The Appellate Court of Illinois has upheld a stalking no contact order against Ryan C. Armstrong, confirming the decision made by a lower court. This ruling, made on November 12, 2026, affects Armstrong, who had been accused of making threats against Marvin Kaywood, the petitioner in this case. The court's decision emphasizes the seriousness of stalking and the legal protections available to victims.

The case began when Kaywood filed a petition for a stalking no contact order against Armstrong in September 2025. Kaywood alleged that Armstrong had made threats against him and his family, leading to an emergency order being granted by the trial court. This order was later converted into a plenary order, which is a more permanent form of protection. Armstrong, who represented himself in court, sought to vacate this order, claiming various violations of his rights. However, the appellate court found no merit in his arguments.

Marvin Kaywood and Ryan C. Armstrong have a history that dates back to high school, where they first met. The dispute escalated when Kaywood accused Armstrong of threatening him, leading to Kaywood's petition for a stalking no contact order. The trial court initially issued an emergency order in Kaywood's favor, which was later followed by a plenary order after a hearing. Armstrong's attempts to challenge this order included filing numerous documents and motions, many of which were deemed irrelevant or frivolous by the court.

During the proceedings, Armstrong submitted a lengthy document containing bizarre allegations and claims of mind control, which the court found irrational and incredible. The trial court noted that Armstrong's filings were often disorganized and did not adhere to proper legal procedures. Despite these challenges, the court continued to provide him opportunities to present his case, including setting multiple hearing dates.

On March 12, 2026, a hearing was held where Kaywood testified about the threats he received from Armstrong. He described how Armstrong had sent threatening messages to his employer and family members, claiming that Armstrong believed Kaywood had harmed him in the past. The trial court ultimately granted the plenary order of protection, barring Armstrong from any contact with Kaywood for two years.

Following the issuance of the plenary order, Armstrong filed a motion to vacate it, arguing that the court had violated his due process rights and failed to consider his evidence. However, the appellate court found that the trial court had acted appropriately and had sufficient evidence to support the order. The court stated, "The plenary order was supported by the evidence," affirming the trial court's findings.

In its ruling, the appellate court highlighted that to obtain a plenary stalking no contact order, the petitioner must prove stalking by a preponderance of the evidence. The court concluded that Kaywood had met this burden, as Armstrong's conduct was directed at Kaywood and would cause a reasonable person to fear for their safety.

The court also addressed Armstrong's claims regarding reasonable accommodations for his alleged disabilities. It noted that his requests were based on unfounded allegations and that he had failed to properly raise these issues during the trial. As a result, the court deemed his arguments frivolous and without merit.

This ruling serves as a reminder of the legal protections available to victims of stalking and the importance of adhering to court procedures. The court's decision reinforces the notion that threats and harassment will not be tolerated, and those who engage in such behavior can face serious legal consequences.

Moving forward, this ruling may impact how similar cases are handled in Illinois. It underscores the necessity for courts to take allegations of stalking seriously and to provide victims with the protections they need. While Armstrong has the option to appeal this decision, the appellate court's ruling stands as a significant affirmation of the lower court's actions.

As of now, there are no indications of a related case pending or any further appeals filed by Armstrong. The court's caution against filing frivolous claims applies to this case, suggesting that Armstrong may face sanctions if he continues to pursue baseless legal actions.