They called our posthumous article on Timothy Bryan Steely as “poor taste. and demanded we “let him rest in peace”. (Click Here to read original Article).
Complained that publishing his record immediately after his death was “too soon” as though death performs some supernatural expungement, converts public records into private property, and transforms scrutiny into sacrilege.

But before repeating that objection,

Steely supporters may want to ask themselves a more uncomfortable question:

Am I actually defending principle or merely defending authority?

Because there is a difference between a patriot and a bootlicker, and the difference is not measured by flags, bumper stickers, camouflage, police-support decals, or how loudly someone chants “back the blue.”

It is measured by what they do when power abuses the powerless.

Two Words the “Law-and-Order” Crowd Keeps Confusing

bootlicker noun | ˈbüt-ˌli-kər

A contemptuous person who displays servile, unquestioning loyalty to authority often illustrated by excusing cruelty, corruption, or abuse of power in hopes of gaining favor or feeling aligned with those in control. In policing discourse, it describes a person who defends the badge reflexively, even when the conduct beneath it is indefensible.

patriot noun | ˈpā-trē-ət

A person devoted to the welfare, principles, and constitutional ideals of their country; not merely to its officials, institutions, or symbols. A patriot defends the nation by demanding accountability from those who wield its power.

Blind obedience to government is loyalty to authority, not patriotism.

Now apply those definitions with honesty and self reflection.

• When you see a mugshot and declare the arrested person guilty on social media before trial, are you a bootlicker or a patriot?

• When police release a carefully worded press statement and you accept it as truth before seeing the body-camera footage, are you a bootlicker or a patriot?

• When an officer shoots someone and you immediately invent a reason the victim must have deserved it, are you a bootlicker or a patriot?

• When a public record exposes misconduct and your first concern is not the injured citizen, the dead man, or the Constitution; but whether criticism might hurt the officer’s family; are you a bootlicker or a patriot?

The answer may not be as flattering as the flag hanging from your porch.

“Too Soon” Is a Courtesy Rarely Extended to Anyone Without a Badge

Imagine, for a second, that Timothy Steely had been a death-row prisoner instead of a badge holder.

Imagine that the State had chosen to end his life, instead of it ending by accident…

• Would the same people now demanding restraint insist that social media “let him rest in peace”?

• Would they plead for sensitivity toward his family or friends?

• Would they object that discussing the conduct so soon after his death was “in poor taste”?

No.

• They would repeat the worst facts available until the man ceased to be human. They would use those facts to justify mockery, cruelty, and celebration.

• They would call his family’s grief unfortunate but irrelevant.

• They would insist that his own conduct forfeited every expectation of sympathy.

That is how the punishment culture works when the dead person wore prison clothing. But place a badge on similar moral failure, and suddenly everyone discovers nuance.

Suddenly timing matters. Suddenly grief becomes sacred.

Suddenly criticism is indecent. Suddenly the deceased must be remembered as a whole person rather than reduced to the consequences of his conduct.

Compassion applied only to members of your preferred gang is not compassion at all. It is favoritism dressed as morality.

The Badge Determined Who Was Worth Saving

The contrast is obscene.

Hank Miller was shot and Steely left him without the lifesaving intervention that might have given him a chance. Blake Adair was riddled with bullets, and two requested medical flights were canceled while his body absorbed the consequences of a police shooting that should never have happened.

By contrast, law enforcement immediately attempted to save Timothy Steely.

First responders found him and performed lifesaving measures at the roadside. They treated his life as urgent. They acted as though every remaining second mattered. They did exactly what emergency personnel are supposed to do when a human being lies dying in front of them.

That is what Steely should have done for Hank Miller, but chose not to.

That is what Steely should have done for Blake Adair, but chose not to.

Miller and Adair were not members of the police fraternity. They were civilians on the other side of police violence. Their bodies became problems to manage, scenes to control, and narratives to contain. Steely, however, received instinctive mercy, urgency, and human recognition that he withheld from his own victims.

The badge did not merely affect how these men were treated. It determined whose suffering activated compassion.

Steely’s defenders now demand tenderness because he died.

Where was that tenderness when Miller needed a pulse checked?

Where was it when Adair needed immediate transport and two flights were canceled?

Where was this reverence for human life when the wounded men were civilians and the officer standing over them (Timothy Steely) was culpable for the emergency?

That is the moral fraud at the center of badge worship: police demand to be judged by the mercy they receive while refusing to be judged by the mercy they deny.

Steely was given the lifesaving effort he refused to give others.

The tragedy is not that anyone tried to save him. The tragedy is that the same urgency was not considered equally sacred when the dying men did not wear blue.

“Copaganda” Has Distorted Our Communities’ Morality.

copaganda (cop-uh-GAN-duh) noun | ˌkä-pə-ˈgan-də

Media, messaging, or political rhetoric that sanitizes police misconduct, portrays officers as presumptive heroes, and conditions the public to excuse cruelty or constitutional abuse when committed under color of law. Programming citizens to distrust every arrestee, believe every police report, and treat accountability as an attack on public safety.

For decades, police departments, unions, entertainment media, local newsrooms, and political campaigns have sold the same mythology:

The officer is presumed brave. The arrested person is presumed guilty.

The police report is presumed true. The arrested person is presumed a liar.

The officer’s fear is treated as evidence. The citizen’s fear is treated as resistance.

The officer’s mistakes deserve context. The citizen’s mistakes deserve punishment.

That is copaganda at play, the moral conditioning program that teaches the public to associate government violence with virtue. It explains how people can watch officers beat, choke, shoot, or humiliate someone and immediately ask what the victim did to cause it; why an arrestee’s mugshot becomes a public invitation to ridicule before a jury has heard a single shred of evidence;

and why officers are granted a presumption of sainthood while citizens are denied even the presumption of innocence.

And it explains the response to this article. The outrage was not that the record was false.

The outrage was that the record was published without first kneeling before the badge.

Veteran Status Is Not a Moral Pardon

Some of Steely’s supporters have invoked his military background as though service in one uniform erases misconduct committed in another.

It does not.

Military service may be honorable. It may involve sacrifice, discipline, courage, injury, trauma, or loss. None of that grants permanent immunity from moral judgment.

Nor does his supporter’s speculations about possible post-traumatic stress redeem violence.

Millions of veterans live with trauma without brutalizing civilians, ordering unjustified gunfire, ignoring wounded people, or protecting fellow officers from accountability. Using PTSD as an excuse insults every veteran who carries invisible wounds without turning those wounds into someone else’s suffering.

The invocation of military status also exposes a deeper institutional sickness.

American police departments increasingly borrow the equipment, aesthetics, language, and mentality of war. Through programs such as the Department of Defense’s 1033 Program, military equipment flows into civilian law enforcement. Armored vehicles, tactical formations, battlefield hardware, and “warrior” culture teach officers to view neighborhoods as hostile terrain and citizens as potential enemy combatants.

But police are not an occupying army. A traffic stop is not a military checkpoint.

A citizen is not an insurgent.

And the Constitution does not disappear because an officer has been trained to approach the public as a threat.

Any true patriot should be alarmed by the militarization of domestic policing.

A bootlicker sees the armored vehicle and applauds, or denies such connection or consequence.

Accountability Is Not Cruelty

Publishing Steely’s public record serves a purpose beyond condemning one deceased officer.

• It warns every department that the old escape routes are closing.

• Resignation will not erase the record.

• Transferring departments will not erase the record.

• Retirement will not erase the record.

• Death will not erase the record.

Public accountability is not vengeance. It is community memory functioning as public safety.

When institutions refuse to identify patterns, citizens must.

When departments conceal personnel histories, researchers must connect them.

When unions transform misconduct into martyrdom, journalists must restore the facts.

When police refuse to police themselves, the public must document what they protected, what they ignored, and who paid the price.

That is not disrespect for the dead. It is respect for the living people who may otherwise become the next names in the file.

Which one will you be going forward…

A bootlicker who believes supporting law enforcement means protecting officers from consequences and sees criticism of police as betrayal? -OR-

A patriot who believes supporting the Constitution means protecting citizens from lawless officers and understands that unchecked government power is the betrayal?

A bootlicker who condemns an arrested citizen before trial but demands silence when the accused authority figure is exposed and applies the same principles regardless of the uniform? -OR-

A bootlicker who values order even when the order is unjust? -OR-

A patriot who values liberty enough to challenge the people empowered to destroy it?

To Steely’s Supporters, We urge you to ask yourselves:

When the government harms someone, do you demand evidence or manufacture excuses?

Do you defend due process for everyone; or only for people you admire?

Do you believe an oath matters; or merely the costume worn while reciting it?

Would you excuse the same conduct from an ordinary citizen?

Would you call it “poor taste” if the dead person had been a prisoner rather than a police officer?

Are you loyal to constitutional principles or are you loyal to whoever carries the gun?

Are you actually a patriot; or have you simply mistaken obedience for patriotism because “bootlicker” sounds less heroic?

An Open Message to Law Enforcement

Bad cops will no longer be tolerated.

Neither will the departments that circulate them, the supervisors who ignore them, the officers who remain silent, the unions that canonize them, or the officials who bury their records beneath press releases and memorial language.

The algorithm will not relent.

Digital archives do not honor the blue wall. Search engines do not care who was popular at the sheriff’s office.

Body-camera footage will be compared with reports. Employment histories will be traced across jurisdictions.

As artificial intelligence becomes more mainstream by the second, patterns that once required years of manual research will become visible in minutes.

Contradictions will be found. Transfers will be mapped. Names will be connected.

Silence will become evidence of your departments failures.

“Copaganda” is dying!

The public no longer has to consume the politically crafted version of events spewed by the Sheriff or department’s public-information officer.

To Supporters demanding that accountability observe a mourning period:

re-examine your morality.

Ask why you celebrate cruelty when the target is accused of a crime but demand tenderness and sugar coating when the person under scrutiny wore a badge.

Ask why your compassion travels upward toward power instead of downward towards your neighbors and communities?

Ask whether you love your country’s constitutional ideals or merely enjoy standing in the shadows cast by authority.

May Timothy Steely rest wherever the dead rest.

His public record will not.

REFORM IS NOT A REQUEST!

According to legacy media, his motorcycle “failed to negotiate a curve”. The motorcycle left the road and struck a sign, a rock, a small tree, and a culvert. Steely was not wearing a helmet and was pronounced dead at the scene. The precise cause “remains under investigation”.

Those facts describe how Timothy Steely died.

They do not tell the public who he was when the government handed him a badge, a firearm, arrest authority, and the power to alter—or end—another person’s life.

That story is considerably less flattering.

Private grief belongs to Steely’s family and friends. They are entitled to it.

Public memory belongs to the communities and victims left behind where he abused state power, and the public not required to trade his documented misconduct record for a polished obituary merely because its subject is dead.

Death deserves human acknowledgment. It does not demand civic amnesia.

A Badge With Too Many Forwarding Addresses

Steely’s publicly known law enforcement history connects him not only with the Bryan County Sheriff’s office, but six additional agencies: Southeastern Oklahoma State University Police Department, Kingston Police Department, Marshall County Sheriff’s Office, Bokchito Police Department, Healdton Police Department, and Pushmataha County Sheriff’s Office.

Seven named agencies.

Seven separate opportunities for a chief, sheriff, administrator, or hiring authority to ask what happened at the last department.

That recurring movement is commonly described in law-enforcement accountability circles as the “Gypsy Cop” phenomenon. The term may be crude but the institutional practice it describes is cruder, and real: officers move between departments after injuring their communities while complaints, resignations, and disciplinary concerns fail to follow them.

The national law-enforcement community itself recognizes the danger. The Brady List (public facing) and The National Decertification Index (Law Enforcement Access only) exist partly to assist hiring agencies with employment screening.

Steely’s employment history is therefore not an irrelevant résumé detail. It is the spine of his public legacy: the badge kept moving while the victims accumulated.

Healdton: A 79-Year-Old Woman Left Bleeding

The earliest publicly available misconduct report on Steely dates to May 2015 (No. 1651252545-1639278254), while he was associated with the Healdton Police Department.

Steely followed James Pender for approximately seven blocks before stopping him near his mother’s home. According to the report, the encounter was retaliation connected to Pender’s brother, a town council member who had confronted Steely over complaints involving an expired temporary tag.

