Breaking Code Silence Lawsuit
BCS Case File
Curious to read the case filings yourself? Well, here you go.
Breaking Code Silence v Papciak et al. Case No. 3:21-cv-00918
M. Thompson’s Motion to Dismiss
Papciak et al Motion to Dismiss
C. Papciak’s Decl in Support of MTD
J. Scarpuzzi’s Decl in Support of MTD
Plaintiff’s Opposition to JW MTD
J. Walkers Reply to Opposition
Plaintiff’s Opposition to Papciak’s MTD
Order Granting Motion to Dismiss
Voluntary Dismissal Papciak, Bulis, Thompson
Order on Voluntary Dismiss With Prejudice
J. Walker’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees
Decl. Jacobs – Scarpuzzi’s emails
Papciak et al Motion for Attorney’s Fees
Breaking Code Silence v. Papciak et al Case Summary
Breaking Code Silence v. Papciak et al (2021–2022) was a federal lawsuit over trademark ownership of the survivor-led movement. The case was dismissed with prejudice after the court found BCS lacked standing, highlighting key lessons for nonprofits on governance, trademark rights, and avoiding internal conflict.
Jurisdiction
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (Case No. 3:21-cv-00918)
Filing Date
May 2021
Termination
September 2022
Parties
Plaintiff: Breaking Code Silence (BCS), a nonprofit public benefit corporation formed in March 2021. The board that elected to initiate legal action consisted of: Katherine McNamara, William “Bill” Boyles, Jeremy Whiteley, Vanessa Hughes, and Jennifer Magill.
Defendants: Chelsea Papciak aka Chelsea Filer, Jennifer Walker, Jenna Bulis, Martha Thompson, and Florida Corp. Breaking Code Silence, Inc.
Core Dispute
The case centered on who had the legal right to use and control the phrase “BREAKING CODE SILENCE.” The brand was originally established by a grassroots working group in 2019, with one founder, Chelsea Papciak, showing documented first use in commerce as early as 2014. After an internal split, several departing members incorporated a nonprofit under the same name in 2021 and claimed that all digital assets, accounts, and trademark rights belonged to them by virtue of incorporation.
This new organization accused the defendants of continuing to use the mark without authorization, holding property hostage that belonged to the nonprofit, and incorporating a separate Florida-based entity under the same name. The lawsuit included nine claims, ranging from federal trademark infringement under the Lanham Act to unfair competition, conversion, false light, and intentional interference with economic relationships.
To strengthen their position, the nonprofit alleged that a volunteer had first used the phrase in 2010 through blogs, books, and public speaking, and that those “common law” rights had later been assigned to the organization. Defendants disputed this, pointing to their prior use and creation of the brand, social media, and websites long before the nonprofit existed. The volunteer at the center of the claim, Josh Scarpuzzi, later filed a sworn declaration stating he had no claim to the mark, had not used it before 2018, and had only adopted the phrase after the campaign was already established. This undermined the plaintiffs’ argument that they could retroactively “tack” ownership of the brand to earlier use.
Court Proceedings and Outcomes
Defendants moved to dismiss BCS’s Second Amended Complaint. In February 2022, the Court granted the motions, dismissing the federal trademark claims and declining to retain jurisdiction over state-law claims. The Court allowed BCS the chance to amend its pleadings, but the nonprofit neither amended nor responded to a later order to show cause. Instead, BCS sought voluntary dismissal without prejudice. The Court granted dismissal only on the condition that it be with prejudice, effectively ending the case.
In September 2022, the Court denied the defendants’ motions for attorneys’ fees, and the case was closed.
Key Legal Takeaways
-
- Trademark ownership and standing: The case demonstrates the importance of establishing a clear chain of title, use in commerce, and factual support for asserting trademark rights, particularly in volunteer-driven and mission-based organizations.
- Pleading standards: At the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal stage, courts require specific factual allegations. General claims of assignment or prior use are not sufficient without detailed support.
