Abusive Litigation Is Still Abuse: Why I’m Asking the Public to Watch This Macomb County Case

A manufactured Facebook violation, an attorney’s admission on the record, and an open call for court watchers in Macomb County.

What Happened This Week

On August 21, I posted a call for help to my personal Facebook page. The short version is that it is officially go time.

I think it is absurd—and deeply traumatic—that the judge is pushing this hearing forward under these circumstances. In this case, it seems to me that the court is allowing bad behavior to continue, even though these individuals have pursued multiple cases that I believe were intended to harass, intimidate, and harm my family and me. The practical effect is that I am being forced to continue dealing with the very people who traumatized my children and me and who, from what I witnessed, seemed to take pride in doing so. These are also people who, in my experience, have taken pride in causing me financial harm, including by contacting my employers and harassing them. I also believe they specifically targeted people who did not have unlimited financial resources, making the cost and burden of defending against repeated legal proceedings part of the harm. Being required to face them again through another court proceeding does not separate the legal process from that trauma; it extends it.

At least since 2023, I believe this family has been using proceedings in Macomb County as a means to terrorize and harass. Someone needs to put a stop to it, and the best way to begin is to make sure there are independent witnesses in the courtroom who can see, hear, and accurately document what happens.

So why keep this hearing going? What legitimate benefit remains that outweighs the continued harm? From where I stand, the most obvious effects are to preserve plausible deniability and provide one more opportunity—one more swipe, one more shot—to generate material for the federal lawsuit. But continuing also creates a risk for the people pursuing it: that the proceeding will expose what I believe has been a sham from the beginning. If the evidence shows that allegations or filings were manufactured, it could subject those responsible to scrutiny for contempt or other sanctions. That determination belongs to the court, not to me, but the risk is part of the picture. I cannot prove that generating federal-court material is the purpose of continuing the hearing, but after watching PPO proceedings repeatedly become federal-court fodder, I believe the question has to be asked openly.

On Monday, August 24, at 1:30 p.m., I am asking anyone who is free that afternoon and will be in the Macomb area to join me at Macomb County Circuit Court as a court watcher and, where applicable, as a witness. I am asking especially for people who personally witnessed the stalking directed at my children and me over the past year, and a number of people have already committed. I can use more.

I am also asking for something more specific than a body in the gallery: written statements from anyone willing to submit them for the Attorney Grievance Commission investigation connected to this matter. That investigation is still active.

A Year of Documented Harassment

It is not new for readers of this site that my children and I have spent roughly a year fighting off a coordinated harassment campaign. Over that year I have documented death threats, the publication of my children’s photographs, and fabricated and disturbing claims about my children posted publicly online. I filed a report with the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children. Internet domains were purchased using my oldest child’s name. Despite all of that, the people responsible have continued to pursue me through litigation rather than stop.

I also strongly suspect that, unfortunately, my family and I were used as a testing ground for a particular method of harassment: target someone who has children, attack or threaten the family, and rely on the parent’s protective instincts to make that person more likely to seek a PPO. The resulting order can then be challenged, violated, or repurposed as material for additional litigation. That concern is heightened by what appears to be a recurring pattern in this attorney’s cases: the same defendants, witnesses, and locales are repeatedly reused in different configurations across separate proceedings. A person or event that appears in one case can later return as a witness, defendant, factual premise, exhibit, or claimed example in another. That repetition does not, standing alone, establish an improper purpose, but it makes the relationships among the cases—and whether one proceeding is being used to generate material for the next—an appropriate subject for close scrutiny.

That suspicion may be capable of proof through the broader litigation record. In a separate 2023 case, a person was accused of threatening a public official and the official’s family. Materials from that dispute were later pulled into federal cases advanced by the same opposing attorney. I am not claiming here that the underlying threat accusation was adjudicated as true. I am pointing to the repeated structure: alleged attacks involving a person’s family lead to protective proceedings, and those proceedings are then carried into federal constitutional litigation. My experience may therefore be one instance of a larger, documented pattern rather than an isolated event.

I am not naming the individuals involved in this piece. Readers who have followed Clutch Justice’s earlier coverage of multi-forum legal harassment will recognize the shape of this pattern. This is not a new dispute. It is the same one, continuing.

The Quiet Month, Then a Manufactured Violation

Things were quiet for about a month. Then a new Personal Protection Order violation was filed against me, based on a Facebook post I did not make, on a Facebook account I have never owned and would never associate myself with.