When Pender’s 79-year-old mother approached to ask what was happening, body cam video shows Steely grabbed her arm and drove her head into a golf cart. He then attempted to handcuff her while she was unconscious. The elderly woman sustained arm injuries and a head laceration requiring a hospital visit. The report includes links to injury photographs, videos, and a contemporaneous article reference.

The report further states that no traffic citation was issued at the scene. Days later, Mrs. Pender allegedly received a plea proposal referencing obstruction, despite no court charge having been filed. According to the report, the paperwork contained both the wrong incident date and a birth year off by more than half a century.

That is not a tale of public service. It is a portrait of governmental power weaponized against an elderly woman who dared to approach an officer and ask what he was doing to her son.

And then the badge moved.

Bryan County: Steely’s Story and Video Evidence Did Not Match

In November 2016, Steely publicly described an encounter in which he said several men surrounded and attacked him, including choking him and punching him in the face.

But a report (No. 1652578133-20554399) provided bystander video that told a materially different story. The footage showed the accused “attacker” was actually the victim, being pushed backward before Steely lunged toward him and climbed on top of him after the man was on the ground. Other uniformed officers could be seen trying to pull Steely off the man… contradicting Steely’s statement to the press that backup was unavailable. Unsurprisingly, Steely was not wearing a body camera.

When an officer’s version collapses against independent video, that is not a harmless discrepancy; it marks him as a “Giglio cop”, or, in plain English, a cop whose word cannot be trusted. An officer’s statements manufacture probable cause, excuse violence, trigger criminal charges, drive bond decisions, and can place an innocent person in a cage.

A lying officer is not merely an embarrassment to his department; he is a direct threat to every constitutional safeguard that depends upon truthful police testimony.

Bryan County: The Compliant Arrestee He Injured

In October 2021 (Report No. 1675699260-1573214471) Steely injured a Navy Veteran’s Rotator Cuff due to the manner in which he applied handcuffs during the arrest.

What makes this report especially disturbing is Steely’s own words in his police report narrative. According to the complaint, his own report acknowledged that the man complied with all instructions. Nevertheless, a Navy Veteran had to seek medical care and was diagnosed with a torn rotator cuff due to Steely’s recklessness. All criminal charges were later dismissed.

The Constitution does not authorize officers to punish people on the roadside. Handcuffs are restraints, not torture devices. Arrest authority is not permission to inflict an injury when prosecutors cannot even pursue a sustainable charge.

And then the badge moved.

Pushmataha County: A Murder Scene Became a Brotherhood Meeting

The May 30, 2021 police murder of Hank Miller, a 48-year-old disabled veteran in Pushmataha County (Report No. 1675699260-1573214471) illustrates the more Steely outran accountability, the more callous and inhumane he became.

Hank Miller was unarmed, made no threatening statements, posed no serious threat, yet was murdered by Deputy Keith Knoll. (link: VIDEO - Content Warning: violent death).

Hank Miller lay motionless, riddled with bullets. Keith Knoll had fired the shots. Timothy Steely stood at the scene with a badge on his chest, a weapon at his side, and every opportunity to decide what that badge actually meant. Was it an oath to uphold the law? Or was it membership in a gang where the law stops the moment the shooter is wearing the same uniform?

Steely made his choice. He did not disarm Knoll. He did not order Knoll to the ground. He did not place him in handcuffs.

He did not treat the scene as it was: the site of a killing that demanded immediate investigation.

Had Knoll been an ordinary citizen, there would have been no hesitation. Force would be immediate. Guns drawn. Command shouted. The shooter would have received a knee to the back of his neck.

But Knoll was not an ordinary citizen. He was a brother in blue. So the rules changed.

The killer remained free. The man full of bullets remained dying.

And Timothy Steely, the officer supposedly entrusted to enforce the law without fear or favor, stood there and helped transform a homicide scene into a brotherhood meeting. That was his first betrayal that night.

His second was even more unforgivable. Hank Miller was a human being who served his country. He was wounded and in desperate need of aid. Steely had hands. He had training. He had access to emergency equipment. He had the ability to search for a pulse, apply pressure to a wound, begin CPR, or make some meaningful effort to preserve life.

Instead, Steely chatted Knolls up and played on his phone.

Those actions are telling. Steely found urgency when it came to his phone, yet found no urgency when it came to the bleeding man at his feet.

And do not allow anyone to disguise that failure with sterile language.

This was not an “oversight.” It was not “confusion.” It was not the paralysis of an ordinary bystander suddenly confronted with violence.

Timothy Steely was a trained law-enforcement officer. He claimed authority to arrest citizens, use force, carry a firearm, and make split second decisions affecting human life and liberty.

When he witnessed Knoll shoot Miller, Steely had a duty to intervene.

When the gunfire stopped, Steely had a duty to secure the shooter.

When Miller lay wounded, Steely had a duty to render aid.

Steely chose indifference because the shooter wore a badge. That was the corrupt bargaining of his heart at play.

The law, and basic morality, did not release Steely from duty merely because another officer fired first. His responsibility continued through every second he chose inaction over intervention, loyalty over law.

Steely would exercise power and force against civilians on a whim, but not against a killer with an embroidered star on his polo shirt.

When a wounded man needed aid, Steely wouldn’t even offer him attention, abandoning his oath without hesitation.

That was moral cowardice armed with government authority.

That distinction does not redeem him. It condemns him. Timothy Steely was the rot beneath the mythology of the “thin blue line.” Officers demand to be celebrated as fearless first responders, but when a fellow officer kills, courage and morality disappears. The uniforms close ranks and the machinery of excuse-making begins before the blood has dried.

And then the badge moved back to Bryan County.

Bryan County: Wrong Suspect, Shot on Steely’s Command, Then Left to Suffer

Public Complaint No. 1652488265 - 1763989507 is accurate, but omits some key issues.

Blake Adair was not the suspect police were looking for.

He was pursued because his vehicle was the same color as a vehicle associated with an incident. That was the threadbare foundation for the encounter: no confirmed identification, no verified probable cause, and no corroborating evidence that Adair had committed any offense, he was simply driving a white pickup truck in Durant, Oklahoma.

Police selected a target, and turned a case of mistaken identity into a firing squad.

Timothy Steely was not required to be part of that encounter. He chose to insert himself into it.

The official records and multiple body-camera recordings (in the author’s possession) identify Steely as the officer who called out for shots to be fired. At the time the command was given, Adair’s arms were raised and his firearm was pointed away from law enforcement.

That distinction destroys the standard police excuse.

Adair was not aiming at officers. He was not presenting an imminent firing posture. His hands were visible, and the weapon was directed away from them. Yet Steely supplied the verbal and physical trigger that converted a wrongful pursuit into a barrage of police gunfire.

Seven or more rounds fired. This time Steely was one of the shooters.

The first shot brought Adair down. Officers then advanced and continued firing. What began with the wrong vehicle ended with the wrong man lying shredded by bullets because Steely escalated uncertainty into lethal force instead of exercising the restraint demanded of the badge.

This was not a split-second mistake born from unavoidable confusion. The confusion was created by police. The wrong-suspect pursuit was theirs. The failure to verify identity was theirs. The decision to escalate was theirs. And the command to fire came from Steely while Adair’s arms were raised and his weapon was pointed away.

Then Steely repeated the same moral failure from the Hank Miller murder.

Once the shooting stopped, Blake Adair had been struck repeatedly and was catastrophically injured.

Steely failed to provide the level of medical aid demanded by the carnage he unleashed.

Police officers are trained to preserve life, yet when officers create the wounds, that supposed lifesaving urgency too often evaporates.

Adair survived the initial shooting, but survival was not the same as recovery.

For nearly two years, he endured severe pain, agonizing nerve damage, repeated medical intervention, and the psychological trauma of knowing that he had been mistaken for someone else, hunted, and shot while attempting surrender. His life became an extension of that fateful night: pain without relief, injury without restoration, and trauma without meaningful return to the life he had before Timothy Steely’s command.

Eventually, Adair took his own life.

Blake Adair’s death cannot objectively be severed from what happened to him. The bullets did not stop harming him when the gunfire ended. They remained in the nerve damage, the medical procedures, the physical suffering, and the psychological devastation that followed him for nearly two years.

Steely and his brotherhood in blue did not merely shoot the wrong man. They altered the entire remainder of his life.

Steely’s role was not peripheral. He volunteered himself into the encounter, helped transform mistaken identity into lethal escalation that would ultimately lead to Blake Adair’s premature death by directing and participating in the gunfire.

Steely turned mistaken identity into a death sentence that took nearly two years to finish carrying itself out.

No Internal Affairs Hero. No Silver Steed.

The most damning fact from Timothy Steely’s career is not merely that violence followed his badge… it is that none of his violence was enough for law enforcement to stop him.

No “good cop” was able to brake rank and come forward. No Sheriff intervened to “uphold the constitution”. Not a single state entity treated the mounting warnings as a duty rather than an inconvenience.

CLEET did not uncover the truth through vigilance, integrity, or meaningful oversight; it acted only after a woman he terrorized forced the matter into a courtroom and obtained the order that statutorily rendered certification untenable.

Accountability did not come from any badge. It came from the people the badge failed. Ordinary citizens performed the public-safety function via the Brady List that seven law-enforcement agencies refused to perform. They sounded the alarm, carried the evidence, absorbed the retaliation, and pushed until the system could no longer look away.

That is the obscenity at the center of Steely’s legacy: the institutions that claim moral superiority and authority to police entire communities refused to police one of their own. They did nothing to remove the danger; they simply redistributed it. Passed the badge and transferred the liability risk leaving civilians to accomplish what their oaths, training, and command structures were supposedly designed to do.

A system that leaves victims to neutralize the officer is not self-correcting; It is self-protecting - and it cannot credibly claim to protect anyone.

Society Is Not Required to Mourn His Public Legacy

Refusing to canonize Timothy Steely is not the same as celebrating his physical death.

There is nothing admirable about a fatal roadway crash. There is no public benefit in imagining the terror of the final seconds or the grief of those who cared about him.

But grief does not have to become propaganda.

We are not required to pretend every person who once wore a badge was a hero. We are not required to erase complainants because an officer can no longer rebut them.

Society should not mourn the loss of Steely’s abused governmental power.

A just society mourns the elderly woman photographed with injuries after an encounter that should never have escalated.

A just society mourns the compliant navy veteran with a torn shoulder and no surviving criminal case.

A just society mourns with the Miller family, forced to repeatedly watch the final moments of a disabled veteran’s life while fighting for justice in federal court.

A just society mourns with the family of Blake Adair, who would should still be serving his faith, family, and tribe.

A just society mourns for the women he terrorized.

Timothy Bryan Steely’s life may have ended on Highway 78 but the damages to our communities caused by his legacy of misconduct live on.

If this article made you uncomfortable, Read “Too Soon” for Accountability—or Just Too Uncomfortable? HERE!

Not politely. Not narrowly. Not with a little “we appreciate your service” Hallmark card. Voters walked into the booth and handed Handke the political equivalent of a cardboard box and a security escort squeezing her elbow on her way out the door.

According to the Ardmorite, James Gilmartin did not simply squeak past the Stitt- appointed Handke for the win. He flattened her with 68.86% of the votes.

District 20 voters did not whisper. They screamed for change and deliverance as only 31.14% of voters were complacent in continuing Handke’s kangaroo regime. Is it possible Fern Smith cost Melissa Handke re-election? Its a possibility.

Now comes the part politicians hate.

Winning is easy compared to governing. Campaign signs come down. Yard stakes go in the trash. Victory speeches evaporate into January air. Then the new district attorney walks into an office with old files, old habits, and the same people who helped make the public lose confidence in the place to begin with, particularly one geriatric assistant prosecutor with an ethics problem.

So let’s not sugarcoat this like we’re decorating a church basement for a Sadie Hawkins dance!

Mr. Gilmartin’s first test is not whether he can hire a receptionist, rearrange furniture, or issue some polished press release about humble feelings and appreciation. His first test is whether he has the spine to do what Melissa Handke refused to do:

Protect the public by removing Fern L. Smith from any prosecution team in District 20’s five counties.

Day one.

