Plot Twist – There Was No Plot to Sue

March 2022 – April 2023

Written by Chelsea Filer

(TL;DR is available below this article for quick reference)

For years now, I’ve watched as a twisted and entirely false accusation has spread: that Jenna and I somehow orchestrated a “plot to sue” Katherine McNamara (aka Katie Mac) and Jeremy Whiteley. I’m here to set the record straight. That allegation is nothing more than a defensive fiction, a sensational story designed to distract from the actual facts and give Katie an excuse to drag us into more legal drama.

The truth isn’t a scandalous conspiracy; it’s a dry, procedural legal strategy.

What Actually Happened: A Legal Strategy, Not a Conspiracy

The real story begins in late 2021 after Katie left the Breaking Code Silence (BCS) board. The organization suddenly found itself cut off—allegedly sabotaged—from nearly all its digital property: social media, Slack, Google drives, and its website domain. BCS claimed that Katie orchestrated yet another coup, took the organization’s intellectual property, and used it to launch her own organization, Unsilenced.

BCS’s response was simple: they filed a lawsuit in April 2022 against Katie and Jeremy Whiteley. The claim was that they had violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act by accessing protected computers and intentionally “de-indexing” the breakingcodesilence.org website.

During the lawsuit, BCS did what lawyers often do: they narrowed their claims. This is a common, good-faith legal procedure to focus the argument and improve the chances of success. They considered broader claims but ultimately chose to concentrate solely on the website’s de-indexing. This was a sensible legal move, not a sprawling conspiracy.

Settlement Discussions

Around the same time, while we were still embroiled in the separate BCS v. Papciak et al. trademark case, I was contacted by a third party. They asked if I would be willing to speak with BCS about resolving that case. I reluctantly agreed, and settlement discussions began.

As it turned out, a settlement became unnecessary. We won our motion to dismiss the trademark case because BCS lacked evidence that they had any rights to the trademark. The case was voluntarily dismissed because they had no legal standing to continue.

(For more information about the BCS v. Papciak lawsuit, please refer to The Lawsuit blog)

During those early settlement talks, there were, indeed, conversations about whether I might pursue my own legal claims against Katie to recover our massive attorney’s fees. This was a perfectly reasonable consideration. The baseless lawsuit had been emotionally and financially draining. If I had moved forward, my strategy would have focused on claims of fraud, conversion, and financial damages—all related to the harm her baseless lawsuit had caused us.

However, that possibility never materialized.

• We declined BCS’s offers.

• We did not enter into a settlement agreement with them.

• I did not join their lawsuit against Katie.

I chose to pursue attorney’s fees through our own dismissed case, and after that, the matter was closed. My deposition and other discovery materials clearly show I was not involved in BCS’s federal lawsuit. Any references to me were only early reflections on whether Katie should be held accountable for her actions that left us in debt. In the end, I made a conscious decision to move on and prioritize healing over another prolonged legal battle.

Believing Katie’s actions caused us real harm is not the same as orchestrating a lawsuit against her. I was not a plaintiff, I was not directing the strategy, and I was certainly not part of any plot.

The claim that I was involved in some secret hacking plot to frame her and sue her to get her insurance money is a baseless and frankly laughable conspiracy theory.

The Financial Aftermath 

This false narrative deflects from the real damage that was done, particularly to us, the defendants against her frivolous lawsuit, and our former CFO, Martha. She was personally sued in that trademark case simply because she tried to change her email password after Katie cut off our access. For this, she was forced to take on a tremendous amount of legal debt.

My primary goal in entering settlement negotiations with BCS was to see that this debt was repaid. Martha is a working mother who juggles two jobs, and without her, we never would have been able to defend ourselves. This financial burden continues to impact our financial stability. 

Katie, on the other hand, appears to have unlimited funds and used them to demoralize us. She often admitted her goal of “taking my house” by the end of the litigation, knowing she could outspend us to drain us financially and force us to “bend the knee” to her.

I firmly believe Katie should be held responsible for every dollar we were forced to spend defending ourselves. She took the actions that led to the organizational split, incorporated a new entity, and initiated these legal battles. When the tide turned against her, she simply abandoned ship, leaving the remaining board members and those she had harmed to deal with the fallout. We are the ones who suffered the consequences of her choices, and we shouldn’t be the ones left to bear the cost.

My Summary of the Case: Breaking Code Silence v. McNamara et al.

Based on my review of the official complaint and the defendants’ answer, here’s what I’ve gathered about the lawsuit Breaking Code Silence v. McNamara et al.

From what I can tell, the case comes down to two conflicting narratives:

• BCS alleges intentional sabotage, unauthorized access to protected computers, and theft of nonprofit assets.
• The defendants argue they acted within their legal rights and were whistleblowers targeted in retaliation for reporting financial mismanagement and homophobic sexual harassment.