- Fee-shifting and litigation conduct: Dismissal of a case does not automatically entitle defendants to attorneys’ fees. BCS avoided fee-shifting sanctions.
The Evidence
Evidence Submitted by Defendants in Breaking Code Silence v. Papciak et al.
The defendants submitted extensive evidence showing that Breaking Code Silence’s claims of ownership were unfounded. Central to this was documentation of first publication and commercial use of the mark as early as 2014, along with two trademark applications filed in 2020. The defendants had continuously used the Breaking Code Silence mark across multiple platforms, including social media, websites, and publications, well before the nonprofit’s 2021 incorporation. Supporting materials included USPTO records, proof of commercial use, and records of publication tied to their established working group.
A critical piece of evidence was the sworn declaration of Josh Scarpuzzi, who stated that he “did not have any claim to the mark.” This directly contradicted the plaintiffs’ assertion that the nonprofit had inherited his alleged “common law” rights dating back to 2010. In his declaration, Scarpuzzi explained that he had been misled by BCS leadership, felt used as a pawn in the dispute, and alleged that he was harassed and personally attacked after leaving the group. Court filings also showed that by July 2021, Scarpuzzi had already raised concerns with BCS’s attorneys about potential “contract fraud” tied to the case.
Taken together, Scarpuzzi’s testimony and the records of prior use demonstrated that the plaintiffs lacked any legitimate ownership of the mark that predated their incorporation. The filings established that the nonprofit could not claim infringement over a brand, accounts, or websites already in active use, and the court relied on this evidence in granting the defendants’ motions to dismiss. The case ultimately underscored a clear principle: an organization cannot incorporate years after a brand is established, claim ownership of existing digital assets and content, and then sue the original creators for continuing to use the mark they originated.
On June 26, 2021, board member Jeremy Whiteley resigned from the BCS board, citing an inability to perform his duties. On July 5, 2021, Josh Scarpuzzi contacted BCS’s legal counsel at the Procopio law firm to report concerns of fraud and to assert that the case filed against Papciak et al. lacked merit. The following day, on July 6, 2021, he disclosed those same concerns to Jenna Bulis. A legal declaration reflecting Scarpuzzi’s statements was filed on September 13, 2021, in support of the motion to dismiss, which was later granted on March 9, 2022. Jeremy Whiteley’s resignation occurred 9 days before Scarpuzzi’s disclosure to counsel, 79 days before the filing of the declaration, and 256 days before the motion to dismiss was granted.
In December 2021, as discovery began and trial was approaching, Katherine McNamara and William “Bill” Boyles also resigned. These departures raised questions about whether the board members recognized the weakening of the plaintiffs’ position and the potential for liability if the case failed at trial, given the motion to dismiss was granted roughly 2 months after their departure.
Note from the editor: The timeline above was revised following a cease and desist from Mr. Whiteley, who identified inaccuracies in the dates and ambiguity regarding his departure from BCS. We apologize for the earlier use of unclear phrasing such as “around the same time” and for any harm this may have caused. BCS Facts is committed to documenting events accurately, and Mr. Whiteley’s request for clarification has been honored. While the language has been refined for accuracy, the spirit and substance of the summary remain unchanged.
Caution for Future Organizers
Breaking Code Silence v. Papciak et al reminds us that nonprofits must establish clear ownership, governance, and accountability before asserting legal claims. The court dismissed BCS’s case with prejudice after finding the organization lacked standing and evidence to prove trademark rights, underscoring that you cannot retroactively claim control over a brand or assets that predate incorporation. For future organizers, the lesson is simple: document chain of title, clarify use in commerce, and put agreements in writing early. Without these safeguards, internal disputes can escalate into costly and damaging litigation that undermines both credibility and mission.
Know The Facts
FUN FACT
Suing the original creators of a movement for “trademark infringement” went about as well as you’d expect. Spoilers: not well.
Quick Fact Check
❌ Claim: Breaking Code Silence was invented by Katie Mac and Paris Hilton.