Not day thirty. Not after an “internal review” slow-walked through the swamp he inherited. Not after the same courthouse networks that protect Cowboy Bob’s last fangirl get a chance to mitigate Smith’s misconduct into another bureaucratic nap.

Day one.

As for every lawyer, judge, former prosecutor, defense attorney, court employee, and officer in any of the FIVE District 20 courthouses who has knowledge of prosecutorial misconduct needs to come forward now. Preserve the documents. Identify the cases. Name the witnesses. Mark the transcripts. Provide the proof. Make the record so clean and so loud that no incoming district attorney can pretend he is unaware.

Because silence is not neutrality. Silence is not diplomacy. Silence is not decorum. Silence is not professional courtesy.

Silence is how Fern Smith got tenure in Johnston County.

This Is Not About Personalities. This Is About Power.

A prosecutor is not just another lawyer with better parking. A prosecutor carries the government’s sword. That sword takes liberty and can destroy families. It ruins reputations before trial. In capital cases, Smith has been the sword that put human beings on a gurney and let the State call it justice while pretending the paperwork makes it clean.

That is why prosecutorial ethics are not optional. They are not etiquette. They are not little professional niceties for bar luncheons and CLE handouts.

They are constitutional guardrails. Protections intentionally drafted and left to the public by our forefathers to ensure liberty does not fall to tyranny.

Brady v. Maryland is not a suggestion. Giglio v. United States is not a mood. Napue is not decorative Latin for lawyers who like footnotes. Due process is not something a district attorney gets to address in passing only when the spotlight is shined on them.

Melissa Handke Failed Her Constituents!

Melissa Handke inherited the office and had a choice.

She could have restored public confidence. She worked in the same office alongside Smith since 2016. She knew, or should have known. Handke could have reviewed Smith’s record. She could have opened the windows, pulled the files, asked hard questions, and told District 20 that no prosecutor with that kind of baggage would remain in a position to decide whether our families and neighbors keep their freedom.

Instead, Handke apparently chose to turn her head, stand still, and hope the stench blew into another room.

That is not leadership. That is managerial cowardice with a state email address.

Handke did not lose the primary because voters suddenly developed an abstract interest in courtroom housekeeping. She lost in a district where the public has had enough of tyrants who treat constitutional rights like disposable napkins at a barbecue joint. The voters looked at the office leadership, looked at the record, looked at the excuses, and decided the incumbent needed to discover private life.

The prosecutor’s job is not to win. It is to seek justice.

When an Assistant D. A. like Fern Smith’s public record carries repeated accusations, appellate scars, reversed convictions, evidence issues, jury-prejudice concerns, and death-penalty wreckage, the question for her next boss is not complicated.

Why would an ethical District Attorney risk that Assistant D. A. touching another case?

Why would an ethical District Attorney continue to make the people of District 20 gamble their constitutional rights and freedoms on a name already tied to some of the ugliest chapters in Oklahoma criminal justice history?

Why would an ethical District Attorney take office promising change and then keep the same matchbook sitting next to the gas can?

Fern Smith Is Not Some Unknown Quantity

The public record around Fern Smith is not a fog bank. Vacatated convictions citing accusations tied to evidence destruction, ethics violations, prejudicing juries, Napue violations and failures related to Brady/Giglio disclosures are not parking-ticket complaints.

Smith’s name appears in the history of Richard Glossip’s wrongful convictions, a case so badly corroded that the United States Supreme Court vacated Glossip’s second conviction in 2025 after finding a due-process violation tied to the prosecution’s failure to correct false testimony. Glossip spent nearly 30 years behind bars, most spent enduring the torture of Oklahoma’s H-Unit (death row). He endured multiple execution dates, and became a national symbol of what happens when Smith’s misconduct from the 1990’s caused Oklahoma’s machinery of death to run faster than its machinery of truth. Glossip has recently been granted an appeal bond as the State pursues yet another trial against him in an effort to correct nearly 30 years of prosecutorial misconduct that originated with Smith.

Stand alone, the Glossip case saga should make every ethical prosecutor in this state sweat through a suit jacket, at the idea of having Fern Smith as an assistant prosecutor serving under his name.

But wait… There’s more!

Brenda Andrew, whose case reached the United States Supreme Court after Fern Smith and Gayland Geiger turned a murder trial into a moral strip search by calling Andrew a “slut puppy” and as the prosecution waved her “thong underwear” in the air for the jury. The State skirted the question of whether or not the State could prove Andrew participated in her husband’s murder and turned to character assassination instead. The appellate issue was whether the State poisoned the proceeding with irrelevant, prejudicial evidence about sex, motherhood, clothing, and gendered character assassination. The Supreme Court repeatedly made clear that evidence like that can violate due process when it renders a trial fundamentally unfair.

Smith’s participation in the prosecution of Andrew’s case has become so constitutionally radioactive that her lawyers took it not just beyond Oklahoma and U.S. federal courts, but also a petition with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (The IACHR). That is not a routine appellate footnote. That is what happens when a death sentence carries the stench of bad faith prosecution and a trial record so polluted that domestic courts alone could not be trusted to scrub it clean. The IACHR went on to GRANT precautionary measures in favor of Brenda Andrew on Oklahoma’s death row.

Translation for anyone in the cheap seats: our courtrooms are not supposed to devolve into a slut-shaming rodeo with a death sentence at the end.

And then there is Omalza, Floyd, and Flippo. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reversed and remanded for new trials after identifying serious errors, including prosecutorial misconduct. Fern Smith was listed as trial counsel for the State. The court described an apparent prosecution strategy of putting as much before the jury as possible, admissible or not resulting in the cases being overturned.

As far back as 1996, the OCCA memorialized Fern Smith’s predatory prosecution tactics when the court admonished her in the unpublished opinion in Lambert v. State Of Oklahoma that utilized the term “bad faith” SIX times. The Court found Smith’s participation in “harpooning of inadmissible hearsay” evidence directly related to a key element of the prosecution’s case amounted to both a violation of the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him as well as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause. The court concluded: “It is hard to imagine a clearer case of bad faith.”

Fern Smith’s case history is not simply sloppy prosecution. It is a confession of constitutional sabotage dressed in pearls and a pants suit.

Handke’s failure to discipline Fern Smith is not a side issue. It Must be THE issue.

The District Attorney cannot take credit for convictions and preach public safety and ignore her employee’s prosecutorial misconduct while lying on the stand in a politically motivated prosecution towards a prominent defense attorney.

Fern Smith remained employed under Handke despite publicly known misconduct concerns, and now Handke must own that decision. Every day. Every case. Every file. Every defendant. Every victim told to trust an office that would not clean its own damn kitchen.

That is the legacy voters rejected yesterday at the polls.

The DA is responsible for the performance and culture of EVERY office, throughout their district

If Gilmartin walks into office and keeps Smith’s legacy on payroll, then the Handke era does not end. It just changes letterhead.

Johnston County cannot continue being treated like the DA’s afterthought just because it has less than half of Ardmore’s population and carries a poverty rate 4.1 percentage points higher. Smaller communities are not constitutional clearance racks. Poorer defendants do not receive discount-store due process. If anything, Johnston County’s size and poverty make clean prosecution more urgent, not less. It is beyond time that a District 20 Attorney takes steps to “protect” and “serve” his clients, especially those who are economically underprivileged and more vulnerable, like many in Johnston County.

Lawyers and Judges, Come Forward

District 20’s legal community knows things the public does not.

Lawyers know which assistant DAs sandbag discovery. Judges know which lawyers have crossed the line from advocacy and Rule 2.15 exists because silence from the bench becomes oxygen for misconduct. Defense attorneys know which files arrive late, incomplete, or suspiciously sanitized. Former prosecutors know what happened in staff meetings. Court staff know what was said in hallways when nobody thought the public would ever hear it.

Now is the time. If you have knowledge of prosecutorial misconduct, Brady violations, Giglio problems, false or misleading arguments, improper pressure tactics, hidden impeachment evidence, witness-deal concealment, law-enforcement credibility issues, or retaliatory charging practices, document it and come forward!

Not only on Fern Smith, but ALL assistant DAs that have acted unethically.

Do not gossip it. Do not bury it. Do not save it for a courthouse lunch or VFW happy hour where everyone nods gravely and then goes back to business as usual.

Put it in writing. Identify the case. Identify the date. Identify the transcript. Identify the witnesses. Identify the document. Identify the harm. File Bar complaints as mandated by Oklahoma Rule of Professional Conduct 8.3!

And yes, bring it to Gilmartin. Let him arrive January 1st to the mountain of evidence. Help him clean house.

Give the incoming district attorney the record he needs to do what should have been done years ago. Make it impossible for him to say he did not know. Make it impossible for the old guard to shrug this off as “politics.” Make it impossible for another defendant to be chewed through the system by an office that would rather protect a prosecutor’s paycheck than uphold the Constitution.

To all District 20 judges & lawyers, stop confusing restraint with paralysis.

Remember that professional responsibility is not a suggestion and your Bar license is not a decorative certificate on your wall. Prosecutorial misconduct is not courthouse lore or the equivalent of mean girl gossip. It is harmful to those you took an oath to protect. The law does not enforce itself.

Gilmartin Asked for the Job, Now Will he DO the Job?

James Gilmartin won because voters wanted anything different. Not a new nameplate slapped over the same old machine. Not “fresh leadership” with yesterday’s misconduct still roaming the halls. Not reform cosplay.

So here is the measuring stick, Mr. Gilmartin:

On day one, remove Fern Smith from all prosecution duties.

Open an independent conviction review unit for every case she worked on.

Establish a real Brady/Giglio policy with teeth, inclusive of a publicly facing database of potential impeachment evidence. We know a guy, so feel free to reach out!

Create a disclosure protocol for law-enforcement credibility problems. The Open Records Act is not a magic curtain, and personnel-file secrecy cannot be used to bury constitutionally required impeachment evidence.

Invite defense lawyers to identify cases requiring review. Protect whistleblowers.

Publish enough of the reform process that the public can see this is not another courthouse broom job where the dirt simply gets swept under a judicial rug.

Anything less is not reform. It is theater.

And District 20 did not vote for theater. It voted like a district of informed constituents that will not settle for a future campaign platform of communicating with victims and police. This primary cycle probably would have voted for a llama to replace Handke, the campaign message didn’t need to be strong, but the next one will.

Justice Cannot Grow in Contaminated Soil

There is an old lie prosecutors tell themselves: that if the defendant is probably guilty, the rules are just semantics.

That lie has filled prisons. That lie has sent people to death. That lie has trained prosecutors to treat constitutional violations like clever tactics and appellate reversals like occupational hiccups.

But the Constitution is not a technicality.

It is the whole damn deal. It is the bedrock of our society.

If the State cannot win honestly, it has no right to win.

If the State hides evidence, misleads juries, tolerates bad-faith tactics, or keeps constitutionally radioactive prosecutors in positions of power because firing them would be awkward, then the State is not seeking justice. It is running a conviction mill and the public is the grain.

Fern Smith’s continued presence in District 20 is not just a personnel decision. It is a message.

It tells defendants their lives and families are inconsequential.

It tells victims the office is more interested in conviction optics than actual justice.

It tells defense lawyers the same games may continue.

It tells judges the incoming DA either missed the mandate or chose not to honor it.

And it tells voters that their landslide was treated as a suggestion instead of a mandate.

That would be a mistake. A memorable one.

Because the public is watching now. Victims and families are watching. The people who have been steamrolled by courthouse arrogance are watching.

If Gilmartin takes office in January 2027 and decides to preserve the very culture voters just rejected, then he should not be surprised when the honeymoon ends before the office coffee gets warm.

So here is the rally cry:

To every lawyer who knows: come forward.

To every judge who observed: preserve the record and act within your duty under Rule 2.15.

To every former employee who kept notes: now is the time.

To every defense attorney holding transcripts that smell like misconduct: send them.

To every citizen who thought elections were the only remedy: they are not. Elections open the door. Accountability must walk through it and act.

If James Gilmartin wants to prove District 20 actually elected change, he cannot let Death Row’s Den Mother, Fern L. Smith, keep rocking constitutionally contaminated cases on the courthouse porch. Questionable convictions are the opposite of public safety. They are public fraud with a sentencing order.