Breaking Code Silence (BCS), a nonprofit advocating for survivors of institutional child abuse, filed a complaint against two of its former board members – Katherine McNamara and Jeremy Whiteley. According to the complaint, BCS alleges that after resigning, McNamara and Whiteley engaged in a coordinated effort to sabotage the organization by locking them out of critical digital platforms, stealing internal data, and cutting off public communication at key moments. Forensic evidence submitted with the complaint reportedly confirms that the BCS website was deliberately deindexed from Google just days before national media coverage, significantly damaging outreach and visibility. BCS claims the defendants then used stolen infrastructure and materials to launch a competing nonprofit. The organization sought legal injunction to recover its digital assets, stop further interference, and seek damages for the harm done to its mission, reputation, and community.

In their legal response, McNamara and Whiteley deny all major allegations. They claim that McNamara lawfully purchased the disputed domain name with her own funds before BCS even existed and never transferred ownership. They describe the lawsuit as retaliatory, stating that McNamara resigned after discovering financial misconduct and Whiteley left due to alleged homophobic harassment from BCS leadership. They also say they were never reimbursed for more than $100,000 in personal expenses incurred on behalf of BCS (which was Katie’s contribution to begin the lawsuit against us) and argue that any access they had to platforms was legal and authorized. They accuse BCS leadership of launching a smear campaign and weaponizing the courts to pressure them into surrendering their personal property and silencing dissent.

While I have little personal knowledge to determine the full accuracy of either party’s legal claims in this case, I can tell you that my own experience aligns closely with the allegations BCS is making. The actions they describe, such as being locked out of accounts, having infrastructure and materials taken, and watching a rival organization rise using assets built collectively, are almost identical to what Katie Mac did to us, the original Breaking Code Silence (OG BCS) team.

In our case, she used her technical access to lock founding members out of our own organization’s platforms and communication tools, including email, social media, website and internal files. She filed for trademarks and incorporation behind our backs, weaponized the legal system to try to extort us, and created confusion among supporters, funders, and the public. It was devastating to witness something built in good faith and with survivor community trust be taken and sabotaged.

So while I can’t speak to the internal dynamics of the organization or verify every technical detail in the complaint, I can say that the patterns described are familiar. Painfully familiar. And they echo what many of us have been trying to warn the community about for years.

Discovery, Subpoenas, and the Motion to Quash

In April of 2023, I was served with a subpoena to produce discovery and sit for a deposition in the BCS v. McNamara case. I filed a motion to quash the subpoena. The reason was simple: it was overly broad and sought personal, unrelated conversations, with my closest friends, specifically with Jenna Bulis. Katie’s team asked for all communications that even mentioned her name. That was unreasonable. I attempted to negotiate a narrower scope, but instead of working with me, they served a second subpoena with double the number of requests. That’s when I filed my motion and asked the court to intervene.

In response to my motion, the judge scheduled an informal discovery conference between myself and both parties. We went through nearly every request for production of documents within the subpoena together, struck most of them, and reached a mutual agreement that I would produce only documents and conversations that were actually relevant. I agreed to move forward with discovery and deposition. The court gave opposing counsel the option to issue a second subpoena if they felt my production was insufficient and they never did. In effect, my request to narrow the scope was granted.

The only thing I objected to producing was settlement discussions, which I believed were confidential and protected under both legal ethics and the agreement we made with BCS before entering into negotiations. In an email chain, we cited the law: Cal. Evid. Code § 1119(a)–(c) and all parties agreed.

Since we formally rejected the settlement offer in September and filed for our own attorney’s fees, those negotiations were now moot. Even the Judge noted that if a settlement was never reached, then there was nothing to produce. 

The Judge stated that our settlement discussions however, were not protected by confidentiality because they occurred privately rather than in a formal mediation session, but I believe this interpretation was incorrect. California Evidence Code § 1119(c) makes no distinction between formal and informal mediation; it clearly states that “all communications, negotiations, or settlement discussions by and between participants in the course of a mediation or a mediation consultation shall remain confidential.” This protection applies regardless of whether the mediation was court-ordered, facilitated by a neutral third party, or conducted informally between parties with the intent to resolve the dispute. Case law, including Wimsatt v. Superior Court and Foxgate Homeowners’ Assn. v. Bramalea California, Inc., has repeatedly upheld the broad and absolute nature of these confidentiality protections, specifically warning against judicial interpretations that carve out exceptions not found in the statute. By requiring disclosure of those communications, the court effectively undermined the legislative purpose of § 1119, which is to encourage candid, good-faith settlement discussions.

