FORM 10.

03-F: CIVIL STALKING PROTECTION ORDER OR CIVIL SEXUALLY ORIENTED OFFENSE PROTECTION ORDER FULL
HEARING
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
_____________ _____________________________ COUNTY, OHIO

Order Case No.

Per R.C. 2903.214(F)(3), this Order is indexed at
Judge _____ ____________________________________
180468107
A3

State | OHIO |
n? 999^7

LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY WHERE INDEXED

^CIVIL STALKING PROTECTION ORDER
(14^) MM \ ~ G
FULL HEARING (R.C. 2903.214)
PHONE NUMBER

PETITIONER:

<03 tA
.'nr«0bn«T

First Middle Last

RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT IDENTIFIERS

SEX RACE HGT WGT
G‘
t U tsi EYES HAIR DOB
G r A
First Middle Last n / 'L /
DRIVER'S LIC. NO. EXP. DATE STATE
Relationship to Petitioner: G.^115-15 _____
Address where Respondent can be found:
I oxV R-A- Distinguishing Features: ________________________________

THE COURT HEREBY FINDS: cP

That it has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter, and Respondent was provided with reasonable notice
and opportunity to be heard within the time required by Ohio law. Additional finding^of this OrdEj^are set forth
below. m2 ” I

q2
Protection Order
Denied
Ex Parte Order Vacated

FORMia03F: CIVILSTALONG PROTECTIONORDERORCIVILSEXUALLYOR1ENTEDOFFENSEPROTECTION ORDER FULL HEARING

Amended: April 15, 2021
Discard all previous versions of this form
[Page 2 of 6 Form 10.03-F]
c . Case No. *610
This proceeding came on for a hearing on H / O / M before the Court and the^? Civil Stalking
Protection Order Ex Parte or O Civil Sexually Oriented Offense Protection Order Ex Parte issued on
/ 13, all in accordance with R.C. 2903.214. The following individuals were present:

The Court hereby makes the following findings of fact:

JJq Additional findings on a separate page are included and attached herein.

□ The Court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that 1) Respondent has knowingly engaged in a
pattern of conduct that caused Petitioner to believe that Respondent will cause physical harm or cause
or has caused mental distress; and 2) the following orders are equitable, fair, and necessary to protect
the persons named in this Order from stalking offenses.

□ The Court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that 1) Petitioner or Petitioner’s family or
household members have been a victim of a sexually oriented offense as defined in R C. 2950.01,
committed by Respondent; and 2) the following orders are equitable, fair, and necessary to protect the
persons named in this Order from sexually oriented offenses.

□ The Court finds by clear and convincing evidence that 1) Petitioner or Petitioner’s family or household
members reasonably believed Respondent’s conduct before the filing of the Petition endangered the
heahh, welfare, or safety of Petitioner or Petitioner’s family or household members; 2) Respondent
presents a continuing danger to Petitioner or Petitioner’s family or household members; and 3) the
following orders are equitable, fair, and necessary to protect the persons named in this Order from
experiencing a continuing danger.

Protection Order
Denied
Ex Parte Order Vacated

FORM 10.03-F: CMLSTALK1NG PROTECTiONORDERORCIVILSEXUALLYORiENTEDOFFENSEPROTECTION ORDER FULL HEARING

Amended: April IS, 2021
Discard all previous versions of this form
I

[Page 3 of 6 Form 10.03-F] __

Case No. (\

ALL OF THE PROVISIONS CHECKED BELOW ALSO APPLY TO RESPONDENT

□ 1. RESPONDENT SHALL NOT ENTER the residence, school, business, place of employment, day care
centers, or child care providers of the protected persons named in this Order, including the buildings,
grounds, and parking lots at those locations. Respondent may not violate this Order even with the
permission of a protected person. [NCIC 04]

□ 2. RESPONDENT SHALL NOT INTERFERE with the protected persons' right to occupy the residence
including, but not limited to canceling utilities or insurance or interrupting telecommunication (e.g.,
telephone internet, or cable) services, mail delivery, or the delivery of any other documents or items.
[NCIC 03]