The race for District Attorney for Carter, Johnston, Love, Marshal and Murray Counties is about a week away, it is time to decide…

On one side sits incumbent Melissa Handke, who would like voters to come down with a case of amnesia when considering her tactics.

On the other side is James Gilmartin, whose campaign strategy appears to be proving that if you stay quiet long enough, people will fill in the blanks with optimism. It’s an interesting strategy. It’s also a risky one.

Let’s start with Melissa Handke.

Her supporters will point to years of prosecutorial experience, leadership, and dedication to public safety. Fair enough. Experience matters. But so does perception, especially when you’re the person asking juries to believe your witnesses and trust your judgment.

Over the past few years, numerous controversies involving Melissa Handke have become difficult to ignore . Public allegations and criticism from advocacy groups are one thing. Every public official accumulates critics. What is harder to dismiss is when the controversy reaches the courtroom itself. In the Jason May trial, Handke’s own testimony became a credibility issue, and the court instructed the jury regarding the impeachment of government witnesses based on prior inconsistent statements. That means the debate over credibility was not confined to political opponents or internet commentators… it became an issue the jury was specifically instructed to consider.

Adults can understand the weight and gravity of her actions. They can also understand why a lead prosecutor whose own testimony becomes the subject of impeachment raises serious questions about the culture of an office that asks juries to trust its word every day.

But politics isn’t just about what can be proven in court. It’s also about confidence. If enough smoke keeps drifting out of the same building, people eventually start wondering whether somebody should check for fire.

Then there’s the subject that should make everyone suddenly interested in changing the conversation: Fern Smith.

It’s remarkable how many people in the legal community have an opinion about Fern Smith when they’re off the record, and how few have one when in the courtroom while witnessing her misconduct.

Her critics point to nationally publicized cases, such as the multiple wrongful convictions of Richard Glossip, involving prosecutorial misconduct and argue that her continued employment not only reflects poorly on the office, but undermines the public’s faith in Oklahoma’s judicial system. Her employer, Handke, may choose to ignore those characterizations entirely. Regardless, one simple question remains:

If ethics and public confidence matter, why has Handke never clearly addressed why Fern Smith remains part of the team?

Which brings us to James Gilmartin.

Ironically, his biggest campaign asset may be the fact that nobody can accuse him of saying much of anything. That’s not necessarily leadership. Sometimes silence is wisdom. Sometimes it’s just silence, or worse… cowardice.

For voters frustrated with the current administration, Gilmartin represents the possibility of change. The problem is that possibility isn’t a policy or a campaign promise.

Our group also tagged Gilmartin’s campaign repeatedly on social media asking a simple, direct question about whether Fern Smith would still have a job if he were elected. No response, no acknowledgment… just silence. Not even the courtesy of pretending the question didn’t matter.

The single easiest question he could answer is whether he would continue employing Fern Smith if elected.

Instead, our followers who are registered voters in his district get a silent shrug.

That’s unfortunate, because personnel decisions tell us more about leadership than campaign slogans ever will. Anyone can promise integrity. The harder question is whether you’re willing act on difficult staffing decisions when integrity is known to be compromised.

So where does that leave these voters?

Melissa Handke asks the public to forget and ignore the fact that her administration is wrapped in incidents of prosecutorial misconduct, public controversy, and criticism.

James Gilmartin asks the public to imagine something better while declining to explain what better will actually looks like. His campaign strategy is little more than just giving potential voters hope.

This article isn’t an endorsement of either candidate, and quite frankly, that’s the problem. We were really looking forward to endorsing a candidate who we could believe would address the district’s injustices. District 20’s five counties need a Constitutional bulldog, yet the “out” we received appears to have no teeth. A man who has spent years supposedly ‘fighting” for his criminal defense clients, against the very office he is now running to fill, has little to no published criminal appeal opinions showing any attempt to enforce his client’s constitutional rights, against an office known for prosecutorial misconduct. This is highly concerning.

One candidate comes with known misconduct controversies. The other comes with the potential promise of change accompanied by unanswered questions, and a bare track record.

If ethics matter to you, then ask both candidates the same question:

“What will you do to restore public confidence in the office, and end prosecutorial misconduct?”

Until either candidate answers that question plainly, voters are left with about a week to decide whether to buy a horse without being allowed to look at its teeth, or the one we all know has already foundered. That’s a strange way to hire the chief prosecutor of five counties.

So where does that leave the voters?

On one side, you’ve got an incumbent asking for blind trust while brushing off constitutional misconduct like it’s dust on a jacket.

On the other side, you’ve got a challenger offering change, but refusing to explain what that means when it comes to the people still inside the office, especially the ones who shouldn’t be there in the first place, like Fern Smith.

This isn’t just politics or personality. It’s a constitutional law issue in plain clothes. The Constitution doesn’t grade prosecutorial misconduct on a curve. It doesn’t say “a little is fine” or “it only matters when it becomes a headline.” Due process doesn’t work that way. Equal protection doesn’t work that way. Fair trials don’t work that way.

The moment a prosecutor bends the rules, even once, it doesn’t just stain a case, it stains the whole system that’s supposed to protect everyone, particularly the voters.

Prosecutors don’t just win or lose cases. They decide what justice looks like for their constituents in real time. And when misconduct is allowed to linger within that equation, confidence in every conviction rots. Not because critics say so, but because any administration that normalizes or tolerates prosecutorial misconduct ceases to function as a guardian of justice and becomes a risk to the constitutional protections of all voters.

So here’s the question nobody should get to dodge: what are you going to do about prosecutorial misconduct in District 20 and who are you willing to keep in place knowing they’ll be trusted with that power? Melissa Handke has already answered this question through years of inaction. So the question falls to Mr. Gilmartin and and if the answer is business as usual, then don’t insult voters by claiming to be different then the status quo.

Why Gilmartin’s promise of hope matters…

Hope is the only rational choice when the other option is a sinking ship, because staying aboard doesn’t make it seaworthy, it just delays the swim. That said…

It’s time to step up, James! The people of FIVE counties need ethical, constitutional, justice, and that starts with demanding the termination or retirement of the 84+ year old prosecutor who continues to haunt District 20 with the ghostly tactics of Cowboy Bob Macy, and continues to lie about evidence to secure wrongful convictions. District 20 needs a conviction review unit.

Actual Justice demands nothing less.

Less than five months after Traci Soderstrom resigned in disgrace on the eve of removal proceedings tied to sweeping allegations of judicial misconduct, her step-daughter stepped up onto the very same bench.

And people are asking a simple question: Is this justice—or inheritance?

The Shadow of a Scandal

Traci Soderstrom’s misconduct wasn’t just embarrassing, it was structural.

According to documentation and reporting, the issues went far beyond inappropriate courtroom behavior. The allegations included systemic constitutional violations, particularly involving defendants’ Sixth Amendment rights.

In one example outlined in prior reporting, a defendant was told to sell their car to afford an attorney or face jail; effectively conditioning liberty on financial liquidation rather than constitutional entitlement.

In another, a defendant appeared without counsel after their attorney had been arrested, only to be met not with accommodation, but with pressure, deadlines, and the looming threat of incarceration.

That wasn’t a bad day in court. That was the pattern.

And yet, when the dust settled, the system didn’t clean house.

It redecorated.

A Family Affair on the Bench

On June 27, 2024, Governor Kevin Stitt appointed Sarah L. Soderstrom-Bridge, the longtime stepdaughter of the disgraced former judge, to the very same judicial seat in Lincoln County.

Same courthouse.
Same bench.
Same last name.

If that doesn’t raise eyebrows, it should because this isn’t just about optics, it’s about trust. And trust, once broken, doesn’t come back because you swapped out one robe for another in the same family closet.

The concern isn’t simply that a relative was appointed. It’s that the relationship is so close that it blurs the line between accountability and continuity.

As outlined in a formal news tip submitted to our group, the appointment has sparked concerns of cronyism and institutional favoritism, particularly given the proximity between Soderstrom-Bridge and her predecessor during the period of misconduct and investigation.

Same Roots, Same Problems?

And here’s where things get uncomfortable, because sources suggest the concerns aren’t just theoretical. In her short time on the bench, Soderstrom-Bridge has reportedly already been linked to a reassignment of a case to herself despite known conflicts triggering a judicial complaint investigation, delays in issuing rulings for months until forced by higher court pressure, and orders imposing fees not authorized by law.

That’s not a fresh start.

That’s déjà vu with a law license.

The Real Question No One Wants to Answer

Here’s the part nobody in power wants to say out loud:

If a judge is removed or resigns under scandal for violating constitutional rights and their immediate family steps into their exact role… what, if anything, has changed? Justice isn’t supposed to run in families. It’s supposed to run on the Constitution.

And when the public sees the same names, the same connections, and the same patterns, it doesn’t inspire confidence… it raises suspicion.

You don’t fix corruption by keeping it in the bloodline.

You don’t restore trust by handing the keys to someone who in the same family where the ethics were simply suggestions and rules were already being broken.

What Comes Next

Lincoln County’s judiciary now faces a credibility problem it can’t spin its way out of because this isn’t about one judge anymore.

It’s about a system that looks an awful lot like it protects its own; even when the Constitution is collateral damage.

And until someone answers for that, the question isn’t whether justice is blind.

It’s whether it’s willfully looking the other way.

And before we go any further, here’s a .PDF of the original article they’d prefer you read without question. Because transparency matters. Even when it’s inconvenient.

Call us “vigilantes” all you want. We wear the label like a medal. The word comes from the Latin vigilate, meaning to be awake, to watch, to keep watch. It’s the root of “vigilant,” the very quality we are proud to uphold.

The article takes repeated swings at “vigilante journalists,” tossing around labels like “keyboard warriors” and suggesting our work “stretches near to breaking the definition of journalism.” Strong words.

Shame they forgot the most basic standard of journalism while writing them.

No outreach. No request for comment. No attempt to contextualize or challenge their own assertion.

The article offers little, if anything, more than narrative control dressed up as concern for the failing enterprise of rural Oklahoma newpapers. It’s virtue signaling for an industry that’s more interested in protecting it self than serving the public.

Fear Isn’t an Ethical Framework

What’s almost impressive is the article’s unintended honesty. Editors openly admit they worry about upsetting law enforcement, fear losing “access” to public records and recoil by advertisers, even weighing whether a story is “worth getting killed over”.

And then, without a trace of self-awareness, they clutch their pearls at the people who don’t back down. Let’s translate that: They are telling you, plainly, that access, comfort, and self-preservation shape what they choose to report.

And we (the public) are supposed to believe that is the gold standard? That’s not ethics. That’s risk management and self preservation.

The Hypocrisy Problem

The same article that criticizes independent watchdogs also admits small-town papers often maintain carefully balanced relationships with law enforcement and make editorial decisions based on fear of retaliation.

Then turns around and claims newspapers are the “best hope” for exposing corruption. That’s not a contradiction. It’s an indictment.

You cannot claim to be the watchdog while explaining, in detail, why you choose not to bark.

As for Johnston County…

Then there’s John Small, of the Johnston County Sentinel who confidently states:

“Our mission is to tell people what they need to know whether they want to know it or not.”

That’s a nice line. Sounds good in print.

Here’s the question that should have followed, but didn’t:

How many arrestees does the Johnston County Sentinel seek comment from before publishing the words of their Brady-listed Sheriff as fact?

Or is “telling people what they need to know” just shorthand for regurgitating the government’s narrative?

Because real journalism doesn’t stop at the probable cause affidavit. It doesn’t take law enforcement’s word as gospel, especially when credibility is already in question. It challenges and yes… It should ALSO question the people in handcuffs, not just the ones wearing badges. Anything less isn’t journalism. It’s nothing short of a propaganda machine for the prosecution team.

The Johnston County Sentinel has no problem pulling and publishing court documents for their little blotter columns or when it suits their leash holder’s narrative, but somehow manages to overlook their county prosecutor, Fern Smith’s participation in the destruction of evidence in the wrongful conviction of Richard Glossip, along with a history of questionable conduct, and recent local court filings raising serious questions about her ongoing misconduct.

Funny how the courthouse seems worth covering when the story vilifies defendants who are often indigent or amplifies the government’s hollow moral posturing or performative righteousness.