I want to be precise about what I know and what I suspect, because that distinction matters and I am not interested in blurring it even when it would be easier to. I strongly suspect that the one single post was created specifically to manufacture false leverage against me, to generate a violation where none exists, and to use me as raw material for ongoing litigation. I do not have confirmation of who created it or who posted it. What I have is a pattern, a year of prior conduct, and a violation allegation built on a single post from an account with no connection to me that I can verify.

The State-to-Federal Pipeline Is Already Documented

This is no longer a hypothetical concern about what someone might do with material generated in Macomb County. The pipeline already exists. An opposing party filed the Macomb show-cause matter. On April 6, the opposing attorney then used the Macomb motion to show cause and the resulting order as Exhibits D and E in a federal emergency motion. On July 15, he again used my PPO proceedings in federal court as an example of what he characterized as recurring PPO restraints, while materials from another case involving the same family were also attached.

That establishes at least one fact: the opposing attorney has already taken Macomb County PPO material involving me and turned it into federal evidence. He has done it despite my repeated insistence that I want no part in serving as the raw material for his federal constitutional litigation.

That sequence is a state ? federal ? state ? federal feedback loop. The March 17 terminations, March 19 federal motion, March 27 Macomb accusation, and April 6 federal filing occurred within roughly three weeks. The June 8 sequence then showed how quickly the state proceeding could be revived after a piece of the federal litigation became moot.

The Financial Incentive Has to Be Examined

There is also a potential financial incentive that deserves scrutiny. A July 2026 Michigan fiscal report identifies $15,000 in state-paid attorney fees for defending what it describes as the combined challenge to Michigan’s non-domestic PPO law. The plaintiffs in both of the federal PPO challenges referenced by that entry were represented by the same opposing attorney involved here. The $15,000 was the state’s defense expenditure; it was not a fee award to that attorney. But the entry confirms that these coordinated constitutional challenges impose measurable public legal costs.

The better-known social-media case handled by the same attorney does not yet answer how lucrative the model may be. That case remained ongoing in July 2026, and I found no public attorney-fee petition or award for the plaintiff. The only quantified docket amount I located was $1,031.37 in costs taxed against the plaintiff after the original 2021 judgment, which was later vacated. If the plaintiff ultimately prevails in that civil-rights case, counsel could seek statutory attorney fees for compensable work; the court would then decide the reasonable amount.

So the present record does not establish how much the opposing attorney has earned from these cases. It does establish why the question matters. When one attorney advances multiple related constitutional cases, each new PPO, hearing, transcript, and ruling may add factual material, precedent, leverage, or potentially compensable work. Even if no single case is immediately profitable, a portfolio of overlapping cases could create a significant financial incentive. That is an inference to investigate through fee agreements, billing records, fee petitions, awards, settlements, and public defense invoices—not a conclusion the currently available numbers prove.

If the Federal Theory Is Truly Procedural, Why Is Monday Necessary?

The stated federal theory is procedural: even if my factual allegations were true, the ex parte PPO process itself would still be unconstitutional. If that is genuinely the issue, Monday’s contempt hearing is not necessary to resolve the federal constitutional claim. That leaves an obvious question: what could Monday produce that the opposing attorney does not already have?

The strongest possibility, in my view, is a new merits record that can be used against me. A finding adverse to me would not legally establish that my underlying PPO allegations were false, and it would not prove every other characterization the attorney has made about me. But it could be used rhetorically to attack my credibility and reframe the broader dispute in federal court.

I therefore do not accept the claim that there is simply nothing the opposing attorney can do about Monday. The record shows that he knows how to request and coordinate adjournments, stipulate to scheduling changes, withdraw his client’s requests, communicate with court staff, and present proposed orders. He has done so before. My conclusion is that he does not want this hearing stopped because it offers another opportunity to generate material, manipulate the record, and carry the result into federal court.

Where They Stand to Lose

If the March 13 allegation fails, that alone does not establish that anyone deliberately lied. But if reliable evidence shows that the account was falsely attributed to me, evidence was manufactured, or a person knowingly made a material false statement, the consequences could extend well beyond dismissal of this contempt accusation.

The distinction matters: “they did not prove a violation” is not the same finding as “they knowingly fabricated a violation.” The second finding carries far greater consequences. That is why the ownership and authentication of the Facebook account, the source of the documents, filing metadata, timestamps, sworn contradictions, and explicit factual findings are so important.

