Public Court Record Disclosure

Active Order of Protection — VINELink Verified

KATE GREENE is the Protected Party. — JOHN WESLEY MOODY is the Restrained Respondent.

Case Status: Open Disposition: Active Order Type: Restraining Order After Hearing Issued: Feb 27, 2026 Expires: Feb 27, 2027 Reporting Agency: Connecticut Courts

Connecticut Superior Court · Case No. FST-FA26-5033807-S · VINELink Record — Connecticut Courts · (800) 822-8428

View Live VINELink Record →

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

Notice: All documents published on this site are official public court records and law enforcement records issued by the Connecticut Superior Court, Connecticut law enforcement, the Creek County District Court (Sapulpa, Oklahoma), the Creek County Sheriff's Office, the Tulsa County Court Clerk, and related judicial and law enforcement proceedings, obtained through lawful means. Nothing has been altered, fabricated, or embellished. These records are reproduced here for informational purposes only. The contents of any court order or official record speak for themselves as official findings of law. Note: Redactions have been made in several places within these documents to protect the personal information of all parties, including dates of birth and physical addresses.

Case Update — March 3, 2026

Oklahoma Retaliatory Petition Dismissed: On March 3, 2026, Creek County District Court dismissed John Wesley Moody's retaliatory ex parte protective order petition against Kate Greene for failure to prosecute — Case No. PO-2026-00064. The case was initially presided over by Associate District Judge Laura Farris; Judge Jason Serner subsequently assumed the matter. Kate Greene was never served with the Oklahoma petition and had no notice of or involvement in that proceeding. Greene's motion to seal the Oklahoma court record was denied as unnecessary. Costs were waived. The Connecticut Order of Protection (FST-FA26-5033807-S) remains in full force and effect.

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

VINELink Court Record — John Wesley Moody, Protective Order Status

VINELink · Connecticut Courts · Case No. FST-FA26-5033807-S · Verified March 2026

Official VINELink (Victim Information and Notification Everyday) record for John Wesley Moody, as reported by Connecticut Courts. VINELink is the national victim notification network used by law enforcement and courts nationwide. This record confirms the active status of the protective order against Moody in the Connecticut court system.

VINELink Record Details — John Wesley Moody:

Case Status: Open
Disposition: Active

Protective Order:
Date Issued: February 27, 2026
Date Served: February 27, 2026
Date Modified: February 27, 2026
Expiration Date: February 27, 2027
Order Type: Restraining Order After Hearing
Status: Modified

Reporting Agency: Connecticut Courts · (800) 822-8428

VINELink Verified Case Status: Open Disposition: Active Expires Feb 27, 2027 Connecticut Courts Protective Order

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 Connecticut 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 Connecticut 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; a Connecticut arrest warrant is in progress on two counts: harassment and violation of an order of protection.

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

Order of Protection Violations

Violation of Order of Protection — Third-Party Contact via Facebook

Connecticut Superior Court · Case No. FST-FA26-5033807-S · Violation Date: March 9, 2026

On March 9, 2026, John Wesley Moody violated the Connecticut Order of Protection by using Facebook to contact a third party and directing that person to reach out to Kate Greene — the protected party. The third party immediately notified Greene and confirmed the contact, providing documentation of the violation. This constitutes a prohibited indirect contact through a third party in direct violation of the no-contact provisions of the Order of Protection issued February 27, 2026.

Nature of Violation:

Date: March 9, 2026
Platform: Facebook (Messenger)
Method: Third-party indirect contact — Moody contacted an individual known to Greene via Facebook, sending a message that prompted that person to contact Greene and confirm it was Moody reaching out.

Provision Violated: The Final Order of Protection (February 27, 2026) expressly prohibits the respondent from contacting the protected person "in any manner," including by "written, electronic or telephone contact," and prohibits contact "through others with whom the contact would be likely to cause annoyance or alarm to the protected person" (CT05). Contacting third parties for the purpose of reaching the protected person constitutes a violation of this provision.

Evidence: Screenshot documentation shows a Facebook Messenger conversation in which the third party received a message from John Wesley Moody's Facebook account and immediately contacted Greene to confirm the identity of the person and alert her to the contact. Greene confirmed to the third party that a full restraining order was in place against Moody, and the third party confirmed they would deny and block him.

OP Violation Third-Party Contact March 9, 2026 Facebook No Contact Breach CT05 Connecticut

Oklahoma — Retaliatory Petition & Dismissal

Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute — Moody v. Greene

Creek County District Court · Judge Jason Serner (successor to Judge Laura Farris) · Case No. PO-2026-00064 · Dismissed March 3, 2026

Official court minute sheet from Creek County District Court, Oklahoma, confirming that John Wesley Moody's retaliatory ex parte protective order petition against Kate Greene was dismissed on March 3, 2026 for failure to prosecute. The case was initially presided over by Associate District Judge Laura Farris; Judge Jason Serner subsequently assumed the matter. Kate Greene was never served with the Oklahoma petition and had no notice of or involvement in that proceeding.

Court Findings & Outcome:

Case: Moody, John Wesley v. Greene, Kate E — Case No. PO-2026-00064
Nature of Proceeding: Protective Order
Date of Dismissal: March 3, 2026
Original Presiding Judge: Associate District Judge Laura Farris, Courtroom #2, Creek County District Court
Successor Judge: Judge Jason Serner

Disposition: Dismissed — Failure to Prosecute. John Wesley Moody, the petitioner in the Oklahoma proceeding, failed to prosecute his own petition and the court dismissed the matter accordingly. Costs were waived.

Greene Was Never Served: Kate Greene was never served with Moody's Oklahoma petition and had no notice of the proceeding. She was not a participant in the Oklahoma case. The dismissal occurred at Moody's own hearing when he failed to advance his own claims.

Greene's Motion to Seal — Denied as Unnecessary: Kate Greene filed a motion to seal the Oklahoma court record. The court denied the motion as unnecessary, meaning these proceedings remain part of the public record.

This dismissal is consistent with the characterization of Moody's Oklahoma filing as a retaliatory counter-petition. The pre-existing Connecticut Order of Protection (FST-FA26-5033807-S) remains in full force and effect and is entirely unaffected by this dismissal.

Dismissed Failure to Prosecute Greene Never Served Seal Motion Denied Retaliatory Petition Creek County Oklahoma March 3, 2026 Judge Serner

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.

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.

Supplemental Evidentiary Record

Exhibits — Full Order of Protection Hearing

Video · Transcript · Supporting Documentation · Updated on a rolling basis

View Exhibits →