When “Access” Becomes a Censorship Veil

Call it what it is: these small-town newspapers are no longer a “free press.” They hide behind a thin veil of “maintaining relationships” with law enforcement, but what they’re really doing is self-censorship dressed up as prudence.

They hesitate, or flat out refuse, to report on police misconduct, ignore court filings that would embarrass local power players, and tiptoe around stories that could upset their sources in the very institutions they claim to hold accountable. Meanwhile, they never hesitate to publish mugshots, despite a presumption of innocent demanded by the U.S. Constitution.

This isn’t prudence; it’s a transaction. Comfort and access are prioritized over accountability. Make no mistake, a press corps that censors itself to protect its connections isn’t a watchdog. It’s a lapdog. The “free press” of the past, unafraid to challenge power, is long gone in rural Oklahoma, replaced by complicity that shapes county news far more than facts ever could.

Who’s Actually Doing the Work?

While legacy outlets debate whether a story is worth the risk, others, like our group and The Microscope of Truth hunt down official records, build networks of whistleblowers, and publish source documents. Documenting misconduct in real time without paywalls.

Not for access. Not for advertisers. Not for comfort.

For accountability.

And that effectiveness? That’s what really drives the pearl clutching of these small town editors because nothing threatens their carefully managed narratives more than someone who doesn’t need permission or revenue to tell the truth.

Anonymity Isn’t Cowardice

The article takes a jab at those who operate anonymously to bring corruption to light, as if credibility is to be measured solely by who the mouth piece is, instead of substantiated evidence. Meanwhile, in the very same breath, editors interviewed spoke on a local Oklahoma newspaper editor who caught his own Sheriff and County Commissioners literally talking about murdering him, as evidence of the dangers they fear, excusing their lack luster performance.

Let’s Be Clear

Anonymity isn’t cowardice. In Oklahoma’s ever broadening police state, it very well could be necessary for survival. And sometimes, survival is the only way to keep exposing the truth without ending up as a cautionary tale.

“Journalistic standards” are not: Avoiding stories that might upset the local power structure and they sure as hell aren’t whatever this article was trying to pass off.

Standards are: Transparency, accountability, and the courage to follow through even when it costs you something. Especially when it costs you something.

Final Word

If Oklahoma newspapers want to defend journalism, start by fully practicing it. What we saw here was nothing more than a closed circle of industry insiders congratulating and boasting about themselves while taking cheap shots at the people doing the work they admittedly refuse to do.

Call that whatever you want. But don’t call it journalism.

Yes, we are vigilantes. Not lawless, not reckless, not mindless crusaders…Watchful. Awake. Always paying attention when others only pretend to, or worse, look the other way. If being a “vigilante” means keeping a careful, unflinching eye on the powerful and the corrupt, then we embrace the term proudly.

Responding to a problem involving the city code enforcer, Officer Jordan’s termination, and department solidarity, left local residents exposed. And now, Attorney General Gentner Drummond has stepped in to “restore order” attempting to cast himself as a hero after the fact.

But ask yourself: Shouldn’t the real outrage be that we’ve arrived at this unsafe juncture, at all? Because Drummond failed to follow through on bold promises to root out corruption and safeguard communities like Okemah?

His reactive display only underscores years of inaction.

1. The Okemah Police: Not at Fault, but Punished Anyway

The Okemah police department appears to have handled a difficult situation involving a code enforcement officer tied by nepotism to city management with professionalism. Yet in the wake of that confrontation, they were summarily terminated or resigned, destabilizing local law enforcement and putting the community at risk.

Officer Trey Jordan did exactly what he should do… He applied the law equally, regardless of the occupation of the alleged trespasser [Kimberly Bradshaw].

Isn’t equal treatment exactly what should be expected of law enforcement?!

Yet, Three days after the interaction, the code enforcer’s sister, and city manager [Kristy Lesly], placed Officer Jordan on administrative leave because of that response.

Drummond’s recent intervention of deploying 15 state agents to fill the law enforcement vacuum, may stabilize the situation, but it also spotlights the government's failure to prevent such instability from arising in the first place.

2. Campaign Promises Unkept: Anti-Corruption Efforts Fall Short

Drummond campaigned on a platform of ending Oklahoma’s “culture of corruption and scandal” and promoting transparency and local accountability. He touted his record as "tough-on-crime," pledging to oppose special interests and empower communities.

But his actual performance tells a different story.

While he praised the passage of House Bill 2164, which would have enforced ethics training, conflict-of-interest disclosures, and penalties for bid-rigging, by March 2025, he has yet to shepherd it into law.

In May 2025, Drummond publicly slammed Governor Stitt’s veto of HB 2164 as “incomprehensible and indefensible,” yet he has made no visible progress toward overriding that veto or pushing alternative anti-corruption reforms.

Despite taking control of several high-profile corruption investigations, like Swadley’s Foggy Bottom, Epic Charter Schools, and others, some cases have quietly fizzled. For example, the Terry O’Donnell case: Drummond’s office took over prosecution from the county DA, later dismissed the charges, and arranged an expungement… even though O’Donnell remains in House leadership.

3. When Reactive “Heroism” Masks a Hollow Record

Now, Drummond shows up in Okemah with a show of force, framed as heroic intervention. But it’s a hollow remedy to a mess that might never have occurred had earlier promises been kept.

This isn’t leadership, it’s politics.

It’s reactive, not preventive.

It’s verbal, not legislative.

It’s a theater of competence rather than delivering real reform where it’s needed: in strengthening local integrity and trust.

Conclusion: Okemah Deserved Stability, Not Last-Minute Spectacle

Okemah’s public safety crisis did not have to happen. The underlying cause, political corruption, could have been reduced with accountable, transparent governance at the ground level. Unfortunately, Drummond’s campaign slogans on anti-corruption ring hollow when power and change aren’t matched with persistent follow-through.

Drummond may quell the chaos, today, but the real measure of a leader lies in preventing the need for such dramatic rescues in the first place. Communities like Okemah deserve more than crises… it’s time to deliver on the promise to end political corruption in Oklahoma.

Drummond is not the man for Governor, his track record is one of enablement, not justice.

Handke didn’t simply tantrum in private… she weaponized her position to punish a community service non-profit for refusing to do her bidding.

The cost? Human lives. Community safety. Fiscal sanity.
All torched, in an effort to feed her own fragile ego and hunger for power.

What Handke’s Interview Didn’t Say…

According to sources within District 20 Drug Court, Inc., District Attorney Handke withdrew support for all Drug Court pleas almost immediately after three board members abruptly resigned when their plan to fire Executive Director, Carol Stephens, failed. In addition to serving the District 20 Drug Court, Stephens is the Assistant Director of Naomi House Inc, a faith-based recovery house serving Oklahoma women in achieving a life liberated from active addiction and its effects. Further animosity from Handke could have also been a result of the board choosing not to renew the contract of former Healdton police Chief, and ‘right-hand’ to Melissa’s husband, Brittany Harrison. Eliminating what many locals considered to be, at best, a conflict of interest. In recent days, Ms. Harrison has also come under the scrutiny of the new Healdton police Chief, in relation to alleged policy violations.

Shortly after the board’s oversight decisions, Handke went to a local news outlet and posted to social media to announce her freeze on Drug Court referrals with vague grievances about “nonprofit structure” and “oversight concerns”, absent any attempt to discuss her concerns directly with the Drug Court board members.

What Handke didn’t explain in her KXII interview: Handke has no statutory authority over the nonprofit board that supports Drug Court operations. Her power lies solely in whether she allows a defendant to plea into the program. So instead of working with the board… or even meeting with them to resolve differences… she slammed the door on treatment access to hundreds of vulnerable Oklahomans.

Let that sink in. Handke didn’t like the staffing choices in an organization she holds ZERO authority over, so she is actively blocking people with substance abuse issues from getting the help that could save their lives!

Who Pays for Handke’s Vindictiveness?

Not the DA’s Office. Not the Drug Court Board. The only ones bleeding out from this decision are vulnerable Oklahoman’s that need substance abuse treatment.

People with addiction… Non-violent defendants, many of which are first-time offenders… Who are now stripped of their best chance at recovery! All because Melissa Handke wanted power and control beyond what her position already affords her.

This is beyond unethical. This is vile. This is corrupt. And it makes Handke complicit in every overdose, every recidivism, and every broken family that could have been avoided through this proven treatment program.

While Handke Destroys Lives… Drug Court Saves Them…

The data couldn’t be clearer:

Drug Court costs about $5,000 per participant, compared with $19,000 for incarceration. Outcomes include:

• a 95.4% drop in unemployment,

• a 119.3% increase in monthly income,

• a 116.7% rise in participants with private health insurance, and over 81% of participants able to live with their children again.

• Graduates earned $204 million, generating $6.1 million in tax revenue, and the projected incarceration cost would have been $191.6 million more.

This isn’t controversial. It’s common damn sense. Oklahoma is in the middle of a public health crisis; drug overdose deaths rose over 40% in the last five years alone. Drug Court is one of the only programs that actually works in fighting back.

Yet Melissa Handke just lit a match to it because the board refused to bend their knee to her whims.

This isn’t justice. It’s narcissistic legal malpractice.

Let’s call this what it is: retaliatory deprivation of public services!

It’s a dereliction of her oath. It's an abuse of prosecutorial discretion. And under the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct, it may even constitute conduct “prejudicial to the administration of justice” (Rule 8.4(d)).

Handke has every right to control plea deals as District Attorney… but she has ZERO right to use that discretion as a political tool. She is punishing addicts willing to obtain treatment, solely to seek political payback at a board that didn’t kiss her ring.

If any defense attorney pulled something half as petty, they’d be hauled off before the Bar Association’s disciplinary committee by the end of the week.

But when a prosecutor does it?

Crickets.

Handke continues her unethical legacy, adding depriving addicts of treatment to her resume.

No referrals. No treatment. No chance.

A community with no lifeline for addicted sons, daughters, spouses.

And what does Handke provide instead? A few smug lines of PR fluff to KXII, a legacy media outlet who didn’t even bother to get a comment from District 20 Drug Court before running their copaganda piece.

Burn This Into the Record

Melissa Handke has shown us who she is: a prosecutor willing to sacrifice people’s futures for petty revenge. She’s not interested in rehabilitation. She’s not interested in justice. She’s only interested in control… and the moment she lost it, she pulled the plug on community building and public safety.

She’s not simply starving Drug Court of clientele… Handke declared war on every vulnerable person depending on it.

She shouldn’t be in office. She shouldn’t be near the justice system. And she damn sure shouldn’t be trusted with the discretion she’s now proven to abuse.

The people of Oklahoma deserve better than this power-hungry tyrant with a law license.

Demand Melissa Handke’s Resignation:

• By Phone: (580) 223-9674

• By email: melissa.handke@dac.state.ok.us

• By Mail: Annex #1, 107 1st Ave SW Suite A, Ardmore, OK 73401

Reports include serious accusations: destroying evidence, coercing statements, mishandling investigations, and suppressing material facts during investigations.

While each report varies in detail, the underlying theme is clear… law enforcement officers within this region are repeatedly engaging in conduct that should disqualify them from testifying or serving in any role involving public trust.

Yet, despite the severity of these claims, no meaningful reform appears to have followed. Many officers in question remain on the job, and in many cases, continue to testify in court without the benefit of Brady disclosures that defendants are constitutionally entitled to receive.

Overlaying this pattern of policing failure is the conduct of Assistant District Attorney Fern Smith, whose prosecutorial decisions have drawn widespread criticism. Smith has repeatedly failed to uphold the most basic tenets of her ethical and constitutional obligations. While employed by Craig Ladd and Melissa Handke, Fern Smith has been accused of withholding evidence, allowing giglio officers to provide unchallenged testimony, and selectively transferring jurisdiction only after conflicts or misconduct are exposed.

In one particularly revealing example, Smith was originally assigned to prosecute a police officer, a case that could have served as a litmus test for her commitment to impartial justice. Instead, the case was quietly reassigned to Assistant District Attorney Jacobi Whatley, a move that sidestepped accountability while preserving optics.