We are now witnessing the consequences of that violation, which illustrates exactly why this law exists. Confidential settlement discussions were sought in a fishing expedition to create a misleading narrative and cast suspicion on the plaintiffs—hence the so-called “plot to sue.” The fact remains that settlement negotiations, particularly those that never resulted in an agreement, should have no bearing on a separate lawsuit. The way these discussions were distorted and weaponized is a textbook example of the harm this law is designed to prevent.

After I produced discovery and sat for my nine-hour deposition (which is 2 hours more than was legal), I filed a motion for reimbursement of my time and labor responding to the subpoena. Because I was denied access to a digital discovery service, I had to manually comb through years of records, redact personal data, and organize everything myself. That took nearly two months of work, including nights and weekends. I also spent a lot of time coordinating with Katie’s lawyers, and of course researching and writing the motions to quash, which I never would have had to do if they had agreed to narrow the scope of discovery and not push Katie’s agenda to gain access to our personal conversations. I requested $5,000 in labor reimbursement. My mistake was not submitting a formal time log and the judge said that without it, she would likely deny the motion, and in doing so, Katie could file for attorney’s fees against me for upwards to $10,000. I certainly wouldn’t put it past her to do so. The judge gave me the opportunity to withdraw my motion, which I did.

During that same hearing, the judge warned that if Katie used any discovery materials for harassment or defamation, I had grounds to seek a restraining order. She also stated clearly that the protective order remained in place and that if Katie shared any materials marked as confidential, there would be consequences. I cannot confirm whether anything published by Katie Mac or Jeremy on their website was marked confidential by BCS, but I can confirm that I personally designated several of the documents they’ve shared as confidential.

Why the Case Was Really Dismissed

Based on what I understand, the case was voluntarily dismissed due to complications that arose during the discovery process. In my opinion, Katie Mac intentionally weaponized discovery to overwhelm BCS and make it nearly impossible for them to continue. This is a common tactic some defendants use to derail a lawsuit before it ever reaches trial and in this case, it seems her legal team was very effective at it.

The discovery demands were extensive and included requests to produce information from individuals who may have had no direct connection to the case and no responsive documents. The Joint Stipulated E-Discovery Plan requested access to vast amounts of data that may have been difficult for anyone to gather or produce. Here is just a sample of what was required:

This is from the Joint Stipulated E-Discovery Plan, which was agreed to by all parties.

Several of the individuals identified as custodians stated they had no responsive documents. Others simply didn’t respond. At least one objected, citing that complying would have violated professional confidentiality tied to their clients. At the same time, BCS was accused of failing to produce sufficient discovery on their end. This was after BCS had produced all data available to them through BCS’ custody, but the defendants argued that BCS and all designated custodians should produce their personal data sources as well. One representative of BCS was also accused of dodging service, though they maintained they simply weren’t home when the process server arrived.

From what I understand, the judge placed significant weight on discovery compliance, seemingly operating under the belief that more is always better. The Court held BCS responsible for encouraging the custodians to comply with discovery requests. When some failed to reply, the court warned that BCS would be held liable for the cost of additional subpoenas and other related legal efforts initiated by the defendants.

I can’t speak to whether the individuals labeled as “custodians” actually fit that role or what specific actions BCS took to encourage compliance. It was noted in the order on sanctions, that some of the identified individuals were not board members of BCS and while considered for a role at some point in the past did not accept the position. What I can assume is that BCS likely had no control over these individuals’ personal data or devices and no authority to compel them to cooperate. Especially when doing so meant exposing private information to the defendants accused of hacking.

Given past instances where personal information has been shared publicly in ways that caused harm or distress, it’s understandable that these individuals were cautious about complying. That fear is valid. The nuance matters here: people were afraid of Katie, and with good reason. Her extensive discovery demands likely raised alarm bells for many, and now, with the publication of these defamatory websites, those fears have come true.

Ultimately, the Court found that BCS violated its discovery obligations under the EDO by failing to search and produce documents from all relevant data sources, including personal accounts of designated custodians. The Court ordered sanctions for BCS to pay nearly $35,000 in attorney’s fees to cover Defendants’ costs in enforcing discovery. Although the total amount was later reduced after the court found that Katie’s attorneys had padded the bill, the remaining amount still comes to around $16,000.

Given all of this, BCS chose to voluntarily dismiss the case. I don’t know if it was because the case lacked merit. Rather, it became clear that the judge was likely to dismiss it anyway due to the ongoing discovery issues. A voluntary dismissal was likely their only remaining option to avoid that outcome.

Because the case was dismissed before the facts could be fully presented, many questions remain unanswered. It’s still unclear whether the contracts or agreements granting BCS rights to the domain were legally enforceable, or how the court might have ruled on whether Katie’s actions qualified as Computer Fraud and Abuse. Since the court never reached a decision on the merits, we’re only left with speculation and personal opinions instead of definitive answers.