A Prior Pattern of Unauthorized Use of My Identity

The attempt by this individual and his mother to attribute the disputed Facebook account to me must also be considered against the longer chronology I have documented. I sent him a cease-and-desist notice in April 2024. In May 2024, he emailed me with threats while accusing me of creating fake accounts. Then, in early 2025, he used photographs taken from me on his own Facebook accounts. Around February 27, 2025, he created an account using my photograph, and I had to pursue a Facebook copyright complaint to have my image removed. By July 2025, according to the posts and communications I preserved, he had resumed harassing my children and me and making statements that I understood as threats against our lives.

The account he and his mother are now attempting to attribute to me was created in January 2025, shortly before the account that used my stolen photograph. I did not own or operate the disputed account, give its operator my documents, or authorize anyone to publish them.

These individuals maintain or use multiple Facebook accounts. In the material I have preserved, purportedly independent or “fake” accounts repeatedly circle back to the same people through shared content, recurring account connections, and, in some instances, matching image hashes. Those digital links should be examined alongside the dates, source files, upload history, and platform metadata; they are materially more probative than an unsupported assertion that an account belonged to me.

The timing, those recurring digital connections, and his prior unauthorized use of my photograph raise a serious question about whether the disputed account was another attempt to impersonate me or manufacture material that could later be falsely attributed to me. At minimum, this history makes their attribution unreliable without independent verification. Platform records identifying the account creator, operators, login history, devices, upload data, and source of the posted documents would be substantially more probative than speculation based on material someone else could have copied, obtained, or posted.

Why Evidence of Coordinated Involvement Matters

I have evidence connecting this individual, his girlfriend, and his mother to the accounts, posts, communications, and events at issue. The legal and evidentiary significance is not merely that three people associated with one another share a negative opinion of me. The significant question is whether the evidence shows that particular people created or operated accounts, supplied images or documents, coordinated publication, repeated claims they knew were unsupported, or presented the resulting material in court as if I had created it.

If one person created or controlled an account, another supplied its material, and another knowingly presented the resulting post to a court as mine, that would establish a potential chain of manufacture, publication, and litigation use. It would be materially different from three unrelated incidents. Communications, shared source files, matching hashes, synchronized activity, identical language or errors, account access, and advance knowledge may provide circumstantial evidence of coordination. Their family or romantic relationships alone prove nothing; what matters is what each person knew, received, transmitted, created, filed, or directed another person to do.

The evidence should therefore be evaluated act by act and person by person: who created or accessed each account, who first possessed each photograph or document, who transmitted it, who published it, who knew about it before publication, and who later represented its origin to a court. The strongest evidence would include original files, exact URLs and timestamps, communications, cryptographic and perceptual-hash results with their methodology preserved, and Meta’s registration, login, device, IP-address, recovery, and upload records.

The Repeating Elements Are Not New

The attorney connected to this matter was deeply involved in the earlier proceeding and therefore had actual knowledge of the conduct established there: alternate Facebook identities, coordinated posting through relatives and associates, directions about the content and presentation of posts, and the deliberate use of another profile to create distance from the person directing the activity. He also had actual knowledge by December 2025 that his own client had taken and used my photographs and had, in my view, apparently attempted to imitate or impersonate me online. That prior knowledge matters when evaluating both the later effort to attribute a disputed account to me and the reasonableness of relying on that attribution without first obtaining direct platform evidence.

The behavior at issue here has a strikingly familiar structure. In an earlier matter, an alternate Facebook identity was used to contact and post about a protected person, recycle that person’s photographs and older social-media material, and publish a court document containing the person’s home address. The account did not operate in isolation. Other people were involved in posting, and a relative claimed sole responsibility for the alternate profile.

But the surrounding evidence told a more complicated story. Recorded communications showed the restrained individual directing other people about what to publish, specifying the exact language and even the spacing of posts, and identifying which account should be used. Most significantly, another person was directed to keep posting through the alternate identity because doing so would help create the appearance that the restrained individual was not controlling it. The court treated those communications as circumstantial evidence of a recurring system in which a person could be responsible either by posting directly or by coordinating posts through others.

The similarities to what I am documenting are difficult to ignore: multiple Facebook identities; relatives and close associates positioned between the principal actor and the publication; stolen or recycled photographs; court material moved onto social media; denial of authorship; another person accepting responsibility; and the use of third-party posting to manufacture distance between the person directing the conduct and the account carrying it out. Here, there is also an effort to attribute an account to me despite my denial, my absence from Facebook at the relevant time, and the other side’s documented history of using my images across multiple accounts.

