Though Amy and Michael Howard did not show for court Thursday, a superior court judge granted the request for a 12 month protective order against a Washington County citizen without any further evidence submitted and before any cross examination could be conducted.
Background
Michael Howard filed a Petition for a Stalking Protective Order on March 27 against Washington County resident Stacey Johnson after Johnson videoed Howard’s law office from the sidewalk in Sandersville. Howard was hosting a campaign event for his wife, Amy, who is running for Chair of the Washington County Commission.
The 45-page application written by Howard included a two-page typed statement and 38 pages of exhibits, most of which include Facebook posts made by Johnson. In the statement, Howard alleges Johnson committed the act of stalking and placed him and his wife in fear for their safety.
Notably, Johnson is a former client of Howard’s and the subject of Howard’s ire in a now-viral video in which Howard repeatedly screams “F*** you” at Johnson. The majority of the Facebook posts referenced as exhibits followed the release of that video and continued on until Howard resigned from his position as both state court solicitor and county attorney for the Washington County Board of Commissioners.
The majority of the Facebook posts referenced as exhibits followed the release of that video and continued on until Howard resigned from his position as both state court solicitor and county attorney for the Washington County Board of Commissioners.
Several of the posts were news articles on the GBI investigation into Howard in his official capacity and in his application for a protective order, Howard notes that the behavior is not illegal but “strange and alarming.”
On March 27, Judge Tommy Smith of the Middle Judicial Circuit granted the ex-parte Temporary Protective Order (TPO) barring Johnson from being within 200 yards of Michael Howard and prohibiting direct and indirect contact with Howard or his immediate family. A hearing was subsequently scheduled for April 21, at which point Johnson would be given an opportunity to oppose a twelve month order.
In the days following the TPO, Johnson published the body camera footage from Sandersville Police on social media. The police had been called in response to Johnson’s presence on the sidewalk outside the event. In the video, Amy Howard can be seen exiting the campaign event to talk with Johnson, offering him snacks and water.
Late Hour Filing
Howard’s attorney, Lee Cannon, filed a Brief in response to the Motion to Strike under the anti-SLAPP provision at 7:21 a.m. Thursday morning – less than three hours before court was scheduled to begin.
In the brief, Howard’s attorney said that Stacey Johnson engaged in criminal activity when he filmed Michael Howard from the sidewalk and in the Walmart parking lot. Specifically in the sidewalk case, he said Johnson could see through what he described as a ‘mirrored window’ and it was an invasion of privacy. The Walmart parking lot recording was not protected First Amendment activity because it was done to ‘frighten or torment’ Howard, Cannon said, and the TPO should not be dismissed.
Andrew Fleischman, attorney for Stacey Johnson, said the question to be decided was whether or not a public official can evade scrutiny and label it stalking.
He said the 33 Facebook post made by Johnson were protected activity and that the late filing by Howard showed a concession of as much because they recognize that. What’s left to be considered are the two incidents – one at Walmart in September 2025 and one at the Howard law office during a campaign meet and greet in March 2026.
Fleischman played the body camera footage from the Sandersville police officer who responded to the scene. He noted that in the video where Michael Howard is talking with the police officer he does not appear terrified or scared. “ what he wants is for the filming to stop. But there’s nothing illegal about what occurred.”
Canon said the disagreement is whether Georgia law allows someone to go too far in surveillance, harassing, and bothering somebody.
“We believe the case law supports that filming into a tinted window is not protected,” he said. He continued that there was a photo from inside the law office showing that Stacey Johnson was holding a camera up to the window. Cannon did not present any evidence that Johnson or his camera could actually see into the window.
“There is a pattern. Facebook has not been raised as the grounds for the TPO, it’s for the pattern. You can’t bother, harassed, or torture someone. And this TPO was filed to show that it has gone too far,” Cannon said. “You can’t just follow someone around until they can’t live a normal life.”
Judge Smith read a Facebook post from Johnson regarding the viral video and asked Cannon if Johnson was a former client of his client. Cannon replied that the issue predates him, but his understanding was that there was a dispute over a fee and representation.
