Protected Petitioning Activity · First Amendment, U.S. Const. · Complaints to the Council on Judicial Complaints, 20 O.S. §§ 1651 et seq. · Allegations herein are allegations, made upon information and belief.
Chambers of Atticus Bradstreet McDermott
The Judicial
Supplements
Three First Supplements before the Oklahoma Council on Judicial Complaints — Loge, Tucker, and Adair — plus the restated OBA grievances against Hutson and Scandy (contamination removed) and the master Exhibit Binder, A through J.
Atticus's Review of the Originals — What I Fixed and Why
- The facts are strong; the presentation was working against them. All-caps passages, editorial asides, and "I am no man to play with" give an investigator permission to file you under vexatious instead of reading your dates. The supplements keep every allegation and delete every opening.
- "Five months" became 118 days. January 4 to May 1, 2026 is one hundred eighteen days of custody. A tribunal counts days — and 118 days needs no exaggeration to be damning.
- Rule-level citations added. The Council evaluates conduct under the Oklahoma Code of Judicial Conduct's numbered Rules (1.1, 1.2, 2.2, 2.5(A), 2.6(A)) — the originals cited only Canon headings. Each supplement now ties each act to its Rule.
- Preservation demands added — especially the docket audit trail on the Adair stay. If the stay was announced April 29 and never entered, the case-management audit log will show who did and did not enter it, with timestamps. That is how concealment gets proven.
- Speculation about Ms. Hutson's bar history stays out of the judicial file. It belongs, if verified, in the bar complaint — not in complaints about three judges, where it dilutes focus.
- One housekeeping alert: your Scandy bar complaint has Hutson paragraphs spliced into it mid-document (a copy-paste artifact). Say the word and I will restyle both bar complaints the same way.
- File numbers conformed. The Council's July 10, 2026 letter confirms COC-26-135, -136, and -137 are under investigation per 20 O.S. § 1658(A). Each supplement now carries the file numbers and is framed as cooperation with the open investigation — their letter warns that failure to cooperate can result in dismissal, so every supplement works in your favor.
- Two cautions from your counsel: the Council's letter misspells your name ("McDermontt") — we file under the correct spelling and let the file numbers control. And the investigation itself is confidential: your complaint is yours to speak about, but anything the Council gathers is not. If a formal finding issues, you may testify under oath before the Court on the Judiciary — which is exactly why every date and number in these supplements is verified to the day.
Before the Council on Judicial Complaints
State of Oklahoma
1901 North Lincoln Boulevard · Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105
In re: Complaint Against the Honorable Orvil Loge, District Judge, Muskogee County
Council File Nos.: COC-26-135 · COC-26-136 · COC-26-137 (confirm the number assigned to this respondent) · Underlying Case: State v. McDermott, Muskogee County No. CF-2025-708
Complainant: David Bruce McDermott II, Mounds, Oklahoma
First Supplement to Complaint — The Void Warrant and the No-Bond Detention Built Upon It
I. PURPOSE OF THIS SUPPLEMENT
1.This Supplement is filed in support of, and is incorporated into, Complainant's previously submitted complaint against Judge Orvil Loge. It does not withdraw or replace any allegation. It restates the facts with precise dates, supplies the controlling legal authority, and identifies the specific Rules of the Oklahoma Code of Judicial Conduct, 5 O.S. ch. 1, app. 4, implicated by the conduct described. This Supplement is submitted in cooperation with the investigation commenced pursuant to 20 O.S. § 1658(A), as confirmed by the Council's acknowledgment letter of July 10, 2026, which received Complainant's complaints of June 26, 2026.
II. RESTATED CHRONOLOGY
2.On or about December 30, 2025, an Information was filed in CF-2025-708. A warrant for Complainant's arrest issued bearing only an illegible scribbled mark — no printed name, no typed name, no title of judicial office, and no means by which any person could identify the issuing judicial officer. Upon information and belief, based on comparison with known exemplars, the mark is that of Judge Orvil Loge, formerly the Muskogee County District Attorney.