On “Friendly” Communications

Regarding the accusation that I “continued to engage in frequent, friendly, and supportive private conversations with Vanessa Hughes and Jenny Magill concerning the litigation against McNamara and Whiteley” this is not evidence of a conspiracy or secret coordination. It’s evidence of reconciliation. When Vanessa and Jenny came to us, apologetic, reasonable and willing to make amends, we formed an unlikely friendship and these conversations were my way of supporting them through a tumultuous time. For the record, I was kept almost entirely out of the loop regarding litigation details. Vanessa often told me she couldn’t share anything. When we spoke, it was mostly about how the lawsuit was impacting her personally.

Trademark Rights

In April 2023, I signed my trademark rights over to BCS. Some have insisted that “signing away my rights to BCS” was proof of involvement in the lawsuit. Here, the context is missing. That decision had nothing to do with the CFAA lawsuit. It had everything to do with trademarks. At the time, I was the person with the strongest first use claim to the Breaking Code Silence mark dating back to 2014. I also had an individual trademark application pending with the USPTO. I believed if Katie was going to come after the trademark (and she did) she would come after me. I wanted no part of it. I gave up my claim, and walked away from BCS entirely. That is not evidence of a plot, it is proof that I wanted out.

Malicious Prosecution 

Katie Mac and Jeremy now suggest this was “malicious prosecution.” That argument doesn’t hold up legally. For a malicious prosecution claim to succeed, the lawsuit must have been filed without probable cause, with malice, and it must have ended in the accused’s favor typically with prejudice. None of that is clearly established here. The suit was dropped voluntarily after the discovery fiasco, with no decision based on the merits of the case. This case wouldn’t even satisfy the first threshold, let alone the rest.

Katie Mac has made several public statements indicating her intention to file a malicious prosecution claim and has strongly implied that I would be named in such a filing. However, this type of claim would be especially difficult to prove in my case, as I was not a plaintiff and had no control over the lawsuit. Malicious prosecution requires that the defendant initiated, directed, or maintained the original legal action and I clearly did not play any such role.

 

Final Thoughts

There’s no denying that this entire ordeal has been painful for everyone involved. Litigation isn’t empowering. It’s exhausting. It drains your time, your resources, your peace of mind. It breaks relationships and blurs the line between truth and tactics. Watching it all unfold from the sidelines has been both surreal and deeply frustrating. In my view, these lawsuits have been an unfortunate drain on time, energy, and resources. That energy could have been far better spent fighting the troubled teen industry. 

The kind of money spent over the last four years on litigation between survivors and these organizations, over trademarks, reputations, and retaliatory accusations, has been a devastating loss for our cause and our community. Just think of the good we could have accomplished if none of this had ever happened. BCS may have gone through some changes, but it would still be protecting children and serving the survivor community today. With the amount of money that has been funneled into legal fees, we could have funded survivor services three times over. We could have hosted national gatherings, built mental health programs, expanded coalition networks, lobbied for more legislation, and made real policy changes that could save lives. We could have grown into something powerful, united, and lasting.

Instead, those opportunities were squandered. All we got out of this chapter was drama, distress, and division. But it doesn’t have to stay that way. If we can leave this behind, if we can truly move forward, we can get back to what this movement once was and what it still can be. A force for good. A united front. A community rooted in truth, healing, and purpose. That’s the future I still believe in. And that’s where I choose to focus now.

 

__

TL;DR: There was no “plot to sue” Katie Mac or Jeremy Whiteley.

I was not a plaintiff in the BCS lawsuit against Katie and had no control over it. Claims that I secretly conspired to hack the website or sue her for insurance money are false and absurd. While I believed Katie’s actions of locking out BCS leadership and sabotaging the organization deserved accountability, my role was limited to early discussions and personal support for others navigating the fallout. The lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed after discovery complications, not because it lacked merit. Malicious prosecution claims don’t apply to me, as I didn’t initiate, direct, or maintain the case. I genuinely wish all the legal battles would end so we can return to what actually matters: protecting youth and challenging the troubled teen industry.

Disclaimer:

The content presented in this blog represents my personal opinions, beliefs, and experiences. It is a response to public claims and defamatory statements published on a website created by Katherine McNamara aka Katie Mac. This blog post exists solely to share my perspective, correct the public record, and defend myself against misleading narratives.

Some statements may reference third-party allegations or events as they have been publicly described or reported. Any mention of such events is included for context and not intended to assert them as verified fact. Where applicable, I have made every effort to distinguish between firsthand experience, opinion, and information relayed from others.

This blog is not intended to cause harm, harass, defame, or misrepresent any individual. It is a good faith effort to respond to public attacks and to exercise my right to free expression under the First Amendment. All statements are made without malice and are protected as opinion under applicable defamation law, including but not limited to the fair comment privilege and the opinion defense recognized in both state and federal courts.

Readers are encouraged to form their own conclusions.