Strickland v Lee
This archive documents the evolving legal conflict between Kellye Strickland and Madeline S. M. Lee, spanning multiple proceedings across civil harassment and appellate review.
Summary
The matters collected here concern allegations of sustained harassment, defamation, and procedural abuse, as well as challenges to court actions taken without proper service, accessible process, or consistent recordkeeping. Central to these disputes are questions of due process, lawful speech, ADA accommodation, and the use of legal mechanisms to control public narrative rather than resolve factual disputes.
The archive preserves filings, timelines, and procedural history to provide a clear, longitudinal record of how these cases developed, how institutions responded, and how procedural failures compounded rather than resolved conflict. It is intended as a factual reference for researchers, journalists, legal professionals, and members of the public examining the intersection of speech, disability access, and court process integrity.
Civil Harassment Case - 62-CO-25-1156
Filed March 6, 2025, this civil action alleges a sustained pattern of harassment, defamation, and abuse of process by Madeline Sally Lee. The complaint asserts that Lee used social media activity and court filings in a coordinated manner to target, intimidate, and discredit multiple content creators. The case centers on whether these actions constituted lawful expression or crossed into actionable harassment and procedural misuse.
HRO Appeal - A25-1655
This appeal challenges a default Ramsey County Harassment Restraining Order that was issued without proper service, without fact-finding, and without a judicial countersignature. Despite these defects, the order was repeatedly cited and circulated as authoritative in public and social-media contexts, where it was used to support reputational claims against the appellant.
Procedural failures allowed a legally unstable order to acquire real-world effect while meaningful access to the courts was obstructed. The case raises questions about how defective court orders can nonetheless function as instruments of harassment when procedural safeguards fail.