Another important principle has already been recognized in circumstances involving this same kind of conduct: authorship is not limited to the person whose fingers physically typed or uploaded a post. A person may be responsible for social-media contact when the evidence shows that the person directed, dictated, coordinated, or deliberately caused someone else to publish it. Identity and responsibility may be proved through the full circumstantial record—including writing style, access to private material, account relationships, communications, timing, repeated practices, and instructions given to intermediaries.

The distinction between speech and conduct also matters. Merely speaking about someone may sometimes be protected. Deliberately tagging that person, directing a post to them, sending others to contact them, exposing their address, or using speech as part of a continuing course of unwanted contact is different. A seemingly small electronic contact cannot always be evaluated in isolation when it is one part of years of repeated conduct that has caused continuing fear, disruption, and harm.

None of these similarities alone proves who controlled the disputed account in this matter. They do show why accepting a convenient claim of sole authorship without examining the surrounding coordination would be a serious mistake. The relevant question is not only, “Who pressed publish?” It is also: Who supplied the material? Who dictated or approved the language? Who selected the account? Who had advance knowledge? Who benefited from the post? Who later used it in court? And was the account structure itself designed to conceal the person directing the conduct?

What the Record Shows

Two separate admissions exist here. The first is documented directly in the Saginaw County court record. The second happened informally, in Saginaw County chambers, with no direct transcript of the conversation itself, so I preserved it, along with the fact that there were witnesses to it, in the Macomb County record instead. I am naming neither attorney and citing no docket numbers, for the reasons already stated, but I am not going to understate what is actually documented.

The last time I dealt with the person now accusing me, she appeared on the witness stand only briefly and then refused to return to continue her testimony. During that limited appearance, however, she stated on the record that she wanted a lifetime injunction preventing me from speaking about what happened to my children and me. That request matters. It places the present effort in the context of an expressly stated desire for permanent control over my ability to describe my own family’s experiences—not merely a request to stop prohibited contact.

At the February hearing involving that same person, my attorney said, “The Prosecutor understands what her client is. All you have to do is google them and you find out real fast.” My attorney also argued that I had ample reason to fear the person who had been stalking me, pointing specifically to multiple assault-and-battery charges in his record. Charges are not convictions, and I am not presenting them as such. Their relevance here is notice and context: my fear was not invented after the fact or based on a single ambiguous remark. Counsel placed the documented history before the court while explaining why the threats caused me to fear for my children’s lives and my own.

That makes the later minimization of death threats directed toward my children and me even more difficult to understand. The people handling these matters were told why the threats carried particular weight and why I reasonably experienced them as dangerous. Against that record, treating the threats as harmless rhetoric—or treating my efforts to obtain protection as the problem—requires ignoring the very context that had already been presented in court.

The Saginaw Admission

Documented in the Saginaw County court record, the attorney connected to this matter acknowledged that he was feeding information related to my case to his clients, and that information was then posted online in ways that targeted my children and me. The acknowledgment itself is part of the record.

He also admitted on the witness stand that, after I filed reports with police departments, he contacted those departments to “set the record straight.” He did this while PPOs were still in place. From my perspective, those interventions effectively followed behind my attempts to seek help and undid whatever space, credibility, or protection the active orders and my reporting might otherwise have created. Instead of being able to make a report and allow law enforcement to assess it independently, I was left knowing that the attorney aligned with the people I was reporting was contacting the same departments afterward to supply his own account. That admission is important to understanding why ordinary reporting—and even the existence of active protective orders—did not create a meaningful boundary or sense of safety for my children and me.

Why This Venue

Macomb County is not an obvious choice of forum for anyone connected to this matter, and I do not think that was an accident. I believe it was chosen for three reasons: to make it as difficult as possible for me personally to attend, to make the drive long enough that the people who support me would have a harder time showing up too, and to establish a public argument that the underlying issue is not confined to one county. In that framing, it is a statewide problem, not a local one.

Neither the attorney connected to this matter nor the person who filed the new violation lives in Macomb County, or appears to have any real connection to it. Macomb also requires in-person hearings for most proceedings like this one, which adds a second, separate barrier on top of the distance itself. I believe that requirement is another element the attorney can, and probably will, challenge if this case continues on unchecked.