✅ Fact: #BreakingCodeSilence was created in 2014, by a coalition of survivors that have been fighting this fight far longer than either of them have been involved.
❌ Claim: The lawsuit was necessary to protect the organization
✅ Fact: The founders stood on business and went to war to protect the legacy of a movement that transcends any one person or organization. #breakingcodesilence belongs to the community.
❌ Claim: Who needs a good case when you can just outspend your opponents? As long as you make them “bend the knee” or “take their house” it’s worth the money right?
✅ Fact: You can light stacks of cash on fire in court, but it still won’t magically turn losing arguments into winning ones.
🎯 Pro Tip: Maybe stop filing lawsuits and you could afford to buy your own house.
❌ Claim: This is all just petty drama.
✅ Fact: Tell that to our maxed out credit cards. TF?
Awkward...
Nothing says “we’re helping survivors” like suing… survivors.
Would You Rather?
Things We’d Rather Do With $800,000 Than Fight Petty Lawsuits
-
Fund years of therapy for hundreds of survivors (you know, the actual mission).
-
Fund a survivor-led series that dives deep into the issue of institutional abuse in the TTI.
-
Pay for investigative journalist’s records requests to shine a spotlight on the real enemy, instead of each other.
- Start an actual legal defense fund for kids trapped in programs, instead of a circular firing squad.
-
Hire a skywriter to write “STOP WASTING MONEY” over every courthouse where this nonsense was filed.
-
Plan a survivor retreat to Italy for wine, pasta, and healing sunsets (cheaper and way more effective).
-
Buy 800,000 Taco Bell tacos and still feel better about it than funding litigation.
-
Adopt an army of puppies, train them as therapy dogs, and send them to every survivor’s doorstep. (Still more useful than lawyers.)
-
Or here’s a wild idea… actually help the thousands of survivors who are struggling and could really use support and services from an organization that was built to do so.
PSA
If your favorite hobby is suing survivors, spreading lies, and torching a movement, you might want to reevaluate your life
Lawsuits can be complicated… but the facts don’t lie.
Lawsuits are often long, complicated, and filled with conflicting claims, but in the end, the truth always comes out. For many in the survivor community, the legal disputes surrounding Breaking Code Silence created confusion and concern and raised legitimate questions about the status of the movement, ownership of trademarks, control of accounts, and even the use of funds. This section provides clear answers to those questions, cutting through the noise to clarify where things stand today and reaffirming what has always mattered most: the voices of survivors and the movement they built.
Who won the lawsuit?
Nobody wins when you sue people over petty nonsense like this. The only real winners are the attorneys, who get paid no matter how ridiculous the case is. That said, yes, we did win our motion to dismiss because BCS couldn’t provide any evidence to support their claims of ownership. The court identified the deficiency and the case fell apart. For the defendants, it was never about “winning” trademark rights. We never wanted to own anything. It was about protecting the movement and preserving the legacy of a beautiful moment in history where our community stood together to take on the TTI and protect children from abuse. To us, that’s all that mattered.
Who funded the lawsuit?
Katherine McNamara donated $100,000 to Breaking Code Silence to file the lawsuit Breaking Code Silence v Papciak et al. M. Thompson, Chelsea Filer, and Jenna Bulis hired Andrew Stillwell to represent them in the lawsuit. J. Walker hired her own independent legal counsel. The defendants paid approximately $65,000 to respond to this legal action which resulted in significant personal debt.
Why were attorney fees not granted?
Katherine McNamara and the parties leading the lawsuit left Breaking Code Silence just as the case reached the Discovery stage. We did not pursue the case further because, once the person financing the litigation abandoned the organization, it became clear the plaintiff would not have the resources to satisfy a judgment. Continuing through full Discovery and procedure in order to seek fees would have created excessive litigation costs for all parties, with no realistic possibility of reimbursement. The more efficient path was dismissal, which avoided unnecessary expenses. Jen Walker, as a single party, completed Discovery and was dismissed with prejudice. Because Discovery was not completed, and Breaking Code Silence filed for voluntary dismissal, we were not legally entitled to reimbursement of legal fees according to court judgement. All defendants sought legal fees, but none were awarded.