□ 3. RESPONDENT SHALL SURRENDER all keys and garage door openers to the following residence:

within 24 hours of service of this Order to the law enforcement agency that serves Respondent with this
Order or as follows:

□ 4. RESPONDENT SHALL STAY AWAY FROM PETITIONER and all other protected persons named in
this Orcer, and not be present within 500 feet or ___________ (distance) of any protected
persons wherever those protected persons may be found, or any place Respondent knows or should
know the protected persons are likely to be, even with a protected person’s permission. If
Respondent accidentally comes in contact with protected persons in any public or private place,
Respondent must depart immediately. This Order includes encounters on public and private roads,
highways, and thoroughfares. [NCIC 04]

□ 5. RESPONDENT SHALL NOT REMOVE, DAMAGE, HIDE, OR DISPOSE OF ANY PROPERTY,

COMPANION ANIMALS, OR PETS owned or possessed by the protected persons named in this
Order.

□ 6. PETITIONER IS AUTHORIZED TO REMOVE THE FOLLOWING COMPANION ANIMALS OR PETS

owned by Petitioner from the possession of Respondent:

Exchange of the listed companion animals or pets shall take place as follows:

□ 7. RESPONDENT SHALL NOT INITIATE OR HAVE ANY CONTACT with the protected persons named
in this Order or their residences, businesses, places of employment, schools, day care centers, or child
care providers. Contact includes, but is not limited to, landline, cordless, cellular or digital
telephone; text; instant messaging; fax; e-mail; voicemail; delivery service; social media;
blogging; writings; electronic communications; posting a message; or communications by any other
means directly or through another person.

Respondent may not violate this Order even with the permission of a protected person. [NCIC 05]
Ex Parte Order Vacate

0 8. RESPONDENT SHALL NOT use any form of electronic surveillance on protected persons.
Order

□ 9. RESPONDENT SHALL NOT CAUSE OR ENCOURAGE ANY PERSON to do any act prohibited by
Denied
’ 'rutection

this Order.

□ 10. RESPONDENT SHALL NOT POSSESS, USE, CARRY, OR OBTAIN ANY DEADLY WEAPON at any
time while this Order remains in effect for the safety and protection of the protected persons named in
this Order. Furthermore, Respondent may be subject to firearms and ammunition restrictions pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) through (9), 18 U.S.C. 922(n), or R.C. 2923.13. [NCIC 07]

FORM 1O03-F: CIVIL STALKING PROTECTIONORDERORCIV1LSEXUALLYORJENTEDOFFENSE PROTECTION ORDER FULL HEARING

Amended: April 15, 2021
Discard all previous versions of this form
[Page 4 of 6 Form 10.03-F]
Case No. Y"1

RESPONDENT IS EXCEPTED only for official use pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 925(a)(1), if no other firearms
and ammunition prohibitions apply.

□ 11. RESPONDENT SHALL TURN OVER ALL DEADLY WEAPONS OWNED by Respondent or in
Respondent’s possession to the law enforcement agency that serves Respondent with this Order no
later than or as follows:

Any law enforcement agency is authorized to accept possession of deadly weapons pursuant to this
paragraph and hold them in protective custody for the duration of this Order. [NCIC 07]

Law enforcement shall immediately notify the Court upon receiving Respondent’s deadly weapons into
protective custody as set forth in this Order.

Upon the expiration or termination of this Order, Respondent may reclaim any deadly weapons held in
protective custody by law enforcement pursuant to this Order unless Respondent is otherwise
disqualifed as verified by a check of the NCIC protection order file.

