BCS Liability

The Lockout and the First Act of Liability

The first turning point came when Katie McNamara locked the original founders out of shared accounts. By doing so, she took control of property and materials that did not belong to her. This act created liability for theft and conversion, as it deprived the rightful owners of access to their work and data.

Shortly after the lockout, McNamara used that intellectual property to form Breaking Code Silence 501(c)(3). When she incorporated the organization using materials taken without consent, the liability for conversion followed her into the new entity. The nonprofit was born carrying the weight of those actions.

The Lawsuit and Shared Liability

After forming the nonprofit, the new BCS board: Katie McNamara, Jeremy Whiteley, William “Bill” Boyles, Jennifer Magill, and Vanessa Hughes, voted to file a lawsuit against the original BCS founders. McNamara personally financed the legal action, paying for the attorneys and donating approximately $100,000 to fund the effort.

That choice created collective liability. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, every party involved in filing a federal lawsuit certifies that the claims have factual and legal support. When a filing is made without evidence or for an improper purpose, all who sign or authorize it can face sanctions, damages, or exposure for malicious prosecution.

Because BCS’s claims lacked evidentiary foundation, each board member who voted to sue shared responsibility for the consequences. McNamara’s direct financial contribution deepened her exposure, as funding a frivolous case can be treated as financing harm.

The Disclosures and Shifting Agendas

As the case unfolded, evidence began to unravel the lawsuit’s foundation. On June 26, 2021, Jeremy Whiteley resigned from the BCS board. Nine days later, on July 5, 2021, Josh Scarpuzzi, the individual BCS had relied on as their claimed “first use” holder, disclosed to BCS’s own legal team that he did not have rights to the trademark.

Scarpuzzi’s admission meant that the lawsuit had been filed on a false narrative. His disclosure established that the action lacked valid IP ownership claims, and that BCS’s filings were based on manipulation and misinformation.

Whiteley’s timing suggested that he saw the warning signs. His close friendship with Scarpuzzi and his abrupt resignation shortly before the disclosure implied that he likely understood the case would not withstand scrutiny and wanted to distance himself before sanctions became likely. He later claimed sexual discrimination and harassment were the reasons for his resignation. 

Evidence on Record and the Collapse of the Case

In September 2021, Scarpuzzi’s declaration for the defense was filed confirming that BCS did not possess legitimate intellectual property rights. Defendant Jennifer Walker followed by filing discovery during the winter of 2021, documenting evidence to support dismissal.

This evidence showed that the lawsuit lacked both factual and legal foundation. Under federal procedure, this placed BCS and its board in direct violation of Rule 11. The filings established that the organization’s claims were unsupported and that continuing the lawsuit would only increase liability.

The Final Moves – Who Held the Bag?

By December 2021, the legal pressure was mounting. The defense had made its case, and the lawsuit’s flaws were undeniable. Katie McNamara and Bill Boyles both resigned from the BCS board that month, but resignation did not release them from accountability for actions already taken. As board members who voted to approve and fund the lawsuit, they remained responsible under federal standards for the consequences of that decision.

McNamara’s liability increased when she retained BCS 501(c)(3) intellectual property after leaving and allegedly gave it to a new board to form Unsilenced 501(c)(3). Because allegedly some property originated from the 2020 lockout and the 501(c)(3) organization itself, her continued use of it created additional exposure for conversion and use of stolen IP.

Civil law recognizes that liability for conversion follows the property itself. When McNamara allegedly used converted material to build a non-profit, both she and the new nonprofit inherited the legal risk attached to it. 

The Dismissal and Aftermath

On February 11, 2022, the federal court granted defendants motion to dismiss the complaint. BCS was given until March 4, 2022, to file a new complaint. On March 8, 2022, the court issued an order for BCS to show cause (evidence of the claim) or face case dismissal. The very next day, March 9, 2022, BCS voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit. The timing showed that the organization recognized it could not substantiate its claims and sought to end the matter before a ruling could formalize its misconduct.

Although the case was dismissed, the liability did not disappear. Each individual involved remained exposed to potential sanctions, repayment of fees, and reputational harm. The voluntary dismissal only halted further proceedings; it did not undo the damage caused by the frivolous filing.

Continuing Defamation and Ongoing Harm

Following the lawsuit, several individuals attempted to rewrite the narrative. Jeremy Whiteley created breakingcodesilencelawsuit.com, claiming there had been a “plot to sue” him and McNamara to cover legal expenses. He cited a Slack conversation dated March 20, 2022, between Bulis, Filer, Hughes, and Magill, discussing repayment of legal fees and BCS intellectual property, as his evidence; despite Bulis clearly stating no deal in the communication and ceasing further conversation.

That claim falls apart when examined against the timeline of events. The conversation took place after the lawsuit had already been voluntarily dismissed, meaning there was no case to “drop” in exchange for repayment. It cannot logically support Whiteley’s allegation of a conspiracy. The conversation was regarding remaining “BCS” IP, the fate of organized advocacy, and lawyer’s fees. On April 1, 2022, Bulis and Filer filed for attorney fees, further signifying no deal was reached. 

The other “plot to sue” citation of conversation that occurred with Bulis and BCS was in February. February 2022, BCS contacted Bulis and Filer claiming that the organization’s intellectual property had been taken during a board split. Bulis responded that if theft had occurred, it needed to be reported to law enforcement, as she had done. This was not a plot to sue but an act of due diligence consistent with victim advocacy. Again, to point out, Bulis responded on February 11, 2022, after the motion to dismiss was granted. 

In January 2025, Katie McNamara launched wwaspsurvivorstruth.com, a website spreading false and defamatory claims about Bulis, Filer, and their nonprofit work. This action extended McNamara’s exposure into defamation and false light, as the publication of demonstrably false statements compounded the harm from her earlier conduct and has resulted in on-going real-world harm.

Author’s Note:

This analysis draws from verified documentation, court records, and publicly available communications. Its purpose is to clarify how liability was established within the Breaking Code Silence dispute and to outline why those who initiated, financed, or sustained harm remain accountable for its outcomes. It is not a threat of future litigation, nor does it release any party from liability or assert individual claims.