UPDATE:

Following a protracted legal battle spanning over two years, multiple sanctions, and a subsequent admission by Breaking Code Silence that they lacked “direct evidence” of their allegations, BCS filed a Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice. This motion effectively barred Breaking Code Silence from re-filing the case.

Subsequently, the court ordered Breaking Code Silence to pay Whiteley and McNamara approximately $65,000 in sanctions for their misconduct. The Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice was filed shortly after Whiteley and McNamara filed their motions for summary judgments, which we firmly believe demonstrated the falsity of Breaking Code Silence’s allegations based on the substantial evidence, testimony, and expert witness declarations presented.

Recent events:

• 11/22/23 – Whiteley’s Motion for Summary Judgment
• 2/23/24 – McNamara’s Motion for Summary Judgment
• 2/29/24 – Reply Brief in Support of Whiteley’s Motion for Summary Judgment
• 3/25/24 – In-Person Status Conference Hearing
• 3/29/24 – Reply Brief in Support of McNamara’s Motion for Summary Judgment
• 4/5/24 – Status Conference Call
• 4/8/24 – Breaking Code Silence’s Request for Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice
• 4/24/24 – Whiteley and McNamara’s Response to Plaintiff’s Request for Dismissal with Prejudice
• 5/8/24 – Order Granting Request for Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice
• 7/25/24 – Breaking Code Silence sanctioned and ordered to pay Whiteley and McNamara $15,342
• 9/6/24 – Breaking Code Silence sanctioned and ordered to pay Whiteley and McNamara $34,986.50
• 9/17/24 – Order Denying Plaintiffs Motion for Payment Plan
• 12/10/24 – Order on Motion for Attorney Fees $15,888.83

For more updates and documents, check out our Updates page.

For over two years, we have been breaking code silence about the frivolous lawsuit filed by Breaking Code Silence, a California 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation, against two former interim board members, McNamara and Whiteley.

All along, we believed that Breaking Code Silence’s Complaint was no more than judicial extortion and retaliation. We believe that Plaintiff’s allegations were a work of fiction designed to intimidate Defendant McNamara into surrendering a domain name she purchased with her own funds and in her own name years prior to her involvement with Breaking Code Silence and never transferred to the company and to avoid repaying expenses McNamara incurred at the request of the Plaintiff. After almost two years of litigation, Breaking Code Silence withdrew all its claims except for the claims related to McNamara’s domain name. Months later, it ultimately dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice after Motions for Summary Judgment were filed and pending rulings.

We believe that the complaint against Whiteley was simply retaliation for his reporting of the harassment he suffered at the hands of Breaking Code Silence’s management and his resulting refusal to further assist Breaking Code Silence.

Quoting Jeremy Whiteley’s Motion For Summary Judgment filed on November 22nd, 2023:

“Discovery has revealed that this lawsuit is no more than retribution. BCS’s principals had been plotting to sue Defendants long before the alleged deindexing of BCS’s website in an effort to: (1) trigger an insurance payout which BCS could then use to pay the attorneys’ fees of Chelsea Papciak and others; (2) see Defendants “destroyed financially and socially”; (3) capture McNamara’s .Org Domain; and (4) avoid repaying McNamara over $100,000 in loans McNamara made to BCS.”

To learn more: A Plot to Sue?

• Breaking Code Silence, a California 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation
• Vanessa Hughes, an individual; Hughes sometimes uses the following aliases:
  • Vanessa Ramich Hughes, PhD, MA, MFT, MAICS, MAT, SEP 
  • Vanessa Hughes, PhD, MA, MFT, MAICS, MAT, SEP 
  • Dr. Vanessa Hughes 
  • Dr Vanessa Hughes 
  • Vanessa Teresa Hughes
• Jennifer Rebecca Magill, an individual; Jenny Magill sometimes uses the following aliases:
  • Jennifer Magill
  • Jenny Magill
  • Jenny Magill, MBA
  • Jenny Magill, MBA, CPDT-KA