I was right, at least on the third point, and I did not have to guess at it. Federal litigation connected to this matter has since made nearly the same argument in writing. In a filing dated July 15, 2026, counsel for the parties on the other side of this told a federal court that “the constitutional rule is systemic,” while noting that the specific relief being requested was case-specific. In the same filing, discussing how Michigan courts handle these orders, counsel wrote that the issue “is not understood by judges across the state.” The brief goes on to argue that the state’s PPO statute, the standard court form used statewide, and actual practice across Michigan courts all produce the same underlying problem.

A second federal filing connected to a related case, dated July 16, 2026, describes Michigan’s PPO process as a statewide executive enforcement system that converts an ex parte restriction into a criminally enforceable one, and characterizes what happened in another PPO matter as an all-too-common sequence exposing what counsel calls the same underlying defect.

I am not the one arguing this is a statewide constitutional problem. The people on the other side of this litigation are, in their own federal filings, in their own words. I am simply pointing out that the venue choice for Monday’s hearing tracks that argument closely, and that a public record of what happens in that courtroom will not stay contained to Macomb County if their theory succeeds.

The Chambers Discussion

The second admission is more consequential. It happened in an informal chambers discussion in Saginaw County, with multiple attorneys present, and there is no direct transcript of that conversation. I documented what was said, and the fact that there were witnesses to it, in the Macomb County record in order to preserve it. During that discussion, I said, “I know he’s pursuing PPOs to keep this federal case going, and I don’t want to be involved.” The attorney responded, “Well then stop giving them to him!”

I did not “give” my stalker PPOs. A Macomb County judge did not want me leaving the courthouse without some form of protection from the harassment being inflicted on my children and me. The attorney’s response treated court-ordered protection sought in response to that harassment as something I had supplied for another person’s litigation strategy, when he was the attorney using those orders to further that strategy. It did not make any sense to blame me for obtaining protection while he was using that protection to advance the federal litigation. Although the chambers conversation itself was not transcribed, I preserved my account of this direct exchange in the Macomb County record.

I want to be direct about this because it deserves to be said plainly. I wanted, and I still want, no association whatsoever with these federal proceedings. I never asked to be anyone’s test case. What disgusts me is not the legal strategy on its own. It is that harassment directed at my children and me was used to further a case.

In that same conversation, the attorney acknowledged that I had been right about the substance of what I had already said publicly about this litigation. What followed was not a correction. It appeared to be an effort to punish me for saying it plainly and in public, not for saying it inaccurately. I am stating that as what it appeared to be, not as an adjudicated fact, and I preserved the exchange on the record for exactly that reason.

A sworn statement that turns out to be false is not supposed to be cost-free. Perjury exposure exists precisely so the risk of lying under oath outweighs whatever the lie was meant to accomplish. Despite a documented record of contradictions across this matter, that calculation has not yet held. No referral has followed. No charge has followed. I am not asserting that any specific statement meets the legal elements of perjury under Michigan law; that determination belongs to a prosecutor, not to me. I am noting, for the record, that the exposure exists and so far it has not been enough to change anyone’s behavior.

Why Public Presence Changes What Happens in a Courtroom

Clutch Justice exists on the premise that process is power and that systems reveal themselves through repetition. Court watching is a small, unglamorous application of that same principle. A hearing conducted in an empty courtroom and a hearing conducted in front of a dozen note-taking observers are not procedurally different on paper. In practice, they often are. An accurate public record of what was said, by whom, and how a judge responded is harder to dispute later than a docket entry or a transcript alone, especially in a matter where the accuracy of prior filings is already in question.

That is the entire ask here. Not intimidation, not a show of force. Documentation. Notes, dates, and a record that exists independent of any single party’s account of what happened, including mine.

It matters more now than it did a month ago. If Personal Protection Orders are being sought to build a federal court challenge to the state’s own PPO statute rather than for the safety purpose they exist to serve, a public record of how those hearings actually unfold is not a courtesy. It is the thing that lets anyone outside this case, a judge, an oversight body, another court entirely, check the stated purpose of a proceeding against what is actually happening inside it.

Addressing the Obvious Question

I recognize how this looks from the outside. I am asking my own network, people who already know me and largely believe me, to show up and watch a hearing I am a party to. That is a fair thing to notice, so I will say plainly what I am and am not asking for. I am not asking anyone to speak on my behalf, to confront anyone in the courthouse, or to submit anything they did not personally witness. Anyone submitting a statement for the AGC investigation is submitting their own account, under their own name, of something they saw. A biased motive for showing up does not make an accurate contemporaneous note inaccurate. It is still a record that did not exist before, and it is still checkable against everything else in the file.

What I Want My Kids to Know