What happened to the Breaking Code Silence accounts?
Breakingcodesilence.net and its attached Facebook page are controlled by the founders and continue to exist as legacy pages. Breakingcodesilence.org is managed by the organization’s leadership, but the domain itself is owned by Katherine McNamara. The Instagram, Twitter, and Breaking Code Silence Facebook group originally affiliated with Breakingcodesilence.net were (allegedly) rebranded, dismantled, and/or destroyed by Rebecca Moorman, Emily Carter, and Katherine McNamara.
What was Breaking Code Silence Inc?
Breaking Code Silence Inc. was set up during a messy time when we were still reeling from the hostile takeover of our accounts. At first, the plan was to go forward to form a nonprofit, but after talking to our attorneys, that idea was put on hold until the accounts were returned. Once Katherine incorporated BCS and threatened legal action against us, that plan became untenable. To solidify our legal position and protect our remaining assets, Jennifer Barr incorporated Breaking Code Silence Inc. This entity was not created “for profit”. Filing as a corporation was simply the fastest way to secure our assets. We did not raise any funds or sell any goods or services under the corporation. Due to ongoing litigation, Breaking Code Silence Inc. was dissolved.
What happened to the funds that Breaking Code Silence raised?
All funds raised under Breaking Code Silence during the fiscal sponsorship with NYRA were directed to survivor-led projects based on submitted requests. No funds remain with NYRA for Breaking Code Silence, and the fiscal sponsorship has since been formally terminated.
The original Breaking Code Silence withdrew application for the grant once the leadership split occurred, the Breaking Code Silence 501c3 reapplied. The $500,000 grant from the Hilton Foundation was granted to the 501c3 organization to carry out a study on institutional child abuse and services for survivors.
What happened to the trademark?
While the original organizers initially trademarked the Breaking Code Silence mark for goods and services related to the movement, their trademark applications were later abandoned. This was a deliberate act by Katherine McNamara to allow the organization’s competing trademarks to prevail.
The organization currently retains the registered marks, but they are now facing a contestment from Katherine McNamara through the USPTO Board.
Although we no longer have a stake in this dispute, we believe that #BreakingCodeSilence should not belong to any one individual or organization. It belongs to the community of survivors who have used the phrase as a rallying cry to channel their pain into progress. For us, this is what is sacred, what we have fought to protect, and the legacy we hope Breaking Code Silence will leave behind.
What and who is Breaking Code Silence Now?
Breaking Code Silence remains, at its core, a hashtag campaign representing survivors of the troubled teen industry who are speaking out about institutional child abuse and demanding change. The original breakingcodesilence.net continues to stand as a legacy site, preserving the spirit of the grassroots campaign launched in 2019. The nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization of the same name now manages breakingcodesilence.org.
Today, there are no longer disputes between the original group and the organization’s current leadership. In fact, the organization’s leaders have expressed regret over the lawsuit and the harm it caused the defendants. Both sides have since placed the movement’s mission above ownership claims, trademark battles, or personal conflicts.
This resolution underscores the truth that Breaking Code Silence was never meant to be owned, it was meant to be shared. It belongs not to an individual, an entity, or a legal filing, but to every survivor who has raised their voice and refused to be silenced again. That collective voice is the true legacy of Breaking Code Silence, and it continues to echo as both a demand for justice and a promise of change.
Breaking Code Silence Lawsuit
Breaking Code Silence v. Papciak et al Case Summary
Breaking Code Silence v. Papciak et al (2021–2022) was a federal lawsuit over trademark ownership of the survivor-led movement. The case was dismissed with prejudice after the court found BCS lacked standing, highlighting key lessons for nonprofits on governance, trademark rights, and avoiding internal conflict.
