Credential vs. Conduct — The Ellison Paradox
The Resume
Philip L. Ellison’s self-presented credentials (from olcplc.com and LinkedIn):
| Credential | Claim |
|---|---|
| Super Lawyers | 2021–2025 (Rising Stars 2016–2020) |
| Federally Appointed Class Counsel | Two appointments |
| State-Court Appointed Class Counsel | At least one |
| “Human of Hemlock” | Community recognition |
| SVSU Adjunct Professor | Saginaw Valley State University |
| SCOTUS Victory | Pung v. Isabella County — 9-0 (Jun 23, 2026) |
| Constitutional Victory | Kanuszewski v. MDHHS — newborn blood spots |
| Police Corruption Exposé | Bitterman v. Oakley — department shut down |
| Fourth Amendment Pioneer | Taylor v. Saginaw — tire chalking unconstitutional |
| FOIA Expert | FOIAworks operator. Sued 8+ agencies for FOIA violations. |
These are not fabricated. Several represent genuine legal achievements. The question is what sits next to them.
The Docket
Credential: “Super Lawyers 2021–2025”
Reality: Super Lawyers is a Thomson Reuters marketing product. Attorneys are nominated (including self-nomination), evaluated by a selection process that includes peer polling, and listed if they pay for inclusion in the final publication. It is widely used by attorneys for marketing. It is not a disciplinary clearance, peer-reviewed academic distinction, or judicial appointment.
Pattern: Ellison lists this alongside legitimate federal appointments, creating an implied equivalence between a paid directory listing and judicial recognition.
Credential: “SCOTUS Victory — Pung v. Isabella County”
Reality: This is genuine. On June 23, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 (Alito opinion) in favor of Ellison’s client, finding that county tax foreclosure practices violated the Takings Clause. This is a legitimately important property rights decision.
What sits next to it: On the same active docket: $74,752.45 in federal sanctions, a SLAPP suit against a journalist, and representation of a client convicted of using computers to commit a crime against the mother of his own child.
Credential: “Constitutional Victory — Kanuszewski v. MDHHS”
The claim: Ellison’s website (stolenblood.com) and OLC press releases present the September 2022 district court ruling as a landmark victory: “This decision is the first in the country to find newborn screening programs, as they’ve been designed here, unconstitutional.”
Reality: The 6th Circuit reversed in June 2025 — unanimously. 3-0. Judge Richard Griffin wrote: “We cannot elevate every concern to a ‘fundamental right.’” The injunction requiring destruction of stored data was vacated.
Pattern: As of October 2026, Ellison’s marketing materials continue to reference the district court victory. The appellate reversal is not prominently noted. A non-lawyer reading his website would reasonably believe the newborn blood spot program was held unconstitutional, when in fact the opposite is the current law.
Source: AP News, 6th Cir. opinion
Credential: “FOIA Expert — FOIAworks Operator”
The claim: Ellison markets himself as Michigan’s preeminent FOIA enforcement attorney. He operates FOIAworks, a paid FOIA-filing platform. He has sued at least 8 Michigan agencies for FOIA violations and won fee awards.
Reality (the wins are real):
- Bitterman v. Oakley — $18,615 fee award
- Ahmad v. University of Michigan — forced disclosure
- Spalding v. Swaicki — Open Meetings Act
What sits next to it:
OLC v. Department of Treasury (COA 374178, Jul 11, 2025) — Ellison’s own FOIA case was dismissed because his complaint verification was not signed before a notary. The FOIA expert failed to meet a basic procedural requirement in his own FOIA lawsuit.
FOIAworks intelligence architecture — the same platform that files FOIA requests on behalf of paying customers gives its operator real-time visibility into: who is filing, what they’re requesting, which agency, when, and all correspondence and documents received. See Early Warning System analysis.
FOIAworks pricing — $4.95/single, $19.95/month Pro, $69.95/month Statewide (all 83 Michigan counties). Free alternatives exist, including the Clutch Justice FOIA Generator.
Credential: “Police Corruption Exposé — Bitterman v. Oakley”
The claim: OLC exposed a police department running 150 reserve officers in a village of 290 people, funded by $150,000+ in donations with possible pay-for-appointment bribery. The department was shut down.
Reality: This is genuine. The Oakley investigation was legitimate investigative work that exposed real corruption. National media covered it: Detroit Free Press, Daily Beast, Metro Times.
