The Ohio Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court's decision denying a Civil Stalking Protection Order (CSPO) requested by attorney J.S. against civil rights activist M.K. This ruling, made on October 20, 2026, affects J.S. and his family, who claimed they faced harassment and threats from M.K. The case highlights the complexities of stalking laws and the burden of proof required to secure a protection order.
J.S. filed the petition for a CSPO on October 28, 2025, citing repeated harassment and threats from M.K. He claimed that M.K. had made menacing statements on social media and threatened physical harm, including references to firearms. The court initially granted an ex parte CSPO, which is a temporary order issued without a full hearing. However, following a hearing on November 4 and 5, the magistrate denied the petition, stating that J.S. had not proven that M.K.'s conduct met the legal standard for menacing by stalking.
In the case, J.S. is represented by Misty Wood, while M.K. represented himself. The dispute arose from a previous legal matter where M.K. was dissatisfied with the outcome of a property loss insurance claim handled by Z.D., an attorney sharing office space with J.S. M.K. then engaged in a pattern of social media posts that J.S. claimed were harassing.
After the magistrate's denial, J.S. filed objections, arguing that the magistrate had not fully considered the evidence of M.K.'s social media activity and the mental distress it caused him. He also sought to introduce new evidence after the hearing, which the court denied due to procedural issues. J.S. subsequently filed a motion for relief from judgment, claiming that M.K. had revealed an extortion scheme involving demands for payment in exchange for removing negative posts about J.S. However, this motion was also denied.
The court ultimately ruled that J.S. had not met the burden of proof necessary for a CSPO. Judge Charles E. Sulek wrote in the opinion, "the Court cannot find even by a preponderance of the evidence that [M.K.]’s conduct has risen to the level of menacing by stalking required for the issuance of a protection order in this case." The court emphasized that without a transcript of the original hearing, it had to presume the correctness of the magistrate's findings.
This ruling has significant implications for J.S. and his family, as they will not receive the protection order they sought. The decision also serves as a reminder of the stringent requirements for obtaining a CSPO in Ohio, particularly the necessity of providing adequate evidence and following proper legal procedures.
Moving forward, this case may influence how similar cases are handled in Ohio, particularly regarding the burden of proof and the importance of following procedural rules. It underscores the challenges individuals face when seeking legal protection against perceived threats, especially in cases involving social media and public discourse.
As for next steps, J.S. may consider further legal options, including appealing the decision to a higher court. However, details about any pending appeals or related cases were not available in the court filing.