Jurisdiction
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (Case No. 3:21-cv-00918)
Filing Date
May 2021
Termination
September 2022
Parties
Plaintiff: Breaking Code Silence (BCS), a nonprofit public benefit corporation formed in March 2021. The board that elected to initiate legal action consisted of: Katherine McNamara, William “Bill” Boyles, Jeremy Whiteley, Vanessa Hughes, and Jennifer Magill.
Defendants: Chelsea Papciak aka Chelsea Filer, Jennifer Walker, Jenna Bulis, Martha Thompson, and Florida Corp. Breaking Code Silence, Inc.
Core Dispute
The case centered on who had the legal right to use and control the phrase “BREAKING CODE SILENCE.” The brand was originally established by a grassroots working group in 2019, with one founder, Chelsea Papciak, showing documented first use in commerce as early as 2014. After an internal split, several departing members incorporated a nonprofit under the same name in 2021 and claimed that all digital assets, accounts, and trademark rights belonged to them by virtue of incorporation.
This new organization accused the defendants of continuing to use the mark without authorization, holding property hostage that belonged to the nonprofit, and incorporating a separate Florida-based entity under the same name. The lawsuit included nine claims, ranging from federal trademark infringement under the Lanham Act to unfair competition, conversion, false light, and intentional interference with economic relationships.
To strengthen their position, the nonprofit alleged that a volunteer had first used the phrase in 2010 through blogs, books, and public speaking, and that those “common law” rights had later been assigned to the organization. Defendants disputed this, pointing to their prior use and creation of the brand, social media, and websites long before the nonprofit existed. The volunteer at the center of the claim, Josh Scarpuzzi, later filed a sworn declaration stating he had no claim to the mark, had not used it before 2018, and had only adopted the phrase after the campaign was already established. This undermined the plaintiffs’ argument that they could retroactively “tack” ownership of the brand to earlier use.
Court Proceedings and Outcomes
Defendants moved to dismiss BCS’s Second Amended Complaint. In February 2022, the Court granted the motions, dismissing the federal trademark claims and declining to retain jurisdiction over state-law claims. The Court allowed BCS the chance to amend its pleadings, but the nonprofit neither amended nor responded to a later order to show cause. Instead, BCS sought voluntary dismissal without prejudice. The Court granted dismissal only on the condition that it be with prejudice, effectively ending the case.
In September 2022, the Court denied the defendants’ motions for attorneys’ fees, and the case was closed.
Key Legal Takeaways
-
- Trademark ownership and standing: The case demonstrates the importance of establishing a clear chain of title, use in commerce, and factual support for asserting trademark rights, particularly in volunteer-driven and mission-based organizations.
- Pleading standards: At the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal stage, courts require specific factual allegations. General claims of assignment or prior use are not sufficient without detailed support.
- Fee-shifting and litigation conduct: Dismissal of a case does not automatically entitle defendants to attorneys’ fees. BCS avoided fee-shifting sanctions.
The Evidence
Evidence Submitted by Defendants in Breaking Code Silence v. Papciak et al.
The defendants submitted extensive evidence showing that Breaking Code Silence’s claims of ownership were unfounded. Central to this was documentation of first publication and commercial use of the mark as early as 2014, along with two trademark applications filed in 2020. The defendants had continuously used the Breaking Code Silence mark across multiple platforms, including social media, websites, and publications, well before the nonprofit’s 2021 incorporation. Supporting materials included USPTO records, proof of commercial use, and records of publication tied to their established working group.
A critical piece of evidence was the sworn declaration of Josh Scarpuzzi, who stated that he “did not have any claim to the mark.” This directly contradicted the plaintiffs’ assertion that the nonprofit had inherited his alleged “common law” rights dating back to 2010. In his declaration, Scarpuzzi explained that he had been misled by BCS leadership, felt used as a pawn in the dispute, and alleged that he was harassed and personally attacked after leaving the group. Court filings also showed that by July 2021, Scarpuzzi had already raised concerns with BCS’s attorneys about potential “contract fraud” tied to the case.