The irony: The same attorney who exposed a police chief running a secretive surveillance and patronage network now operates FOIAworks — a platform that gives him surveillance-grade visibility into who is investigating what, across which agencies, in all 83 Michigan counties. The structural parallel is exact:
| Oakley Chief Reznick | FOIAworks Operator |
|---|---|
| Collected $150K+ from reservists | Collects $4.95–$69.95/month from FOIA filers |
| Controlled who had police credentials | Controls FOIA submission infrastructure |
| Promised to “protect anonymity” | Offers privacy-protected domain registration |
| Knew who was investigating him | Knows who is filing FOIA requests against which agencies |
| Department shut down by court order | Platform still operating |
Source: MLive, Apr 2015, Michigan Lawyers Weekly, Jul 2017
Credential: “SVSU Adjunct Professor”
Reality: Ellison taught at Saginaw Valley State University. This is documented.
What sits next to it: Judge Julie A. Gafkay — who now presides over at least three Ellison cases simultaneously — was also an SVSU adjunct professor. Their teaching tenures overlapped by approximately six years. Gafkay was appointed to the bench in January 2026.
Source: MLive, Jan 2026, SVSU records
Credential: “Trial Attorney — 100+ Appeals”
Reality: Ellison lists over 100 appeals. This is plausible given his active docket.
What sits next to it: The Garcia/Title Check case — the one that generated $73,752.45 in sanctions — went through appeal to the 6th Circuit and cert petition to the Supreme Court. The sanctions were for conduct during litigation, not the underlying claim. The cert petition was denied (No. 23-404). Dykema Gossett PLLC represented the opposing party.
Pattern: High volume of appeals can indicate either zealous advocacy or a pattern of filing beyond the point where reasonable attorneys would stop. The sanctions finding suggests the 6th Circuit concluded the latter in at least one case.
The fee architecture: In the tire-chalking cases alone, Ellison collected $326,131 in attorney fees ($203,631 from Saginaw, $122,500 from Ann Arbor) while class members received $1 nominal damages each. In Ann Arbor, only 2 of 7 claimants were approved, and neither had collected their $1 as of June 2026. The clients are vehicles for the fee petitions — which is exactly how § 1988 is designed to work, but the ratio reveals where the economic engine sits.
The Client Problem
Kevin Lindke
Ellison’s most visible current client is also his most documented liability:
| Credential Context | Client Conduct |
|---|---|
| “Civil rights attorney” | Client posted victims’ phone numbers to 21,000-member Facebook group → harassing calls from strangers |
| “Property rights champion” | Client registered internet domains in a minor child’s name |
| “Government transparency advocate” | Client convicted: using computers to commit a crime (272 days served) |
| “FOIA enforcement” | Client’s federal case (which could generate § 1988 fees for Ellison) dismissed with prejudice after client incarcerated |
| “Member of Through My Eyes since July 6, 2020” | Group used by client to coordinate harassment of mother of his own child |
On the record at the August 3, 2026 hearing, Ellison stated his client “was interested” in Rita Williams and was “very positive” the same client “created the domains” targeting her and her minor child.
Source: Clutch Justice, Aug 3, 2026
The Structural Summary
┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ THE CREDENTIAL SHIELD │
│ │
│ SCOTUS win (Pung) ✓ Genuine │
│ Tire chalking (Taylor) ✓ Genuine │
│ Oakley police ✓ Genuine │
│ Blood spots (Kanusz.) ✗ REVERSED on appeal │
│ Super Lawyers ○ Paid directory │
│ FOIA expertise ✗ Own case dismissed │
│ for notary failure │
├──────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ THE CONDUCT RECORD │
│ │
│ $74,752.45 in federal sanctions │
│ SLAPP suit against journalist │
│ Client convicted of computer crime │
│ Joined client's harassment group (2020) │
│ UPEPA: shield in one case, sword in another │
│ FOIAworks: structural surveillance parallel │
│ Scripps: personal lawsuit on personal trees │
│ Same judge presides over 3+ cases │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────┘The credentials are partially real. The Pung SCOTUS win and the tire-chalking case are genuine legal achievements. But they are deployed as a shield — a reputation moat that makes it harder to scrutinize the conduct that sits right next to them on the same docket.
Cross-Reference
- Complete Litigation Docket — every known case
- Philip L. Ellison — Actor Profile — full actor page
- Kevin Lindke — The Client — the client problem
- FOIAworks Early Warning System — surveillance architecture
- The UPEPA Contradiction — judicial estoppel
- Federal Sanctions — $74,752.45 — combined sanctions record
- Institutional Immunity — AGC throughput data
Sources
- OLC website: olcplc.com/public/profile-ellison
- LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/philiplellison
- AP News: Blood spot reversal
- 6th Circuit: Kanuszewski opinion
- Michigan COA: OLC v. Treasury, COA 374178
- SCOTUS: Garcia/Gronda cert petition 23-404
- Clutch Justice: Multiple articles (linked throughout)