Who controls the accounts. Who supplied the content. Who approved the posts. Who had posting access. Who knew my daughter was being targeted. Who preserved the records. Who investigated Kevin’s conduct before accusing me of someone else’s. And why was speculation treated as conclusive proof only when it was useful against me.

I am not interested in another round of theatrical accusations. I am interested in names, dates, devices, permissions, messages, account records, and sworn answers. They have spent a long time demanding I explain anonymous conduct I did not commit. Tomorrow, on the stand, they can explain their own network, their own posting practices, and what they knew when a fourteen year old girl was dragged into this.

There is a part of this I will probably never get a straight answer to: how many separate agencies touched some piece of this, across St. Clair County, Macomb County, Saginaw County, and whatever jurisdiction is standing behind that Facebook group, and looked at a documented pattern of harassment against a minor child without stopping it. I do not have a theory for why that happens, and I am not going to invent one just to have something to say. Whether it was overload, indifference, or just how slowly these systems move regardless of who is at risk, I don’t know. What I do know is that the harassment kept moving faster than any agency meant to stop it did.

I may never get that answer, and at this point I have stopped expecting one. What I am hoping for is smaller and more specific than an explanation. I am hoping tomorrow is where it actually stops.

I am getting to the bottom of it.