Taken together, Scarpuzzi’s testimony and the records of prior use demonstrated that the plaintiffs lacked any legitimate ownership of the mark that predated their incorporation. The filings established that the nonprofit could not claim infringement over a brand, accounts, or websites already in active use, and the court relied on this evidence in granting the defendants’ motions to dismiss. The case ultimately underscored a clear principle: an organization cannot incorporate years after a brand is established, claim ownership of existing digital assets and content, and then sue the original creators for continuing to use the mark they originated.
On June 26, 2021, board member Jeremy Whiteley resigned from the BCS board, citing an inability to perform his duties. On July 5, 2021, Josh Scarpuzzi contacted BCS’s legal counsel at the Procopio law firm to report concerns of fraud and to assert that the case filed against Papciak et al. lacked merit. The following day, on July 6, 2021, he disclosed those same concerns to Jenna Bulis. A legal declaration reflecting Scarpuzzi’s statements was filed on September 13, 2021, in support of the motion to dismiss, which was later granted on March 9, 2022. Jeremy Whiteley’s resignation occurred 9 days before Scarpuzzi’s disclosure to counsel, 79 days before the filing of the declaration, and 256 days before the motion to dismiss was granted.
In December 2021, as discovery began and trial was approaching, Katherine McNamara and William “Bill” Boyles also resigned. These departures raised questions about whether the board members recognized the weakening of the plaintiffs’ position and the potential for liability if the case failed at trial, given the motion to dismiss was granted roughly 2 months after their departure.
Note from the editor: The timeline above was revised following a cease and desist from Mr. Whiteley, who identified inaccuracies in the dates and ambiguity regarding his departure from BCS. We apologize for the earlier use of unclear phrasing such as “around the same time” and for any harm this may have caused. BCS Facts is committed to documenting events accurately, and Mr. Whiteley’s request for clarification has been honored. While the language has been refined for accuracy, the spirit and substance of the summary remain unchanged.
Caution for Future Organizers
Breaking Code Silence v. Papciak et al reminds us that nonprofits must establish clear ownership, governance, and accountability before asserting legal claims. The court dismissed BCS’s case with prejudice after finding the organization lacked standing and evidence to prove trademark rights, underscoring that you cannot retroactively claim control over a brand or assets that predate incorporation. For future organizers, the lesson is simple: document chain of title, clarify use in commerce, and put agreements in writing early. Without these safeguards, internal disputes can escalate into costly and damaging litigation that undermines both credibility and mission.
BCS Case File
Curious to read the filings yourself? Well, here you go.
Breaking Code Silence v Papciak et al. Case No. 3:21-cv-00918
M. Thompson’s Motion to Dismiss
Papciak et al Motion to Dismiss
C. Papciak’s Decl in Support of MTD
J. Scarpuzzi’s Decl in Support of MTD
Plaintiff’s Opposition to JW MTD
J. Walkers Reply to Opposition
Plaintiff’s Opposition to Papciak’s MTD
Order Granting Motion to Dismiss
Voluntary Dismissal Papciak, Bulis, Thompson
Order on Voluntary Dismiss With Prejudice
J. Walker’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees
Decl. Jacobs – Scarpuzzi’s emails
Papciak et al Motion for Attorney’s Fees
Lawsuits can be complicated… but the facts don’t lie.
Lawsuits are often long, complicated, and filled with conflicting claims, but in the end, the truth always comes out. For many in the survivor community, the legal disputes surrounding Breaking Code Silence created confusion and concern and raised legitimate questions about the status of the movement, ownership of trademarks, control of accounts, and even the use of funds. This section provides clear answers to those questions, cutting through the noise to clarify where things stand today and reaffirming what has always mattered most: the voices of survivors and the movement they built.
Who won the lawsuit?
