About this record
Every document linked here is a public record of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common
Pleas, the Rocky River Municipal Court, the Supreme Court of Ohio, or the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. Nothing published here is sealed,
confidential, or was obtained privately.
This site is published independently. Its publishers are not affiliated
with, related to, or acting on behalf of any person named on these pages, and are not a party
to any of the proceedings described. Nothing here is filed, endorsed or authorized by any
court, any party, or any lawyer in any of those cases.
Why his accusations are not reproduced here
A court found that what he published about his ex-wife and her mother was false,
and ordered it removed from the internet. The postcards, the fundraising page, the LinkedIn
posts and the YouTube videos are described only as the court or his victims described
them, and are not published as exhibits. This is a deliberate choice: republishing
accusations a court has found false would spread them further, which is the injury the
court’s order was meant to stop.
What is reproduced here is his own conduct — his threats, his filings, and
what he wrote to and about the courts. In most of these documents, accusations against his
ex-wife have been covered — except where the court’s findings answer them directly,
in which case they are quoted and the finding is set beside them.
Redactions
Black boxes on the protection orders cover the two minor children’s names and every
date of birth on the form, including those of the two adult victims. One further
redaction covers the name of a woman who appears in a filing only as the subject of an
allegation no court has ever ruled on; she has nothing to do with this case.
His own address is not redacted. He filed it himself, in his own hand, on these and
many other public documents. The addresses that are covered belong to his ex-wife,
her mother and the children. Nothing exculpatory has been removed — every redaction covers a
private identifier belonging to a victim, a child, or an uninvolved third party.
Accuracy
Where these pages say a court found something, a court found it. Two distinctions
are worth stating plainly. The injunction of 4 January 2023 was an order, not a
finding of defamation — liability was found on 2 August 2023 and damages assessed on
26 February 2024. And the count of nineteen YouTube channels is not a judicial
finding — it comes from a sworn affidavit of counsel, and from his own email of
18 May 2023, in which he described the material as being on “YouTube under
the channel Easton Horner 1-19.” The court’s own finding was 20 hours of video.
Corrections
If anything here is inaccurate it will be corrected. Every statement is tied to a
document, and every document is linked, so that any reader can check it independently
rather than taking this record’s word for it.
Report an error — no name or email is required, and
the form sends nothing to any third party.