What followed under Whatley’s handling was equally alarming. In the prosecution of local defense attorney in Carter County, Whatley endorsed two key witnesses whose credibility quickly unraveled under judicial scrutiny [Melissa Handke & Craig Ladd]. Despite glaring inconsistencies and the court’s own findings that cast doubt on their reliability, Whatley persisted in relying on their testimony. The jury ultimately acquitted May of all charges, but not before months of reputational harm, financial expense, and emotional strain. The State’s failure to vet its witnesses, and the fact that Handke’s office took no corrective action once the issues surfaced, signals a troubling disregard for truth-seeking.

Now, in an ironic and chilling twist, it is Deputy Gary“Jake” Smith, a sheriff’s deputy from Carter County, who stands accused of burglary and domestic abuse and assault. And yet, it is Assistant District Attorney Fern Smith, who is tasked with prosecuting this “peace officer”. Given her history of shielding misconduct and her mishandling of evidence in prior cases, Smith’s ability to impartially and ethically prosecute any matter is in serious question. The very architecture of accountability collapses when those who enable abuse are then responsible for adjudicating it.

The failure here is not abstract. It reverberates through every community in Carter, Murray, Love, Johnston and Marshall Counties. Every day that these patterns continue unchallenged is another day that a survivor is used as a pawn by Handke’s office, that a wrongfully charged defendant loses faith in the “justice” system, that a dishonest officer escapes scrutiny, and that the rule of law is twisted into a tool of political perversion. The institutions meant to protect the public have instead protected themselves, often at the expense of truth, justice, and basic human dignity.

This is not just a breakdown in process… it is a breakdown in values. And without a course correction, District 20 will continue to remain a cautionary tale of what happens when those sworn to uphold the law operate outside of it.

Leading the crusade? None other than Attorney General Drummond’s own Chief of the Criminal Division, Jimmy Harmon, a man whose career is marinated in sleaze, tax fraud, pimping scandals, and stripper photo ops.

Yes, you read that right. The same man who leaned on a platonic jail phone call to paint Glossip as a degenerate, once posed grinning next to a stripper like a budget Don Draper on payday. But wait… it gets worse…

Because nothing screams integrity like pimping out prosecutors

Harmon was credibly accused of supervising a scheme where young, attractive female prosecutors were "pimped" out to a sex-obsessed judge, who gave favorable rulings to those who shared his chambers in more ways than one. And when it looked like the sordid truth might leak, Harmon and company allegedly pressured a junior prosecutor to fabricate a sexual assault claim against the judge to deflect exposure.

Now this is the guy clutching his pearls over a married defendant speaking to a woman on a jail phone call?

The state’s argument: If you talk to a woman, you forfeit bail

The prosecution’s argument wasn’t just laughable, it is unconstitutional. Using a jail call, devoid of criminal content, solely to impugn Glossip’s moral character and raise “questions about the honesty of his current marriage” violates both the Due Process Clause and presumption of innocence. If the government uses irrelevant or prejudicial evidence, like a jail call construed as "flirtatious", to imply Glossip is immoral or manipulative, they are substituting character assassination for actual proof of danger or flight risk. That is the opposite of fundamental fairness demanded by the U.S. and Oklahoma Constitutions.

Even if the call was flirtatious, it still shouldn’t rise to the level of disqualifying Glossip from posting bond for pretrial release. One could easily imagine if a poll was conducted throughout Oklahoma of two simple questions:

1. Has your husband ever “flirted” on a phone call or with a waitress when they dine out?

2. Does that mean your marriage is fake?

The answers would very likely be this:

1. Yes

2. No.

The Oklahoma Constitution’s bail provisions [SECTION II-8] and statutory standards require a clear showing of flight risk or danger to the community. "Talking” or even “Flirting” with a woman when you are married does not cut it, unless the prosecutors are ready to arrest themselves for every time they made eyes at a colleague during happy hour.

Jimmy Harmon Can Moonlight, But Glossip Can’t Say Hello?

Harmon is arguably far more manipulative than the state’s narrative insinuates towards Glossip… The man committed actual tax fraud, year after year, while illegally practicing law on the side as a government employee. He also moonlit as the enforcement arm for a District Attorney that buried innocence claims, stalked journalists and whistleblowers, and abused grand jury subpoenas to intimidate criminal justice reformers.

In short: Harmon has less moral authority than a televangelist in Vegas. The fact that he’s still has a bar license, let alone “leading the charge” in Drummond’s farce of a promised “fair” 3rd trial of Glossip, is a grotesque failure of our legal system.

This isn't justice. It's vengeance wrapped in hypocrisy, funded by taxpayers, and paraded around as righteousness.

And Attorney General, Gentner Drummond, damn well knows it. The lengths Oklahoma is now taking to cover for Fern Smith’s malice is repugnant, state sanctioned abuse, that will inevitably result in judicial nihilism.

Drummond proclaimed:

“Our justice system is greatly diminished when an individual is convicted without a fair trial, but today we can celebrate that a great injustice has been swept away.”

What is Drummond’s stance, really? A goddamn farce. Political theater performed over the corpse of due process.

Drummond knows… he knows… there can be no fair trial for Glossip, and pretending otherwise is not just dishonest. It’s dangerous.

This Isn't Justice—It's Optics

Drummond isn’t staging this retrial because justice demands it. He’s doing it to cover the political flank of his office and avoid being painted as “soft on crime” in Oklahoma’s bloodthirsty political ecosystem. By keep Glossip’s conviction alive while ditching the death penalty, he’s trying to thread the needle: neutralize the heat from conservatives while placating justice advocates with a symbolic gesture.

But justice is not symbolic. And trials aren’t theater. Not when a man’s life has been on the line for over two decades based on evidence so shaky a law student could bulldoze it.

The Case Is Rotten to the Core

Let’s rip the mask off and look at why Drummond’s talk of “fairness” is bullshit:

1. Irreparable Brady Violation

Back in 1999, former Oklahoma County, turned Murray County, Assistant District Attorney Fern Smith ordered the destruction of a box of evidence tied to Glossip’s defense.

Evidence that could have established innocence or at least destroyed the state’s motive theory. Physical items never tested for fingerprints, DNA, or fiber evidence were lost permanently.

Destroying evidence while an appeal is pending is not just incompetence. It’s a constitutional injury. Under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), prosecutors are required to disclose ALL exculpatory evidence. When the government destroys it? That’s not a trial error, it’s a due process Armageddon.

The Supreme Court has also recognized in California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (1984), and Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (1988), that destruction of potentially exculpatory evidence, especially when done in bad faith or without justification, can demand dismissal. That applies here, loud and clear.

2. Oklahoma Ethics Rules Demand More

Drummond is an attorney. He’s bound by the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct:

Rule 3.8(d): Prosecutors must disclose any evidence that “tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense.” When the state burns the box, disclosure becomes impossible… and so does compliance.

Rule 8.4(d): It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to “engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.” Pursuing a trial when essential evidence has been destroyed by the state? That’s the definition of prejudicial.

Drummond is not upholding the law. He’s laundering a broken case to preserve the illusion of fairness.

Strategic Litigation? Try Strategic Gaslighting

Drummond wants to appear measured and virtuous with his statement of “We’ll retry him, but no death penalty.” Sounds reasonable to the uninformed. But what he’s doing is preserving a fraudulent conviction under the guise of fairness, knowing full well the defense will be forced to go to war without the most critical tools they were constitutionally entitled to.

This is not justice. It’s strategic gaslighting.

Oh…. And Don’t Forget: District 20 Attorney, Melissa Handke,

STILL Employs Fern Smith!

Yes… The same Melissa Handke who assisted Craig Ladd in a botched attempt at framing a local defense attorney… And gave inconsistent testimony (“fibbed”) under oath.

In a legal system already stretched thin by public mistrust after Craig Ladd and his Assistant attempted to frame defense attorney, Jason May; District 20 Attorney, Melissa Handke, just lit the damn match.

Sources confirm that Handke, currently under scrutiny for offering contradicting statement under oath, is now trying to position herself to replace retiring Judge Dennis Morris in September 2025.

If successful, she’d land the most powerful seat in Oklahoma’s 20th District: presiding over Carter, Johnston, Love, Marshall, and Murray counties.

Let this sink in: A District Attorney caught deceiving a court could be the next gatekeeper of justice for 100,000+ Oklahomans.

Judicial Appointments in Oklahoma: How the Game is Played

Judges in Oklahoma can ascend to the bench one of two ways: by election or by appointment. If a judge retires mid-term, like Judge Morris will do in just 86 days, the Governor appoints a replacement.

For District Court vacancies, names are funneled through the Oklahoma Judicial Nominating Commission, a body allegedly built for impartiality, but let’s not kid ourselves: it’s a political filter with human fingerprints all over it.

The process:

1. Applications are submitted to the JNC.

2. The JNC interviews candidates and selects three finalists.

3. Those names are sent to the Governor, who makes the final appointment.

4. The appointee must stand for retention election at the next general election.

That’s how Handke could slither up the ladder from disgraced DA to District Judge… if citizens stay quiet.

What Can You Do About It?

If the idea of a fibber wearing the robe of justice makes your stomach turn, here’s how to fight back:

Document everything: If you’ve had experience with DA Handke’s office, especially misconduct or coercion, submit affidavits and formal complaints to the Oklahoma Bar Association and Judicial Nominating Commission. Even if the experience was at the hands of one of her employees… She holds culpability.

Flood the JNC with objections: They take public comment. You don’t need to be a lawyer, just a pissed-off, well-informed citizen.

Contact your legislators and Governor Stitt’s office: Politicians pretend they don’t hear you until enough of you make noise.

Organize local action: Use public records including, but not limited to OSCN.net and the Brady list to spotlight her misconduct and credibility problems.

Found evidence she’s violated the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct, especially Rule 8.4 [misconduct involving dishonesty, fraud, or misrepresentation], hit hard and loud with complaints to the Oklahoma Bar Association and Judicial Nominating Commission.

Media pressure: Get the stories to local news, blogs, and watchdog organizations. Sunlight is the best damn disinfectant.

There are only 86 days Left to Act…

If Melissa Handke lands on that bench, it's not justice, it’s theater. And the people of District 20 will be the ones paying the price.

In Oklahoma, her name is Melissa Handke. Not elected by the people; she was handpicked and installed by Craig Ladd and Governor Kevin Stitt.

That should already raise the hair on your damn neck, but, buckle up—because what I’m about to lay out isn’t some law school hypothetic. It’s a real possibility. It’s ugly. And it’s happening right now.

You’ve got the District Attorney over FIVE counties, Melissa Handke, a prosecutor who was impeached on the stand, less than two weeks ago, while trying to jail a defense attorney for defending the Constitution.

Next you’ve got Fern Smith, her assistant prosecutor, with a wrongful death row conviction that should’ve ended her career 30 years ago, actively exerting her patterns of prosecutorial misconduct across Murray, Johnston, and Carter counties.

Then there is their gestapo like enforcer, on this rolling authoritarian parade: Sheriff Gary Dodd, the self-anointed “Constitutional Sheriff” with a federal cross-deputation and a disregard for the fourth amendment. He and his henchmen are the enforcement arm of Handke’s totalitarian coup.

His badge? Real. His oath? A joke.

His purpose? To act as lethal muscle for a prosecution team that wants to keep their boot tread on your neck like an overzealous tory.

They would love nothing more than the ability to take away your right to challenge your imprisonment in court.

How Trump’s Plan to ‘suspend’ Habeas Corpus Endangers YOU.

A few days ago, Trump’s Deputy Chief of Staff, Steve Miller, stood in front of a press gaggle and admitted they’re actively exploring ways to suspend habeas corpus under the guise of immigration enforcement.

What the Hell Is Habeas Corpus?

Habeas corpus means "you shall have the body." That’s lawyer Latin for: you have the right to be brought before a judge to challenge your detention after an arrest. An essential component to due process that forces the government to prove they have a legal reason to put you in a cage.

Habeas is the Firewall Between You and Tyranny.

A government that can jail you without having to justify it is a government that does not fear the people. And when the government doesn’t fear the people, you get exactly what history has always shown—abuse, authoritarianism, and violence against citizens.

The Constitution limits the government’s ability to suspend habeas corpus.

Over and over again, the U.S. Supreme Court has said loud and clear: habeas corpus applies to every person held in the United States, regardless of immigration status, citizenship, or charge.

Yes, that includes criminals, immigrants, suspects, protestors, and even people you might not like. Because if the government can disappear them, it can disappear you next. That’s why due process and habeas isn’t some optional courtroom luxury. It’s not a perk. It’s not a suggestion.