Nobody wins when you sue people over petty nonsense like this. The only real winners are the attorneys, who get paid no matter how ridiculous the case is. That said, yes, we did win our motion to dismiss because BCS couldn’t provide any evidence to support their claims of ownership. The court identified the deficiency and the case fell apart. For the defendants, it was never about “winning” trademark rights. We never wanted to own anything. It was about protecting the movement and preserving the legacy of a beautiful moment in history where our community stood together to take on the TTI and protect children from abuse. To us, that’s all that mattered.
FUN FACT
Suing the original creators of a movement for “trademark infringement” went about as well as you’d expect. Spoilers: not well.
Who funded the lawsuit?
Katherine McNamara donated $100,000 to Breaking Code Silence to file the lawsuit Breaking Code Silence v Papciak et al. M. Thompson, Chelsea Filer, and Jenna Bulis hired Andrew Stillwell to represent them in the lawsuit. J. Walker hired her own independent legal counsel. The defendants paid approximately $65,000 to respond to this legal action which resulted in significant personal debt. While the other parties have continued to engage in ongoing litigation that is estimated to total $800,000.
Why were attorney fees not granted?
Katherine McNamara and the parties leading the lawsuit left Breaking Code Silence just as the case reached the Discovery stage. We did not pursue the case further because, once the person financing the litigation abandoned the organization, it became clear the plaintiff would not have the resources to satisfy a judgment. Continuing through full Discovery and procedure in order to seek fees would have created excessive litigation costs for all parties, with no realistic possibility of reimbursement. The more efficient path was dismissal, which avoided unnecessary expenses. Jen Walker, as a single party, completed Discovery and was dismissed with prejudice. Because Discovery was not completed, and Breaking Code Silence filed for voluntary dismissal, we were not legally entitled to reimbursement of legal fees according to court judgement. All defendants sought legal fees, but none were awarded.
Would You Rather?
Things We’d Rather Do With $800,000 Than Fight Petty Lawsuits
-
Fund years of therapy for hundreds of survivors (you know, the actual mission).
-
Fund a survivor-led series that dives deep into the issue of institutional abuse in the TTI.
-
Pay for investigative journalist’s records requests to shine a spotlight on the real enemy, instead of each other.
- Start an actual legal defense fund for kids trapped in programs, instead of a circular firing squad.
-
Hire a skywriter to write “STOP WASTING MONEY” over every courthouse where this nonsense was filed.
-
Plan a survivor retreat to Italy for wine, pasta, and healing sunsets (cheaper and way more effective).
-
Buy 800,000 Taco Bell tacos and still feel better about it than funding litigation.
-
Adopt an army of puppies, train them as therapy dogs, and send them to every survivor’s doorstep. (Still more useful than lawyers.)
-
Or here’s a wild idea… actually help the thousands of survivors who are struggling and could really use support and services from an organization that was built to do so.
What happened to the Breaking Code Silence accounts?
Breakingcodesilence.net and its attached Facebook page are controlled by the founders and continue to exist as legacy pages. Breakingcodesilence.org is managed by the organization’s leadership, but the domain itself is owned by Katherine McNamara. The Instagram, Twitter, and Breaking Code Silence Facebook group originally affiliated with Breakingcodesilence.net were (allegedly) rebranded, dismantled, and/or destroyed by Rebecca Moorman, Emily Carter, and Katherine McNamara.
What was Breaking Code Silence Inc?
Breaking Code Silence Inc. was set up during a messy time when we were still reeling from the hostile takeover of our accounts. At first, the plan was to go forward to form a nonprofit, but after talking to our attorneys, that idea was put on hold until the accounts were returned. Once Katherine incorporated BCS and threatened legal action against us, that plan became untenable. To solidify our legal position and protect our remaining assets, Jennifer Barr, Jenna Bulis and Chelsea Filer incorporated Breaking Code Silence Inc. This entity was not created “for profit”. Filing as a corporation was simply the fastest way to secure our assets. We did not raise any funds or sell any goods or services under the corporation. Due to ongoing litigation, Breaking Code Silence Inc. was dissolved.
