UPDATE: Porkbun Don't Play
Date: September 23, 2025
On September 23, 2025, civil Defendant Madeline S. M. Lee submitted an abuse complaint to domain registrar Porkbun, misrepresenting the state-court Harassment Restraining Order as a blanket gag order that prohibited Plaintiff from hosting her own websites. This characterization was false, unsupported by the text of the order, and designed to trigger third-party enforcement measures outside the legal process.
The False Abuse Report
Lee's report to Porkbun claimed that Plaintiff's legal archive and investigative materials constituted a violation of the HRO. In reality, the order contains no provisions restricting Plaintiff's ability to maintain her websites, publish legal documents, or criticize public officials. Lee presented it as if it were an injunction on speech- an assertion rejected by both the plain language of the order and fundamental First Amendment principles.
Porkbun responded cautiously, initiating a standard review but requesting clarification. Plaintiff immediately provided the full wording of the HRO and context explaining the legal dispute, including the fact that:
- the HRO does not contain any gag-order provisions;
- the disputed materials relate to public-record evidence, not private communications; and
- the websites at issue are part of an ongoing federal civil-rights action.
Once presented with the actual record, Porkbun correctly took no action.
Why This Matters
Attempting to weaponize a private company by misrepresenting a court order is a form of extrajudicial enforcement— an effort to achieve through a vendor what cannot be achieved in court. This is not the first time Lee has used off-platform systems to apply pressure, but it is one of the clearest examples of the strategy: distort the legal record, trigger panic, hope the platform caves.
It also reflects a recurring theme across the federal case, the HRO appeal, and the related defamation/harassment civil matter: the attempt to portray ordinary legal transparency as "harassment"h or "habuse,"h while ignoring the public-record nature of the underlying documents.
Interaction With the Federal Proceedings
Because Plaintiff's websites—including maddervramsey.com and onionmadder.com-serve as the public archive for Strickland v. Ramsey County, et al., any attempt to restrict or remove them implicates Plaintiff's ongoing federal civil-rights claims. The abuse complaint therefore unintentionally strengthened Plaintiff's argument that Lee continues to engage in retaliatory acts aimed at suppressing documentation of government misconduct.
In short, the complaint was not just false; it was strategically revealing.
What This Means Going Forward
Porkbun's refusal to take action affirmed a central point: Plaintiff's websites are lawful, protected, and essential to the integrity of the federal case. Any further attempts to mischaracterize court orders with the intent to remove Plaintiff's online materials will be documented, preserved, and incorporated into the existing evidentiary record.
This episode also underscores a broader takeaway: platforms can be misled, but they are not required to become enforcement arms for litigants who distort legal orders to achieve private objectives.