12. RESPONDENT’S CONCEALED CARRY WEAPON LICENSE, if any, is now subject to R.C. 2923.128.

□ 13. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED: [NCIC 08]

□ 14. RESPONDENT SHALL COMPLETE the following counseling program:

Respondent shall contact this program within days after receiving this Order and
immediately arrange for an initial appointment The counseling program is requested to provide
the Court a written notice when Respondent attends the initial appointment, if Respondent fails to
attend oris discharged, and when Respondent completes the program. Respondent is required to
sign all necessary waivers to allow the Court to receive information from the counseling program.

□ Respondent is ordered to appear before Judge or Magistrate ___________________________

on _____ / ________ / _______ at Da.m. Pp.m. to review
Respondent’s compliance with this counseling order. Respondent is warned: If you fail to
attend the counseling program you may be held in contempt of court. If you fail to appear at
this hearing, the Court may issue a warrant for your arrest.

□ 15. RESPONDENT SHALL NOT USE OR POSSESS □alcohol orD illegal drugs.

□ 16. RESPONDENT SHALL BE SUBJECT TO ELECTRONIC MONITORING. Respondent is ordered

to report to
for placement of a global positioning system for the purpose of electronic monitoring for the duration of
this Order or until / / whichever expires first. The Court further
imposes the following terms and conditions: Protection Order
Denied
Ex Parte Order Vacated

FORMIttO^F: CIVIL S^ALWNG PROTECTION ORDER OR CIVIL SEXUALLYORIBITED OFFENSE PROTECTION ORDER FULL HEARING
Amended: April 15, 2021
Discard all previous versions of this form
[Page 5 of 6 Form 10.03-F]
> Case No.
^3.17. The Clerk of Court shall cause a copy of this Order to be served on Respondent as set forth in
5(B) and 65.1(C)(3). The Clerk of Court shall also provide certified copies of this Order to Petitioner
upon request.

18. IF THE FULL HEARING PROCEEDING WAS REFERRED TO A MAGISTRATE, the Court has
reviewed the magistrate’s and finds no error of law or other defect
evident on the face of the Order. Accordingly, the Court adopts the magistrate’s or Aw,

19. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED NO COSTS OR FEES SHALL BE ASSESSED AGAINST PETITIONER

for filing, issuing, registering, modifying, enforcing, dismissing, withdrawing, serving, or subpoenaing
witnesses or obtaining a certified copy of this Order.

20. THE COSTS OF THIS ACTION ARE Dassessed against Respondent ^waived.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

MAGISTRATE

Protection 0
Denied
Ex Parte Order Vacated

NOTICE OF FINAL APPEALABLE ORDER TO THE CLERK

A COPY OF THIS ORDER SHALL BE SERVED ON
RESPONDENT PURSUANT TO CIV.R. 65.1(C)(3).

Copies of the fo-egoing Order, which is a final COPIES OF THIS ORDER SHALL BE DELIVERED TO:
appealable orde’, were served on or delivered Petitioner
to the parties incicated pursuant to Civ.R. ^Petitioner’s Attorney
5(B) and 65.1(C)’3), including ordinary mail □ Respondent’s Attorney
□ Law Enforcement Agency Where Petitioner Resides:
on I I
□ Law Enforcement Agency Where Petitioner Works:
By:
CLERK OF COURT Ef Sheriff’s Office

E( Other:

waiver 0^-.^
I, _____________________________________ (Respondent) understand that I have the right to a full
hearing on the Petition for Civil Stalking Protection Order or Civil Sexually Oriented Offense Protection Order,
and acknowledge each of the following:

1. I waive the right to have a full hearing on this Protection Order.

2. I waive the right to cross-examine witnesses and review evidence submitted in support of this
Protection Order.
3. I waive the right to present witnesses and evidence on my own behalf.

FORM 10.03-F: CIVIL STALKING PROTECTIONORDERORCIVILSEXUALLYORIBfTEDOFFBISE PROTECTION ORDER FULL HEARING

Amended: April 15, 2021
Discard all previous versions of this form
[Page 6 of 6 Form 10.03-F]
Case No.
4. I waive the right to file objections and recognize this may limit my right to appeal the issuance of
this Protection Order.

