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.

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 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.

What the Record Shows

Two separate admissions sit on two separate court records. 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 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.

The Chambers Discussion in Macomb County

The second admission is more consequential, and I preserved it on the Macomb County court record. In an informal chambers discussion, with multiple attorneys present, it was acknowledged that their clients were seeking Personal Protection Orders, at least in part, to build standing for a federal court challenge to Michigan’s PPO statute. In the same discussion, they noted that the St. Clair County PPO matters were winding down.

I did not take that as a coincidence, and I want to be clear about where the documented statement ends and my own reading begins. What was acknowledged is the intent to challenge Michigan’s PPO statute in federal court and the status of the St. Clair cases. What I concluded from hearing both in the same conversation is that new cases were needed elsewhere to keep that challenge alive, not that any new safety concern had emerged. That conclusion is mine. The admissions themselves are on the 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