Awkward...
Nothing says “we’re helping survivors” like suing… survivors.
What happened to the funds that Breaking Code Silence raised?
All funds raised under Breaking Code Silence during the fiscal sponsorship with NYRA were directed to survivor-led projects based on submitted requests. No funds remain with NYRA for Breaking Code Silence, and the fiscal sponsorship has since been formally terminated.
The original Breaking Code Silence withdrew application for the grant once the leadership split occurred, the Breaking Code Silence 501c3 reapplied. The $500,000 grant from the Hilton Foundation was granted to the 501c3 organization to carry out a study on institutional child abuse and services for survivors.
What happened to the trademark?
While the original organizers initially trademarked the Breaking Code Silence mark for goods and services related to the movement, their trademark applications were later abandoned. This was a deliberate act by Katherine McNamara to allow the organization’s competing trademarks to prevail.
The organization currently retains the registered marks, but they are now facing a contestment from Katherine McNamara through the USPTO Board.
Although we no longer have a stake in this dispute, we believe that #BreakingCodeSilence should not belong to any one individual or organization. It belongs to the community of survivors who have used the phrase as a rallying cry to channel their pain into progress. For us, this is what is sacred, what we have fought to protect, and the legacy we hope Breaking Code Silence will leave behind.
What and who is Breaking Code Silence Now?
Breaking Code Silence remains, at its core, a hashtag campaign representing survivors of the troubled teen industry who are speaking out about institutional child abuse and demanding change. The original breakingcodesilence.net continues to stand as a legacy site, preserving the spirit of the grassroots campaign launched in 2019. The nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization of the same name now manages breakingcodesilence.org.
Today, there are no longer disputes between the original group and the organization’s current leadership. In fact, the organization’s leaders have expressed regret over the lawsuit and the harm it caused the defendants. Both sides have since placed the movement’s mission above ownership claims, trademark battles, or personal conflicts.
This resolution underscores the truth that Breaking Code Silence was never meant to be owned, it was meant to be shared. It belongs not to an individual, an entity, or a legal filing, but to every survivor who has raised their voice and refused to be silenced again. That collective voice is the true legacy of Breaking Code Silence, and it continues to echo as both a demand for justice and a promise of change.
Quick Fact Check
❌ Claim: Breaking Code Silence was invented by Katie Mac and Paris Hilton.
✅ Fact: #BreakingCodeSilence was created in 2014, by a coalition of survivors that have been fighting this fight far longer than either of them have been involved.
❌ Claim: The lawsuit was necessary to protect the organization
✅ Fact: The founders stood on business and went to war to protect the legacy of a movement that transcends any one person or organization. #breakingcodesilence belongs to the community.
❌ Claim: Who needs a good case when you can just outspend your opponents? As long as you make them “bend the knee” or “take their house” it’s worth the money right?
✅ Fact: You can light stacks of cash on fire in court, but it still won’t magically turn losing arguments into winning ones.
🎯 Pro Tip: Maybe stop filing lawsuits and you could afford to buy your own house.
❌ Claim: This is all just petty drama.
✅ Fact: Tell that to our maxed out credit cards. TF?
But Wait...
There’s More. So Much More.
The Lawsuit
Who was really behind the lawsuits? I’ll give you one guess. TBH the facts are stranger than fiction with this one, and it’s a doozy. Get the whole story of what really happened to Breaking Code Silence, from the inside perspective of the defendants, and the original founders.
The Split
The split in Breaking Code Silence wasn’t some epic blowup, it was a slow burn of power grabs, shiny branding over real impact, and trust circling the drain. What started as survivor-led grassroots work got traded in for image management, leaving the rest of us side-eyeing where this ship was headed.
Plot Twist
Who is “plotting” to sue who? In this blog we dive deep into the accusations that Katie was framed for hacking the BCS website and then fell victim to malicious prosecution… which is hypocracy at it’s finest.