3.On or about January 4, 2026, Complainant was arrested and detained on that instrument, and was thereafter held without bond.
4.Complainant remained in continuous custody from January 4, 2026 until May 1, 2026 — one hundred eighteen (118) days — with the scribbled warrant as the foundational instrument of the entire detention.
III. SUPPLEMENTAL LEGAL AUTHORITY
5.The warrant was facially void. The Fourth Amendment and Okla. Const. art. II, § 30 require that arrest warrants issue only upon probable cause, supported by oath, from an identifiable neutral magistrate. Oklahoma statute requires that an arrest warrant be signed by the magistrate with his name of office. 22 O.S. §§ 171–176. An instrument bearing an unidentifiable scribble, without name or office, fails these requirements on its face and is void ab initio.
6.Facial defects are not technicalities. In Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551 (2004), the Supreme Court held that a warrant facially deficient in a required element is invalid notwithstanding the underlying paperwork, and that no reasonable officer could presume such a warrant valid. A warrant that conceals the identity of its issuing judge is deficient in the most fundamental element of all: judicial accountability.
7.Anonymity defeats review. The requirement of an identifiable issuing magistrate exists so that neutrality and probable-cause review can be tested. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 449–53 (1971) (warrant must issue from a neutral and detached magistrate). A signature that cannot be attributed to any judge makes that testing impossible by design.
8.Detention without bond on a void instrument. Okla. Const. art. II, § 8 guarantees the right to bail in non-capital cases save narrow exceptions requiring findings; art. II, § 9 forbids excessive bail. A no-bond hold resting entirely on a facially void warrant satisfies neither provision, and deprived Complainant of liberty without due process of law. U.S. Const. amends. VIII, XIV.
IV. RULES OF THE CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT IMPLICATED
9.Rule 1.1 (a judge shall comply with the law): issuance of a warrant not conforming to 22 O.S. §§ 171–176 and the Fourth Amendment.
10.Rule 1.2 (a judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and its appearance): concealment of judicial identity on an instrument authorizing arrest is the antithesis of judicial accountability.
11.Rule 2.5(A) (competence and diligence): issuing a warrant without an identifiable signature, on a stale and unsupported affidavit, reflects a failure of the diligence the office demands.
V. PRESERVATION DEMAND
12.Complainant respectfully requests that the Council obtain and preserve: (a) the original warrant and affidavit in CF-2025-708; (b) all case-management and docket audit trails identifying which judicial officer approved the warrant; (c) known signature exemplars of Judge Loge; and (d) all internal communications concerning the warrant's issuance.
VI. RELIEF REQUESTED
13.Complainant requests that the Council conduct a full investigation under 20 O.S. §§ 1651 et seq., make findings on each matter set out above and in the original complaint, and, if warranted, recommend proceedings before the Court on the Judiciary, Okla. Const. art. VII-A.
VERIFICATION
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing, together with the original complaint it supplements, is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.
Respectfully submitted,
David Bruce McDermott II
Complainant, Pro Se
8485 Disney Road, Mounds, OK 74047 · [Phone] · [Email]
Supplement drafted in the chambers of Atticus Bradstreet McDermott · Fill all [brackets] before filing
Educational drafting resource · Not legal advice · No attorney-client relationship · Review all documents before use
© 2026 David McDermott · I AM THE LAW SKUNK™ · McSkunkville™ · All Rights Reserved. All characters, lore, artwork and games — Atticus Bradstreet McDermott™, Judge Brett David McSkunk™, David Bradstreet McSkunk™, Jim McSkunk Rockford™, Hugh "Le Pew" McSkunkner™, The Firm, the McSkunkville Casino™ and Series One: The Case of the McSkunk Ruby™ — are original works protected under 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. Unauthorized reproduction or commercial use is prohibited.Sealed in the Copyright Vault →