Now ask yourself: who do you think Trump’s regime will rely on?

You think the feds are coming to scoop you up from Tishomingo, Love County, or Marshall County? Hell no. They’ll hand it off to Gary Dodd and every other self-declared “Constitutional Sheriff” with a judge dread complex who already believes they answer to no one but themselves.

Don’t be fooled by the word “constitutional.” These guys aren’t defending your rights—they’re rewriting the rulebook. The Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (CSPOA) claims sheriffs are the highest legal authority in the land. Above governors. Above the courts. Above the law. The Constitutional Sheriffs movement is a farce! It’s not constitutionalism. That’s a backwoods junta dressed in khakis.

Gary Dodd and his clan wrap themselves in flags and Bible verses, but when you peel back the curtain, it’s not patriotism—they’re tyrannical soldiers drooling with anticipation at the idea of suspending habeas corpus.

They’ll be the ones putting black bags over heads, not stopping it.

They’ve already shown they don’t care about oversight. They pick and choose what laws to follow. He thinks being elected gives him divine authority to harass the poor, detain people without cause, and target political enemies under the guise of “sovereign” enforcement.

You Think You’re Safe Because You’re Local?

They are COUNTING On That.

Imagine this: You attend a county commissioners meeting and speak out about the abuse of power in the sheriff’s office.

Three days later, Gary Dodd shows up at your home ten deputies deep all with semiautomatic rifles slung across their chests. They’re there to seize your ranch. To do so, they claim you’re an “illegal” and your ranch was used “to house illegals”. No warrant. No lawyer. No hearing.

He says he’s acting in accordance with “constitutional authority” and assisting federal immigration enforcement through his cross-deputization.

You’re jailed. No initial arraignment. No probable cause hearing. No opportunity to show a judge your birth certificate and there’s not a damn thing you can do about it. This isn’t a movie script. This is the plan.

You’re Not the Exception. You’re the Target.

Trump’s crew has laid it out: kill habeas corpus. Clear the legal battlefield. Melissa Handke will prosecute the innocent. Fern Smith will destroy the records. Gary Dodd will drop a black bag over your head and zip tie your hands and feet.

And you? You’ll be locked away while your neighbors say, “Well, I’m sure they had a reason.” They don’t need mass arrests. They won’t even need plausible ones.

Post a meme criticizing the DA. Boom—targeted for “inciting public unrest”.

Your kid talks back to the school resource cop. Boom—labeled a “domestic threat”.

You file a complaint against the sheriff. Boom—Your house is raided for “harboring illegals”.

Handke has already proven a penchant for prosecuting resistance.

Don’t think this can’t happen here. It already has. The only thing standing between you and that cold steel cage is habeas corpus—and the Trump camp just said they want it gone.

Unless YOU fight back now.

Here’s what you do, and you do it now—before the bars are welded shut around you: show up, speak out, and make these tyrants feel the pressure of a pissed-off public.

• Pack every county meeting.

• Demand accountability from your sheriff.

• File open records requests.

• Expose every lie with receipts.

• Vote them the hell out.

• Organize, network, and don’t let fear silence your neighbors—turn fear into fire.

• Build watchdog coalitions.

• Film every interaction.

Know your rights better than they do, and never walk into a room alone.

Because once habeas corpus is gone, there’s no cavalry coming.

You are the cavalry. And you either fight now—or kneel later.

Don’t forget to check out Oklahoma's Brady List! Like Us on Facebook! Follow Us on Twitter! and subscribe to our YouTube Channel.

Assistant District Attorney Jacobi Whatley’s ongoing obligation to disclose impeachment material under the Giglio doctrine when relying on state witnesses with damaged credibility.

In closing statements to the jury in the May trial, the state’s attorney, Jacobi Whatley, boldly emphasized a reference to the old cliché:

“Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive”

The irony comes on the heels of a trial where the only “practice” of deception took place within the very testimonies of witnesses whom Whatley endorsed. Government witnesses. Law Enforcement and Prosecutors.

The five-day trial, which concluded with a swift not-guilty verdict on May 3rd, exposed deep flaws in the prosecution’s case. Central to those revelations was testimony from former District 20 Attorney Craig Ladd—whose conduct and credibility was impeached during cross-examination.

Ladd, who initiated the allegations against May, admitted under oath to submitting altered documents to both a handwriting analyst and a multi-county grand jury in his effort to secure the indictment. He also acknowledged having filed false or forged documents with the Carter County Court Clerk, and instructing Eric Grisham to change a date on the traffic citation—though he insisted these were mere “mistakes” and not criminal acts.

Perhaps most damaging, Ladd gave false testimony at trial, initially denying knowledge of key evidence that pointed to May’s innocence. Only when confronted with signed documents by defense attorneys did Ladd concede that his earlier testimony was inaccurate.

In light of these developments, the trial judge issued jury instructions specifically advising jurors that Craig Ladd had made prior inconsistent statements—guidance that directly impugns his credibility and permitted jurors to weigh his testimony with skepticism.

Notably, the same jury instruction also highlighted credibility concerns regarding Appointed District 20 Attorney, Melissa Handke, and former Ardmore Police officer Eric Grisham, both of whom assisted Craig Ladd in his malicious prosecution scheme against May.

District Attorney Handke’s testimony and cross examination exposed that she had allowed knowingly false information to remain within an affidavit, filed with the court, related to the forfeiture at issue in this case.

Handke testified that she relied upon an affidavit, sworn to by Phil Sheppard, that the money seized in 2019 was near forfeitable substances. Other evidence in trial determined there was no ‘forfeitable substances’ involved in the stop, much less anywhere near the more that $300,000 law enforcement wanted to seize.

When defense questioned Handke if the affidavit statement was false she answered “correct”. When asked why she allowed Sheppard to leave the false statement in the affidavit, she insisted it was a oversight, or mistake.

The Giglio Obligation: A Continuing Duty to Disclose

For Assistant District Attorney Whatley, this means that any future case relying on Ladd, Handke, Grisham, and Sheppard as witnesses now requires full disclosure of their credibility issues to the defense. Ladd’s admitted submission of altered documents, his filing of false records, and his false testimony under oath are textbook examples of Giglio material.

Likewise, any credibility concerns formally recognized by a court, such as the jury instruction indicating inconsistencies for Ladd, Handke, and Grisham, fall squarely within Giglio’s scope. Failure to disclose such material can have severe consequences.

Convictions may be overturned if a court finds that impeachment material was improperly withheld.

Prosecutors can face professional discipline or ethical sanctions for noncompliance.

Evidence of impeachment for these witnesses is now publicly preserved for disclosure within the potential impeachment evidentiary platform known as the Brady List. These records are now available nationwide.

1. Stephen Craig Ladd: Citizen Report No. 1746307525 - 1956468875

2. Melissa Handke: Citizen Report No. 1746307751 - 935447691

3. Eric Grisham: Citizen Report No. 1746308026 - 808916351

4. Phil Sheppard: Citizen Report No. 1746308259 - 454333507

The implications for the Carter County District Attorney’s office are significant.

District Attorneys in both District 20 and District 21 are now on notice that continued use of these witnesses requires strict adherence to disclosure requirements.

Moreover, defense attorneys in pending and future cases may well move to challenge the admissibility or reliability of any testimony from these individuals, citing their compromised credibility.

A Broader Lesson

Jason May’s swift acquittal—reached in less than an hour by the jury—underscores the pivotal role that witness credibility plays in the justice system.

As May expressed gratitude for the community’s support, his defense team reaffirmed its commitment to protecting the rights of the accused, even in the face of malicious persecution and government overreach.

Moving forward, the communities affected should take careful stock of the trial’s fallout. Vigilance in Giglio compliance is not only a constitutionally protected legal requirement, but a safeguard of public trust in the integrity of the criminal justice system.

Only time will tell if and when the District Attorneys will begin to take their ethical obligations serious, and file Giglio notices in appropriate case files.

But behind the badge was a predator.

In 2016, Williamson admitted to raping a woman — a woman who was in his custody, unable to run, unable to fight back, unable to even hope anyone would believe her. For his crime, he became a convicted felon, mandated for life to register as a sex offender.

Yet somehow, nearly eight years later, he still holds the title of "peace officer."

The betrayal isn't just personal. It's systemic.

Oklahoma law demands that convicted felons — especially those guilty of crimes against the vulnerable — be stripped of their certification to serve. Courts are required to report these convictions. CLEET, the Council on Law Enforcement Education and Training, is empowered to revoke licenses the moment a conviction is final. But no one did.

Not when Williamson pled guilty.

Not when he registered as a sex offender.

His name stayed on the roster. Year after year.

The woman who trusted Williams had no choice.

But the state of Oklahoma? It had a choice. It chose silence. It chose inaction.

Despite public access to court records and the legal obligation of courts to report felony convictions, CLEET has taken no public action to revoke Williamson's certification.

According to Oklahoma Administrative Code 390:27-1-6, officers must meet annual requalification standards to maintain their licenses — a requirement Williamson, as a convicted felon and registered sex offender, cannot lawfully meet. Failure to meet these standards should subject an officer to immediate disciplinary action under OAC 390:2.

Year after year. His name stayed on the roster.

The fact that Williamson’s license remains in good standing raises serious questions about the effectiveness of CLEET’s monitoring and disciplinary processes. It also stirs broader concerns about public safety, accountability, and transparency in Oklahoma law enforcement.

The public has a right to trust that law enforcement certification means something, if a person convicted of rape can still hold a police license eight years later, the system is broken!

As of today, Geary Williamson remains on the official public CLEET registry as an active, certified peace officer, in good standing.

Who Dropped the Ball?

In short, it wasn’t just one agency or official — it was a systemic breakdown at every checkpoint where accountability should have occurred. Here are some of the gatekeepers responsible for overseeing the process.

CLEET (Council on Law Enforcement Education and Training):
CLEET is ultimately responsible for maintaining the integrity of its certification system. Director, Marcus Williams, ultimately holds the current duty to ensure Williamson’s license is slated for immediate revocation.

Upon learning of a felony conviction — whether through court notification, media reports, or independent checks — CLEET has the clear authority and duty to initiate suspension or revocation proceedings.

Geary Williams’ conviction and license status has been publicly documented on the Brady List since August of 2022: Citizen Report # 1660501568-930804797

CLEET’s inaction is the most direct cause of Williamson’s continued licensure.

However, other state offices hold culpability as well by neglecting their reporting requirements.

The District Attorney’s Office:
Prosecutors typically ensure that post-conviction notifications, including to licensing agencies, are completed.

Former District Attorney, Craig Ladd, has a publicly known aversion to disclosing potential impeachment evidence, especially when it could potentially affect outcomes in over 100 Carter County cases, or compromise Williamson’s role as a government witness against Love County Sheriff, Joe Russell. We can’t pretend to be surprised by his “oversight” when it comes to properly reporting convicted sex offenders to CLEET.

The Court Clerk:
Courts are required to report felony convictions to relevant licensing and regulatory bodies, including CLEET. Renee Bryant had been a deputy court clerk for 11 in 2016, under Kayelyn Jackson, and actively campaigned for the position Court Clerk that year. It is reasonable to expect that with 11 years of experience and a desire to advance her position, she would have ensured that convictions of law enforcement were reported to CLEET as required. Even if failing to report Williamson’s conviction was an oversight in 2016, she has had nearly 8 years to correct the oversight. Yet has not.

The Employing Sheriff’s Office:
2016 was a seriously scandalous year for District 20 Law Enforcement. Oklahoma’s most infamously corrupt Sheriff, Joe Russell, was busy defending against criminal charges and covering up a double missing persons case. Carter County Sheriff, Milton Anthony, was busy being removed from office by a multicounty grand jury for misconduct of a sexual nature.

Former Carter County Sheriff, Chris Bryant, didn’t assume office until December of 2016. Williamson was convicted in May of 2017. It was unlikely that Williamson was employed under Bryant, relieving him of the reporting requirement, that would have fallen unto Milton Anthony.

The consequences of letting a rapist remain CLEET licensed

Victims know the truth that too many agencies ignore: when someone abuses authority once, it is almost never the first time. Nor the last.

