Public Court Record Disclosure

Case No.: FST-FA26-5033807-S Court: Connecticut Superior Court — Stamford J.D. Judge: Hon. Ronald E. Kowalski II Final Order: February 27, 2026

Orders of Protection

Ex Parte Restraining Order — Certified Copy

Connecticut Superior Court · Stamford J.D. · Case No. FST-FA26-5033807-S · Issued February 13, 2026

Certified Ex Parte Order of Protection issued by Judge DeCastro-Tunnard on February 13, 2026 upon finding of immediate risk to the protected person. Granted without notice to the respondent due to the urgent nature of the threat. Includes the original Application for Relief from Abuse, sworn Affidavits, and Criminal History Summary submitted to the court.

Ex Parte Provisions (effective February 13, 2026):

Respondent ordered to surrender all firearms and ammunition. Must not assault, threaten, abuse, harass, follow, interfere with, or stalk the protected person. Must stay away from the protected person's home and any location she resides. Must maintain a distance of at least 100 yards from the protected person at all times. Must not contact the protected person in any manner — written, electronic, or by telephone. Respondent also ordered to cease all social media targeting and remove all content referencing the applicant.

Order effective until hearing date: February 27, 2026.

Ex Parte Certified Copy No Contact 100-Yard Stay-Away Firearms Surrender Feb. 13, 2026 Connecticut

Restraining Order — After Hearing (Final Order)

Connecticut Superior Court · Stamford J.D. · Case No. FST-FA26-5033807-S · February 27, 2026

Final Order of Protection issued by Judge Ronald E. Kowalski II following a full hearing on February 27, 2026. The respondent, John Wesley Moody, was properly served, failed to appear, and was found in default. The Court found the applicant's testimony credible and granted a one-year order.

Final Order Provisions & Court Findings:

Respondent must surrender all firearms and ammunition. Must not assault, threaten, abuse, harass, follow, interfere with, or stalk the protected person. Must stay away from the protected person's home and any location she resides. Must maintain a distance of at least 100 yards from the protected person at all times. Must not contact the protected person in any manner — written, electronic, or by telephone.

The respondent is prohibited from publishing, posting, sharing, or disseminating any videos, images, or online content targeting, identifying, or referencing the applicant on any social media platform, including but not limited to TikTok, YouTube, Facebook, and Reddit. All such existing content was ordered removed within twenty-four hours, including the subreddit r/KateGreeneIsAFake and accounts u/TheRealKateGreene and u/Spiritual_End6655.

Order expires: February 27, 2027.

After Hearing Final Order Default Judgment No Contact 100-Yard Stay-Away Social Media Ban Firearms Surrender Connecticut

Proof of Service

Return of Service — Ex Parte Protective Order

Creek County Sheriff's Office · Sapulpa, Oklahoma · Case No. FST-FA26-5033807-S · Served February 15, 2026

Official Return of Service from the Creek County Sheriff's Office confirming that John Wesley Moody was personally served with the Ex Parte Protective Order on February 15, 2026 at 6:07 PM by Deputy Joseph Tyler Hall. This document establishes that the respondent had full legal notice of the order before the February 27, 2026 hearing at which he failed to appear, resulting in a default judgment.

Service Details:

Paper Status: SERVED
Date & Time: February 15, 2026 at 18:07
Method: Personal Service
Served By: Hall, Joseph Tyler — Creek County Sheriff's Office, Sapulpa, OK 74066

This Return of Service confirms the respondent received personal service and had full legal notice of the Ex Parte Order. His failure to appear at the February 27, 2026 hearing — despite confirmed service — resulted in a default judgment and the issuance of the final Restraining Order After Hearing.

Return of Service Personal Service Ex Parte Order Creek County Sheriff Oklahoma Feb. 15, 2026

Court Filings & Motions

Petitioner's Statement in Support of Full Order of Protection & Motion for Additional Relief

Connecticut Superior Court · Stamford J.D. · Case No. FST-FA26-5033807-S · Filed March 2026

Formal statement submitted to the Honorable Ronald E. Kowalski II in support of granting a full, permanent Order of Protection. Documents two corrections to the record from the Ex Parte application and reports significant, escalating violations of the Ex Parte Order committed by the respondent within hours of personal service on February 15, 2026.

Summary of Contents:

I. Corrections to the Record — Clarifies that the respondent's suspended sentence has not yet been formally revoked; an active bench warrant exists and revocation proceedings are pending. Corrects a typographical error on the date of first contact (April 28, 2025, not 2026), which also refutes the respondent's false public claim of having known the applicant for two years.

II. Violations of the Ex Parte Order — Within hours of personal service, the respondent publicly acknowledged the order and immediately violated it. Posted on Facebook expressing continued intent to investigate the applicant. Responded to law enforcement contact by posting sexually degrading content. Sent harassing communications to the applicant's associates. Actively attempted to add the applicant's personal and professional connections on social media. Posted the applicant's date of birth, name, and physical location publicly on Facebook, directing his followers to locate her. Stated he would send an army after her.

III. Threats — Direct threatening statements including: will turn applicant into a felon; swears on his children's lives he will send her to jail; will spend his life focused on her only.

IV. Criminal Proceedings — Police report filed in Connecticut; arrest warrant in progress on two counts: harassment and violation of an order of protection. Creek County Sheriff's Office and Sapulpa Police Department confirmed ready to apprehend.