Fleischman told the court that there was no dispute from the other side that Mr. Howard was a public official or that his wife is running for public office.
“What’s missing here is a pattern of harassing and intimidating or that the Howards were placed in reasonable fear. He filmed to publish the public forums and that’s what he did without commentary. He didn’t say “this guy sucks, let’s do something to him.”
Fleischman went on to tell the court that Johnson’s Facebook post mentioned the GBI investigation into Michael Howard, as well as allegations of misappropriated funds.
“There’s no evidence that Johnson harmed the Howard’s or even that the Howard’s asked him to stop filming. One of these things happened in September and another thing happened in March, six months apart. And there’s nothing threatening about him. I asked that you don’t take away the rights of all the people in this county to criticize their public officials,” Fleischman said.
Cannon said that it would be very easy for the court to find that Johnson was filming to continue to torment the Howards.
Fleischman, however, said that there was a lack of context in what Cannon was saying. He said that the filming happened on two occasions and it did not impact the Howards’ everyday life.
“The only evidence that has been presented. Here is what Michael Howard believes. There is nothing to support that Johnson’s mindset was to intimidate or harass. I ask that you affirm Johnson’s right to record public officials in Washington county,” Fleischman closed.
Ruling from Judge on anti-SLAPP
Judge Smith said that he would issue a formal written order at a later time detailing his explanations, but that he was originally going to address the arguments.
Smith said that he was required to look at whether or not Johnson’s conduct was protected activity. He said that case law from California, the state on which Georgia’s anti-SLAPP statute is based, indicates that in order to be protected activity, it should be a matter of concern for a substantial number of people and the focus should be on the public interest, not a private controversy.
He said Johnson’s Facebook post about the viral video where Michael Howard was screaming “F*** you” at him shows the basis of the claim – he was a private client who got into a dispute.
“He was basically a disgruntled, former client who then started following and photographing and dedicating himself to harassing the moving party here. He even posed in a shirt saying “no days off, give them hell” with the law firm name Sessions & Fleischman below. I don’t know if that’s the firms motto or if it’s just the motto in regards to this case, but he tells us very clearly the beef with Mr. Howard.”
“This being in the context of stalking, one has to ask if a boyfriend mad at his former girlfriend, who decided to declare himself a citizen journalist and started following and harassing the ex-girlfriend would be protected activity. What if she was a public figure? What if she was a teacher? Could he not comment on her personal failings and how they affect her ability to teach? Could he follow her to the end of the Earth because she holds a public job? I don’t think so. There’s gotta be a line that has to be drawn and I believe this falls closer to that scenario than any kind of legitimate journalism,” Smith told the parties.
He said the law office is not a public office like a City Hall and a private law office is where one performs things that involve Attorney-client privilege, though the office was being used for campaign event at the time of the recording.
Smith did note that the Facebook posts were protected speech, but noted that anti-SLAPP motion failed on the first element because Johnson’s motivations were explained in the Facebook post.
The court quickly moved on to the matter of making the TPO permanent for 12 months.
Cannon argued for less than a minute that they were going to rely on the previous pleadings submitted to the court as the basis for the 12 month order. Neither Michael Howard nor Amy Howard were present and no additional evidence was submitted.
Fleischman argued that in the absence of any evidence, a TPO must be dismissed.
Judge Smith said that he was going to rely on the verified testimony and pleadings and grant the 12 month protective order.
Fleischman objected on the basis of the court relying on hearsay, arguing that hearsay was not admissible in this kind of proceeding. “No in court testimony was heard.”
Judge Smith replied that the exhibit showing Stacey Johnson in the window with a camera was submitted, prompting Fleischman to respond that Johnson had not been given an opportunity to cross examine the individuals making the claims. He lamented that the court did not adhere to the 30-day statutory requirement to have the hearing for cross examination. “You’ve denied him that.”
“You caused that by filing the anti-SLAPP,” Smith replied.
“Me filing the motion for the anti-SLAPP does not mean that it is my fault,” Fleischman said.
“That will be the order of the court,” Smith closed.
