Harassment, Defamation, Abuse of Process

Filed: March 6, 2025

Current Status: Default Judgement after Degendant Failed to Appear

Court: Ramsey County District Court

Overview

This civil action names Madeline S. M. Lee as Defendant and arises out of a sustained, multi-year campaign of defamation, harassment, intimidation, and abuse of legal and institutional processes directed at Plaintiff Kellye Strickland.

The conduct at issue was not isolated or incidental. It developed over time across social platforms, private communication channels, law enforcement interactions, immigration proceedings, and court filings, and was characterized by coordination, repetition, and escalation. Defendant repeatedly invoked official and quasi-official systems not for legitimate redress, but to silence, punish, and harm.

As a result, Plaintiff suffered serious reputational, professional, and emotional harm. Among other consequences, Plaintiff lost a significant professional opportunity with Meta after the circulation of defamatory allegations. Plaintiff's personal safety, family stability, and livelihood were repeatedly placed at risk.

The campaign did not remain confined to the United States. Defendant initiated or participated in proceedings abroad, including litigation in India in which Plaintiff was falsely characterized as a participant or “lacky” in an alleged harassment effort. These filings mirrored the narratives advanced domestically, underscoring the transnational scope of the conduct.

Defendant's actions also forced protective response from Plaintiff's family. Due to Defendant's continued escalation and online activity, Plaintiff's husband was required to obtain a Harassment Restraining Order against Defendant to mitigate ongoing interference and threats.

During this period, Plaintiff received direct death threats, endured repeated attempts to trigger arrest or detention through misuse of protective-order mechanisms, and faced persistent efforts to deplatform her work through false reporting to hosting services and social platforms.

Pattern of Conduct

The complaint documents a consistent, deliberate pattern of knowingly false public accusations, malicious court filings, and misrepresentations to law enforcement and third parties. Defendant and her associates submitted reports and pleadings containing material falsehoods, which were then re-used across multiple platforms and forums to create a false impression of legitimacy through repetition.

Online, Defendant coordinated and amplified smear campaigns across social media and digital platforms, mobilizing networks to spread false narratives and trigger platform enforcement actions. These efforts repeatedly sought to deplatform Plaintiff, disrupt her work, and isolate her from professional, creative, and support communities.

Offline, the campaign escalated into direct intimidation. Plaintiff received threatening and unwanted communications, explicit death threats, and experienced repeated police contact at her residence based on false or misleading reports. These actions created a sustained atmosphere of fear and instability and interfered with Plaintiff's ability to live and work safely.

Defendant and her associates also extended these tactics into Plaintiff's family life by submitting reports to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) targeting Plaintiff's husband's immigration status and by circulating false allegations involving Plaintiff's children. These acts weaponized government processes and family vulnerability as tools of harassment.

In parallel, Defendant misused civil and protective-order procedures in attempts to obtain enforcement and arrest consequences in the absence of any evidentiary or merits-based findings. These filings were repeatedly leveraged as intimidation and narrative tools, rather than as legitimate mechanisms for resolving disputes or ensuring safety.

Abuse of Court Access

Central to this case is Defendant's misuse of court access as a mechanism of harassment. Defendant repeatedly invoked protective and restraining-order procedures not to obtain legitimate safety relief, but to silence, burden, and procedurally disable Plaintiff. These filings were grounded in false assertions, advanced through irregular processes, and later cited as justification for further escalation and retaliation.

Although this civil action is distinct from Plaintiff's pending federal civil-rights litigation and related appellate matters, the underlying factual record overlaps substantially. The evidentiary record includes altered or unsigned court documents, internally inconsistent judicial orders, metadata irregularities, false sworn statements, and retaliatory procedural actions undertaken under color of law.

Taken together, these records illustrate a broader pattern: the strategic deployment of public narrative, law enforcement contact, and judicial procedure as tools to harass and silence a targeted individual, while evading accountability through delay, non-appearance, administrative irregularity, and procedural obstruction.

Procedural Posture

Defendant has not filed an answer, appearance, or any responsive pleading in this matter. No attorney has entered an appearance on Defendant's behalf.

Plaintiff complied with all applicable service and notice requirements. After the response deadline expired, Plaintiff issued formal notices of intent to seek default judgment pursuant to the applicable procedural rules. Defendant did not respond to those notices.

On October 17, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Default Judgment, followed by additional filings requesting judicial attention and clarification of case status. Despite repeated and fully documented submissions, the Court has not issued a ruling, scheduled a hearing, or otherwise addressed the pending motion.

As a result, the case remains procedurally stalled with Defendant in default. All motions, notices, supporting evidence, and correspondence are preserved in the public record and remain available for review.

Current Status

Defendant remains in default. Plaintiff's motions, notices, and requests for judicial action remain pending before the Court.

This page will be updated as rulings issue or as additional procedural developments occur. All filings referenced herein are archived, preserved in the public record, and available for review.