V. Relief Requested — Full no-contact order across all platforms; prohibition on contacting any friends, family, or associates; removal of all content referencing applicant; prohibition on publishing her name; prohibition on fabricated documents, images, or manipulated content.

Corrections to Record Order Violations Motion for Relief Threats No Contact Violations Social Media Connecticut

Special Appearance & Objection to Jurisdiction — Oklahoma Retaliatory Filing

Creek County District Court · State of Oklahoma · Case No. PO-2026-00064 · Filed March 2, 2026

Special Appearance and Objection to Jurisdiction filed by Kate Greene as Pro Se Respondent in Creek County District Court, Oklahoma, in response to a retaliatory counter-petition filed by John Wesley Moody — the subject of a valid Connecticut Order of Protection — seeking protection against the very person who holds that order against him.

Key Legal Arguments:

I. Special Appearance — Filing is limited solely to challenging jurisdiction and does not constitute a general appearance or waiver of any jurisdictional defects.

II. Residency — Respondent Kate Greene is a resident of Connecticut, does not reside in Oklahoma, and has no substantial contacts with the State of Oklahoma sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction.

III. Lack of Jurisdiction — The pre-existing Connecticut Order of Protection (Case No. FST-FA26-5033807-S, Greene v. Moody) is entitled to full faith and credit under VAWA, 18 U.S.C. § 2265. Proceeding in Oklahoma would create conflicting, irreconcilable orders in direct contravention of the Full Faith and Credit Clause, U.S. Const. Art. IV § 1.

IV. Ex Parte Order Should Not Be Extended — The Oklahoma ex parte order was issued solely on the petitioner's one-sided representations. The pre-existing Connecticut Order of Protection against Petitioner is fundamentally inconsistent with the narrative he presented to the Oklahoma court.

V. Retaliatory Nature — Filing a cross- or counter-protective order against a protected party is a recognized tactic used by abusers to harass and undermine legitimate victims. At the time of this filing, Petitioner faced two pending criminal charges in Connecticut for harassment and violation of an existing order of protection.

VI. Motion to Seal — Moves to seal Oklahoma records pursuant to 51 O.S. §§ 24A.29 and 24A.30, as the petitioner's unverified allegations contain private information that poses a direct safety risk to the protected party.

Special Appearance Objection to Jurisdiction Motion to Dismiss Retaliatory Filing VAWA Full Faith & Credit Motion to Seal Oklahoma

Legal Disclaimer & Notice

I. Nature of Content

All documents published on this website are official public court records and law enforcement records issued through lawful legal proceedings. Every document appearing on this site is reproduced exactly as issued — nothing has been altered, fabricated, or embellished. This website makes no claims beyond what is contained within the four corners of the official documents themselves.

II. Legal Basis for Publication

This website operates in full compliance with applicable federal and state law. Publication of public court records is expressly protected by the following:

U.S. Constitution, First Amendment — The First Amendment provides a strong presumption of public access to judicial documents. Court records may be sealed only upon specific, on-the-record judicial findings that sealing is essential and narrowly tailored. See United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044 (2d Cir. 1995).
17 U.S.C. § 105 — Court-issued documents are not subject to copyright protection.
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 1-210 — Under Connecticut's Freedom of Information Act, all records maintained by public agencies are presumed public. Every person has the right to inspect, copy, and receive copies of such records.
Conn. R. Super. Ct. §§ 11-20A(a),(b) — Codifies the common-law presumption of public access to judicial documents filed with Connecticut courts.
51 O.S. § 24A.5 (Oklahoma Open Records Act) — All records of public bodies and public officials shall be open to any person for inspection, copying, or mechanical reproduction.
51 O.S. § 24A.2 — It is the explicit public policy of the State of Oklahoma that all citizens have an inherent right to be fully informed. The Oklahoma Open Records Act does not create rights of privacy for persons who submit information to public bodies.

III. No Defamation

Truth is an absolute and complete defense to any claim of defamation. The documents published on this website are official findings, orders, and records of courts of law and law enforcement agencies. This website does not editorialize, embellish, or add factual claims beyond what those documents contain. Any dispute with the contents of a court order must be taken up with the court that issued it — not with this website.

IV. DMCA Notice

This website does not host copyrighted creative works. Official government records and court-issued documents are not protected by copyright under 17 U.S.C. § 105. Accordingly, DMCA takedown requests relating to public court documents published on this site will be rejected as legally inapplicable.

If you believe content on this site infringes a valid copyright — meaning a separately authored work distinct from official court records — you may submit a written notice to legal counsel containing: (1) identification of the allegedly infringed work; (2) identification of the allegedly infringing material; (3) your contact information; (4) a statement of good faith belief; and (5) a statement under penalty of perjury that the information is accurate and you are authorized to act on behalf of the copyright owner.

V. Removal Requests

This website does not accept removal requests from private individuals. If you are the subject of a court order published on this site and seek its removal, you must obtain a court order directing such removal and have your legal counsel submit that order directly to this website. Absent a valid judicial order mandating removal, no document will be taken down.

All legal correspondence must be directed to counsel only. This site does not respond to informal requests, demands, or communications from individuals or non-legal representatives.

VI. No Legal Advice

Nothing on this website constitutes legal advice. This disclaimer was last updated March 2026.