Williams was first certified as a peace officer in Oklahoma in 1975 — meaning he carried a badge and a gun for over 40 years before his conviction came to light.

Four decades.

How many others are out there, too scared to speak, too broken to fight?

How many women sat handcuffed in the back of his patrol car, praying he wouldn't do what he eventually did? We will never know.

Because none of the victims ever made it into a courtroom.

Every year that Williamson’s license remains intact is a silent dare — a grim message that even the rape of a woman in custody isn't enough in District 20 to sever someone from the power of a law enforcement commission.

It is a betrayal that compounds itself with time. And every day the system fails to correct this — fails to revoke his license, fails to stand publicly for his victims — it tells the next rapist cop, somewhere out there in a uniform, that there will be no consequences for preying on the powerless.

The public must demand accountability. No officer who commits such heinous acts should be allowed to hold a CLEET License.

Speak up. Hold the system accountable. Stop this from happening again.

While it remains unconfirmed whether Irby's resignation was directly tied to her disclosure of impeachment evidence against a Seminole County Sheriff's Office investigator, it is notable that her resignation occurred less than ten days after that disclosure was made.

Prosecutors are constitutionally required to provide defendants with any information that may be used to challenge the credibility of a government witness, per Giglio v. United States. In accordance with these obligations, Ms. Irby disclosed that Sheriff Investigator Christopher Perteet, Sr. had been terminated from the District 22 District Attorney’s Office in January 2024. The grounds for termination were serious: theft of controlled dangerous substances (CDS) evidence, mishandling of CDS evidence, illegal drug use, and providing inconsistent statements about illegal drug use.

Because these issues bear directly on Perteet’s credibility, prosecutors must disclose his history to defense counsel in ALL cases where he is or was endorsed as a government witness. Irby’s disclosure was both legally mandated and ethically sound under constitutional standards.

At this time, it remains unknown whether Investigator Perteet continues to be employed by Sheriff Anthony Louie. Given the gravity of the misconduct and the fact that Perteet's termination was formalized in January 2024, it is reasonable to believe that Sheriff Louie, who took office in 2023 after former Sheriff Shannon Smith resigned under a deferred prosecution agreement, was or should have been aware of Perteet’s history.

Questions are now mounting not only about the handling of Perteet’s employment status but also about where District Attorney Erik Johnson stands on these matters. As of publication, District Attorney leadership has made no public statement supporting Irby’s decision to disclose the Giglio material — a silence that some observers interpret as tacit disapproval. Whether that silence reflects institutional discomfort with the fallout from the disclosure, or an unwillingness to confront misconduct within allied law enforcement agencies, remains unclear.

What is clear is that Ms. Candace Irby fulfilled her constitutional duty — and her resignation so soon after doing so raises serious concerns about the internal pressures faced by prosecutors who choose to prioritize their constitutional obligations over blue line cult politics.

We will continue to monitor developments and provide updates as more information becomes available.

In a development that raises serious questions about the integrity of prosecutorial decision-making and the ethical tensions within law enforcement partnerships, an assistant to District Attorney Erik Johnson, for Seminole County, Candace Irby, has abruptly resigned. Sources close to the matter suggest that the resignation is tied to the recent addition of a Seminole County Sheriff’s Office employee to a "Giglio list"—a roster of officers whose credibility in court is deemed compromised due to past misconduct or dishonesty.

This event underscores the growing friction between ethical prosecutorial obligations under Brady v. Maryland and Giglio v. United States, and the institutional pressures that often accompany them. The circumstances surrounding the ADA’s departure invite two competing narratives—both rooted in the complex ethical landscape that prosecutors must navigate.

A Failure to Disclose: Breach of Constitutional Duty?

One potential interpretation of the resignation is that it followed a failure to meet disclosure obligations. Under Brady, prosecutors must disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense, which includes information that could impeach the credibility of government witnesses—Giglio material. If ADA Irby knew of misconduct by the sheriff's office employee and failed to disclose that information in ongoing or prior cases, this would represent a constitutional violation. Such a lapse could call into question the fairness of any prosecution that relied on the tainted officer's testimony, and might justify Irby’s resignation as a form of professional accountability.

From this angle, the resignation could be viewed as a necessary step to preserve the integrity of the prosecutor’s office and the cases it handles. Prosecutors are the guardians of justice, not merely advocates for conviction. Failing to act on known credibility issues in law enforcement undermines both public trust and defendants’ rights.

Doing the Right Thing: Ethical Courage Met With Institutional Retaliation?

An alternative—and increasingly plausible—interpretation is that ADA Irby resigned because she did the right thing. By adding the sheriff’s office employee to the Giglio list, she may have fulfilled her ethical and constitutional duties, only to be met with political pressure and backlash. In jurisdictions where law enforcement and prosecutors have close, sometimes uncomfortably interdependent relationships, exposing misconduct can be professionally perilous.

In this view, Irby’s resignation could reflect a retaliatory campaign orchestrated by a District Attorney more concerned with protecting institutional allies than upholding justice. The pressure to maintain “working relationships” with law enforcement often leads to a culture of silence or complicity, where those who attempt to enforce Brady/Giglio standards are marginalized or pushed out. This becomes even more plausible considering that Erik Johnson has numerous reports of prosecutorial misconduct on the nationwide Brady List.

This possibility raises troubling questions: Are prosecutors free to exercise independent ethical judgment? Or are they beholden to political and organizational pressures that discourage transparency and accountability?

A Systemic Challenge

Regardless of which interpretation ultimately proves true, the episode highlights a broader systemic issue: the need for independent oversight in how prosecutorial and law enforcement agencies manage Brady and Giglio disclosures. Prosecutors must be able to make these determinations free from fear of reprisal, and the public has a right to know when officers with credibility issues are involved in prosecutions. This is the very reason and purpose for the inception of the Brady List platform.

As this story continues to develop, one thing is clear: ethical prosecutors cannot be expected to uphold justice in a vacuum. They need institutional support, clear standards, and above all, the courage to confront uncomfortable truths—even at great personal cost.

If ADA Irby resigned in protest or under duress for doing the ethically correct thing, her case may serve as a cautionary tale and a rallying cry for reform. If she failed to disclose, it’s a reminder of the profound impact prosecutorial misconduct can have on the pursuit of justice.

Either way, the truth demands daylight.

Back in 2022, the Attorney exposed the discovery of a recording device in the attorney/client conference room at the Carter County Jail. The discovery drew significant and deserved public criticism of The Sheriff’s Office and District Attorney’s Office.

Notably, some of the state’s key witnesses in the upcoming trial include the very officials named in those earlier criticisms , drawing scrutiny to the government’s motives.

The charges—related to disputed court filings in case(s) involving the seizure of cash totaling over six figures—were filed the same month Melissa Handke took over as District Attorney.

District Attorney, Handke, is one of three, state officials on the prosecution’s witness list, under public scrutiny, with known potential impeachment evidence, as well as Former Sheriff Chris Bryant, and former District Attorney Craig Ladd.

This prosecution appears designed, not only to punish speech, but to discredit a vocal critic of unchecked district power.

In a controversial move, prosecutors have filed a motion in limine to suppress testimony from sitting District and Tribal Judges—testimony that is essential to ensuring a fair trial.

These judges, who have observed the defendant’s legal practice first hand over many years, are expected to offer critical character and professional context to the trial .

Potential for Prejudicial Impact:

For a defendant who is also a practicing attorney, the judge-witnesses may be able to contextualize professional conduct, explain accepted norms of legal practice, and even challenge the interpretation of ethics violations being advanced by the prosecution.

Excluding this testimony could result in unfair prejudice—misleading the jury about what is normal, ethical, or criminal within the legal profession.

Legal observers warn that suppressing such testimony could violate the Sixth Amendment’s right to compulsory process and due process protections under the Constitution.

A second Motion in Limine was filed on April 17, 2025, further describing what testimony the state wants to be “off limits” at trial.

If convicted, May faces, not only potential incarceration but also disbarment and permanent reputational damage—an outcome that makes full and fair testimony from those who know the defendant’s work indispensable.

This isn’t just a legal case—it’s a constitutional stress test. When the government tries to silence judges who can speak to the defendant’s truth, it threatens the very integrity of the judicial process.

The trial is scheduled to begin April 28, 2025 and is expected to draw widespread public and legal community attention.

Find Out More, Join Our Facebook Event: “The State vs. The People’s Defender”!

*This press release is in no way endorsed by either side of the aforementioned case. Our comments are our own.*

A current Muskogee Assistant District Attorney now spends her days quite literally being the pot that calls the kettle black… as she prosecutes the people of Oklahoma while convicted of, not one… not two… but, THREE felonies.

“Hutson, a former police officer, became a member of the Oklahoma Bar Association on September 25, 1991, after graduating from law school. Her post-law school graduation work consisted primarily as an attorney in the District Attorney's office covering various counties including Muskogee, Cherokee, Wagoner, Adair, and Sequoyah. She also worked in private practice, and was appointed as a special prosecutor by the Oklahoma Attorney General in 1995 to prosecute the notorious Baby Luke case in Pittsburg County.”1

Court records indicate that Janet L. Bickel-Hutson prosecutes cases on behalf of the District 15 Attorney's office [Larry Edwards], despite pleading guilty to offering false evidence, drug possession and perjury2 following a multicounty grand jury investigation and an arrest in Arkansas in 2011 for public intoxication3.

In 2006 she was indicted on charges possession of methamphetamine, offering false evidence and perjury after allegedly taking drugs from a crime scene in Tahlequah4 and attempting to conceal her actions. Hutson was employed as a Cherokee County assistant district attorney at the time.

Subsequently, she surrendered her law license in July 2007, foregoing disbarment proceedings. Hutson petitioned for reinstatement on July 25, 2018, and was denied in April of 2019, with recommendations that Hutson “pursue her commitment to recovery of substance abuse”5.

Muskogee County Court records indicate she has prosecuting criminal cases in District 15 since November of 2024.

A prosecutor convicted of perjury has fundamentally compromised the integrity required to uphold justice. Perjury—lying under oath—directly contradicts a prosecutor’s duty to seek truth and fairness, making it impossible for them to credibly present evidence or argue cases in court. Allowing such an individual to continue practicing law erodes public trust in the legal system, undermines the credibility of prosecutions, and creates serious ethical and legal conflicts.

Prosecutors guilty of perjury have an ethical and constitutional duty to disclose their own misconduct to defense counsel in every case. Under Brady v. Maryland (1963) and Giglio v. United States (1972), prosecutors must disclose any evidence that could affect the credibility of a witness—including their own history of dishonesty. A prosecutor convicted of perjury has demonstrated a willingness to lie under oath, making their statements and legal arguments inherently unreliable.

Failure to disclose this information violates due process, deprives defendants of their right to a fair trial, and could result in overturned convictions or misconduct sanctions. Such disclosures are required to be both perpetual and retroactive, meaning that District Attorney Larry Edwards has a constitutional duty to disclose this information to EVERY defendant who’s case Janet Hutson was involved in.

As of the date of this article, there is no indication within the public court record for the 50+ cases assigned to Hutson, that Larry Edwards’ office made any brady disclosure to the defense in relation to Hutson’s history of perjury and other crimes. Coincidentally, many of the court documents on OSCN for CF-2018-00319 conveniently [for the state] have broken links that indicate the records were removed or changed in some manner, obstructing the public from easy access to the case.

In February of 2021, news outlets reported allegations that Hutson, while defending former Hulbert police chief, Casey Rowe, against bribery charges, intimidated a plaintiff seeking a protective order against Rowe. The plaintiff said she feared nude photographs of her would be published online and requested the protective order be dismissed.

Allowing a prosecutor with Hutson’s moral turpitude to continue trying cases poses a profound threat to the integrity of the justice system. It not only undermines public trust but also casts doubt on the fairness of past and present convictions. The legal repercussions can be far-reaching, with appeals, overturned verdicts, and dismissed cases draining both time and taxpayer resources.

Moreover, it violates the ethical standards that prosecutors are sworn to uphold, creating conflicts of interest that compromise the very foundation of justice. Ultimately, the damage extends beyond the courtroom, re-traumatizing victims and jeopardizing the rights of defendants, highlighting the critical need for strict accountability and swift removal of compromised officials from positions of power.