I understand that based on the waivers listed above, a Protection Order will be entered against me.

RESPONDENT DATE

•’’rotQctkJ?! Odor

FORM1tt03F: CIVILSTALK1NG PROTECTIONORDERORCIV1LSEXUALLYORJENTEDOFFENSE PROTECTION ORDER FULL HEARING

Amended: April 15, 2021
Discard all previous versions of this form
This matter was called before the court on April 5, 2024 for a full hearing upon Petitioner

Juanita Brent’s request for a Civil Stalking Protection Order (“CSPO”) pursuant to Ohio Revised

Code §2903.214 against Respondent Elliot Forhan. The court hereby makes the following

findings:

The Court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter.

The within case was filed on November 20,2023, at which time the Magistrate conducted

an ex parte hearing and granted a short-term protection order until May 20, 2024.

Ms. Erent was represented by counsel and Mr. Forhan, who initially had counsel, later

represented himself pro se.

The parties had ample time to conduct discovery and depose witnesses.

At the full hearing, both parties had an opportunity to be heard by the court, to call

witnesses and to present evidence. Both parties testified under oath. In addition, Ms. Brent

called the following witnesses: Yolanda Bayless, Dave Brock and Mallory McMaster. Mr.

Forhan only called one witness, Linn Forhan.

The burden at a full CSPO hearing is on the Petitioner. To warrant a CSPO under R.C.

2903.214, the Petitioner must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Respondent's

conduct violates the menacing by stalking statute. Elkins v. Manley, 2016-0hio-8307, P13

(2016) (8th District). R.C. 2903.211(A)(1) states that “[n]o person by engaging in a pattern of

conduct shall knowingly cause another person to believe that the offender will cause physical

harm to the other person or a family or household member of the other person or cause mental

distress to the other person or a family or household member of the other person.”

After thoughtfully considering all relevant admissible evidence and the applicable legal

authority, the court DENIES the CSPO at the full hearing. In addition, the court VACATES the

1
ex parte protection order which was previously granted by the court. The Petitioner failed to

prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent knowingly engaged in a pattern of

conduct that caused the Petitioner to believe that she would be physically harmed or caused her

the requisite mental distress. The evidence is insufficient to warrant a protection order for her.

Ms. Brent and Mr. Forhan are both colleagues as members of the Ohio House of

Representatives. A rift between them began on May 23, 2023 after Ms. Brent witnessed a verbal

altercation between Mr. Forhan and a Ladosha Wright. Mr. Forhan met with Ms. Wright briefly

in a committee room between conducting other state matters. She was there speaking in

opposition to a bill that Mr. Forhan had co-sponsored. Mr. Forhan testified that the encounter

lasted approximately five minutes. Ms. Brent was present the entire time. Ms. Brent testified

that Mr. Forhan’s tone was “off-putting and aggressive” and he had “put his hand in front of her

face.” Ms. Brent was fearful for her.

This event does not warrant a protection order for Ms. Brent. She appears to be merely

an observer of the event. She was a bystander witnessing a brief heated discussion between two

people. There was no testimony that Mr. Forhan threatened or addressed Ms. Brent in any

aggressive manner. In addition, Ms. Brent did not testify that she was fearful for herself. This

whole event amounts to nothing. It would not even warrant a protection order for Ms. Wright,

who apparently later made up with Mr. Forhan, as he testified that after the incident, they went

on to work together on other matters and she even endorsed his re-election campaign. In

addition, the court notes that two days later, on May 25, 2023, encouraged by the House

Minority Leader Allison Russo, Mr. Forhan actually called Ms. Brent and apologized for his

actions. There is no menacing by stalking here.

2
Ms. Brent testified that she was concerned for her own safety when Mr. Forhan came to

her house, uninvited, and knocked on her door on June 26, 2023. She felt that Mr. Forhan was

“looking for her in an inappropriate way” and because of this she was “fearful” and “emotional.”

