Session April 12, 2017
from the Circuit Court for Davidson County No. 16X495 Philip
E. Smith, Judge
who pled guilty to charges of aggravated stalking and
harassment was ordered to stay away from the woman he was
stalking and harassing. When the initial term of the order of
protection was nearly over, the woman filed a motion seeking
to have the order of protection extended for another year.
The trial court granted the motion, and the man appealed. The
man does not deny engaging in the acts that formed the basis
for the order of protection; the issues he raises on appeal
are procedural and tangential to the reasons for the order.
Concluding that none of the issues raised entitle the
appellant to any relief, we affirm the trial court's
judgment extending the order of protection.
R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit
Steven Molthan, Nashville, Tennessee, Pro Se.
D. Bennett, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which
Frank G. Clement, Jr., P.J., M.S., and W. Neal McBrayer, J.,
D. BENNETT, JUDGE
Factual and Procedural Background
case began on February 25, 2015, when Jennifer Suzanne
Gillett filed a petition for an order of protection against
Jason Steven Molthan in the Davidson County General Sessions
court. The basis for the petition was Mr. Molthan's
unwelcome attention directed to Ms. Gillett via
"thousands and thousands of messages through Facebook,
" texts on Ms. Gillett's cell phone, "hundreds
of voicemail messages, " Mr. Molthan's appearance at
her house, and Mr. Molthan's attempts to deliver gifts to
her. Earlier on the day when Ms. Gillett sought the order of
protection, Mr. Molthan was arrested outside her house and
charged with aggravated stalking and harassment. In support
of her petition, Ms. Gillett wrote:
I am afraid that Jason will kidnap me, hurt me, or hurt my
family in order to be with me because he believes that I want
to be with him and that we are supposed to be together. Jason
and I have never been in a relationship and were only
acquaintances in high school in Texas. I am terrified that he
has found me and will not leave me or my family alone. He has
consistently taken action based on delusions and
hallucinations which cause me to worry about my current
safety and future safety.
general sessions court issued Ms. Gillett an ex parte
temporary order of protection on the day she filed the
petition and set a hearing for March 5, 2015. Mr. Molthan was
in the State's custody by that time, and he was notified
of the hearing scheduled for March 5. The hearing date was
continued several times until May 14, 2015, when the general
sessions court granted Ms. Gillett an order of protection
against Mr. Molthan extending until May 14, 2016.
April 28, 2016, Ms. Gillett filed a motion to extend the
order of protection for another year. In support of this
motion, Ms. Gillett wrote:
I would like my Order of Protection against Jason Molthan
extended for 1 year because I am afraid for my life. Jason
has been stalking me on and off since Junior High school.
Jason was convicted of 2 counts of Aggravated Stalking and 1
count of Harassment in July 2015. Since his conviction, he
has been in Nashville and will be here until 2018 to complete
the requirements of his probation. I have recently been
outspoken in the media about a bill that would change the
Stalking laws in Tennessee. Jason began to appear frequently
at the Tennessee legislature when he learned I was connected
to this bill. Jason went as far as to breach security and go
into the Governor's office. Jason delivered a handwritten
letter to Bill Haslam opposing the Stalking bill. The letter
mentioned my name several times throughout, saying that I
created the bill because I have a personal vendetta against
him. He insinuates that he is going to punish me through the
courts for having him arrested for stalking me. I believe
Jason will continue to stalk me if my Order of Protection
lapses. The recent interaction with the legislature shows
that he is still interested in stalking me. I believe I am in
danger if my Order of Protection lapses because Jason has a
violent history and has made threats to harm me in the past.
general sessions court held a hearing on May 5, 2016, and
granted Ms. Gillett's motion, extending her order of
protection for one year.
Molthan appealed the order granting Ms. Gillett's motion
to the Circuit Court of Davidson County. Mr. Molthan filed a
motion challenging the court's jurisdiction and invoked
his civil rights followed by a motion to dismiss the order of
protection. A special master heard the appeal on June 14,
2016, and she affirmed the general sessions court's
judgment extending the order of protection for one year. Mr.
Molthan sought a re-hearing before a circuit court judge.
Following his request for a re-hearing, Mr. Molthan filed
motions seeking the following: (1) to replace the flag with a
non-fringed flag, cite the pledge of allegiance, and enact a
jury trial; (2) to activate a Tennessee Constitution article
VI court; (3) to invoke rights under constitutional
authority; (4) to ensure the rule of law; (5) for special
care, patience, and to uphold the spirit of the law; and (6)
for due process.
circuit court held a hearing on Mr. Molthan's motions on
July 7, 2016, and it entered an order denying each of the
motions. The court found Mr. Molthan's "reasoning to
be convoluted and generally not supported by Tennessee law or
our Rules of Civil Procedure." The court then entered an
order granting Ms. Gillett's motion extending her order
of protection against Mr. Molthan for one year. The court
made the following findings of fact:
1.Petitioner and Respondent attended the same junior high and
high school in Odessa, Texas in the 1990s at which time they
did not socialize and were not friends. However, Respondent
engaged in some unwanted contact with Petitioner during those
2. Petitioner moved to Nashville as an adult, is married and
has children. She is a mental health provider/private
3. In June of 2014 Petitioner began receiving messages from
the Respondent on Facebook. These messages quickly became
alarming to Petitioner in their frequency and content. Based
on their content, it appeared to Petitioner that Respondent
was suffering from a delusional understanding of a
relationship with Petitioner that did not exist in reality.
The messages were erratic, aggressive, and highly sexualized.
4.In addition to contacting Petitioner via Facebook,
Respondent also began contacting her via telephone, with
thousands of text messages and voice mails.
5.Petitioner made it clear from the beginning and restated
multiple times that any contact from the Respondent was
unwelcome and unwanted. The frequency and content of the
messages caused her to feel terrorized ...