The court notes that Ms. Brent was not even home at the time. She only learned of this

encounter after the fact. Only two people were present, Mr. Forhan and Yolanda Bayless, Ms.

Brent’s cousin who lives with her. Ms. Bayless testified that she heard a “banging on the door”

and it was Mr. Forhan. She testified that “she cannot remember everything he said” and the

incident did not take or last too long. She remembered that Mr. Forhan asked if Juanita was

home and that he wanted to talk to her. She stated that he was “talking loud” and he was

“jittery,” “kiada nervous” and “afraid.” It also bothered her that he parked further down the

street and not in the driveway. Ms. Bayless stated she was “upset” and the event made her

“curious,” “unnerved” and “suspicious.” She called Ms. Brent later to inform her of what had

happened. For his part, Mr. Forhan testified that he only lives 15 or 20 minutes away. The

encounter lasted less than two minutes and it was the only time he has ever visited Ms. Brent’s

home. In addition, he stated that he knocked on the door in his normal fashion and he simply

parked his car down the street that day.

Much like the above event, this event amounts to nothing. Mr. Forhan did not threaten

Ms. Brent, let alone Ms. Bayless. He simply wanted to talk to his colleague and so he came over

unannounced, knocked on a door and left after two minutes having learned she was not at home.

This encounter does not warrant a protection order from the court. Although Ms. Brent and Ms.

Bayless used :he buzzwords of “fearful,” “emotional” and “afraid” in an effort to convince the

court for the need for a protection order, the court remains unpersuaded. Their testimony fell far

short of the standard necessary for a protection order. Just because a Petitioner, or a witness for

3
a Petitioner, uses so-called buzzwords does not mean that he or she has proven his or her case.

There is no legitimate threat of physical harm nor threat to mental health here.

On June 27, 2023, one day after Mr. Forhan visited Ms. Brent’s home, a meeting was

initiated by House Minority Leader Allison Russo to discuss the event from the day before. Both

Ms. Brent and Mr. Forhan were present along with Representative Phil Robinson. According to

Mr. Forhan the meeting lasted 30 to 45 minutes. At the meeting Mr. Forhan stated that he just

wanted to talk to Ms. Brent on the day before, and Ms. Brent emphasized that there were other

ways to contact her and that she had felt “uncomfortable” and “nervous” because of his visit to

her home. This meeting between House members does not sway the court in any way in favor of

granting a protection order. It is largely an innocuous meeting to discuss an innocuous event. In

addition, the court notes that Mr. Forhan once again attempted to apologize for his actions. On

July 3, 2023. encouraged by Representative Munira Abdullahi, he sent Ms. Brent blue flowers.

There is no menacing by stalking here.

Ms. Brent testified, in general, that she intentionally did not want to sit next to Mr.

Forhan at various times and when he sat down next to her she would move. She also testified

that she would have colleagues walk with her due to her safety concerns. All this testimony is

belied by the fact that she was willing to smile and pose with him and his family at a political

event on Seprember 10, 2023. (Respondent’s Exhibit 4). She testified that she was being polite

when she took the photo, but the court notes that she could also have politely refused. One does

not normally take a photo with one’s stalker, someone you are afraid of, someone who is causing

you physical harm or mental distress. A picture can be worth a thousand words. Here, it is quite

telling. The court is not swayed by her testimony regarding her safety concerns.

4
On November 15, 2023, Mr. Forhan was with his colleague, Representative Munira

Abdullahi, in a room at the Ohio Statehouse. Ms. Brent opened the door to the room from an

adjacent hallway, heard yelling, and then closed the door. She testified that she was afraid and

concerned for the safety of Ms. Munira. Mr. Forhan presented to the court hallway security

footage of Ms. Brent opening that door. (Respondent’s Exhibit 1). There was no audio of the

event, but it is clear to the court that she opened and closed the door in a couple of seconds. This

incredibly brief encounter does not form the basis for a protection order for Ms. Brent. She is

once again an observer or a bystander witnessing a heated exchange between her colleagues.

Again, there was no testimony that Mr. Forhan threatened or even addressed Ms. Brent during

this two second encounter. The court is disbelieving that this event caused Ms. Brent physical

harm or the requisite mental distress that would warrant a protection order.

Once again Mr. Forhan attempted to apologize for his actions. At the end of November

of 2023, he posted three short videos on line. (Petitioner’s Exhibit A) In the videos he stated

that he “should have known better.” He regretted his actions and he was sorry. He thanked Ms.

Brent for being a mentor and he actually said he loved her. What was Ms. Brent’s reaction to the

videos? For starters, Ms. Brent was bothered by the fact that the videos were not physically sent

to her. She only learned of them from other people. She felt that the “videos were for the

public” and that Mr. Forhan was trying to shape the narrative. After viewing the videos, she

stated that she felt “unnerved,” “uncomfortable” and “alarmed.” She said that it was “off-putting

that he said I iove you.” Before posting the apology videos, Mr. Forhan showed them to his

mother, Linn Forhan, who testified in court that she urged him to delete them for fear that they

might be misconstrued. The court believes that is exactly what happened. Ms. Brent was

misconstruing those videos, whether intentionally or not. The court is skeptical of Ms. Brent’s

5
reaction to them. Mr. Forhan expressed remorse and essentially asked for forgiveness in the

videos. The court is unconvinced that Ms. Brent was “unnerved,” “uncomfortable” and

“alarmed” by the apology videos. At first blush, it might be “off-putting” that a colleague says

he loves you, but when properly put in context, it is a term of respect and admiration, nothing

more. These videos do not support a finding of menacing by stalking.

There was mention of a tweet from Mr. Forhan, posted in November of 2023, referencing

Ohio’s Lieutenant Governor and the fact that Mr. Forhan has taken up deer archery. (Petitioner’s

Exhibit B). The tweet does not reference Ms. Brent. It has nothing to do with Ms. Brent. She

testified that she “came across it haphazardly.” The court finds this tweet to be irrelevant to this

case.

Finally, a word or more regarding Mallory McMaster. She was called as a witness for the

Petitioner to mainly testify as to the impact that Mr. Forhan’s actions had had on Ms. Brent, her

best friend. Two things became readily apparent to the court regarding Ms. McMaster, first, her

willingness to say or do anything in support of Ms. Brent, and second, her hatred for Mr. Forhan.

The second was palpable. She testified that she was not only “not fond” of Mr. Forhan but she

was “disgusted” by him. This one-two combination made for a very, very biased witness who

was willing to stretch the truth and exaggerate for effect in court. She showed her true motives

when she testified that she wanted Mr. Forhan removed from his state job and removed from the

Democratic Party. The court is dubious of her entire testimony and it gives no credence to her

claims that Ms. Brent is “not the same person anymore” and that she is a “shell of herself’

because of Mr. Forhan’s actions.

Mr. Forhan is not perfect by any means, but who amongst us is perfect. He made some

mistakes but he apologized for them, repeatedly. His actions do not lead the court to the

6
conclusion that Ms. Brent believed that she would be physically harmed or she was caused the

requisite mental distress under the law. The court notes that the most disturbing thing that

happened in the entire case was not even done by Mr. Forhan, but by Ms. McMaster, when she

testified, in open court, under oath, that she wanted to “shoot” Mr. Forhan. This is far worse

than anything that Mr. Forhan did or said to Ms. Brent in this entire case.

It is only after the court conducts a full hearing, that it gets a more complete picture of

what transpired between Ms. Brent and Mr. Forhan. Based on all relevant admissible evidence,

the protection order is indeed DENIED at the full hearing and the ex parte protection order,

which was previously granted by the court, is VACATED. Ms. Brent failed to prove by a

preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Forhan knowingly engaged in a pattern of conduct that

caused her to believe that she would be physically harmed or caused her the requisite mental

distress. There is absolutely no basis for a protection order.

This case has no merit. Mr. Forhan is herby exonerated.