Public Disclosure · Filed Public Records · Case No. CF-2025-708, Muskogee County, Oklahoma

The Record That Wasn't

A felony plea. No court reporter. A transcript from a prosecutor's cell phone. Published by David Bruce McDermott II — the defendant, and counsel of record in his own case.

Every fact below is drawn from filed public court records, the Oklahoma statutes, or disclosures made directly to Mr. McDermott. Questions are stated as questions. No person is accused of a crime; the referees — the Board of Examiners, the Administrative Office of the Courts, and if warranted the Office of the Inspector General — are asked to answer on the record.

Watch the firm work the case — six and a half minutes

The documented facts — from the court's own filed papers

1. On May 1, 2026, a felony plea was taken. The court's own signed "Summary of Facts" form carries two printed lines beneath the Magistrate's signature: "Court Clerk Present" — blank. "Court Reporter Present" — blank.

2. Oklahoma law, 20 O.S. § 106.4(A)(1), states that proceedings not taken down by the court reporter, shown by affidavit, "shall constitute a denial of due process of law." When no reporter is available, § 106.4(A)(2) permits exactly two alternatives: a judge-ordered recording made on the court's own authority, or a freelance reporter by stipulation of both parties. Neither path appears in this record.

3. Seven weeks later, a "Notice of Filing" appeared, reciting the filing of a "Transcript of Proceedings from May 1st, 2026." The document says it was filed "this 23rd day of June, 2026." The Court Clerk's stamp on the same page reads "FILED — JUN 24 2026." The filing contradicts its own file stamp by one day.

4. The Notice is signed by a temporary court reporter — a name and a title, nothing more. No certificate number. No seal. And nowhere the word "certified" or the words "true and correct." Under 20 O.S. § 106.3B(6), it is the temporary reporter's certification that gives a transcript the same effect as one certified by a regular reporter.

5. The defendant — proceeding pro se, and therefore counsel of record under Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) — was never served the order, never notified of the filing, and never provided a copy of the transcript of his own plea. His inquiries to the Court Clerk and to the reporter have gone unanswered.

The 44-minute call — what the state's own administration disclosed

Mr. McDermott left a voicemail with the Oklahoma court administration in Oklahoma City. The administration returned his call — a conversation lasting forty-four minutes, documented by call records. In that call it was disclosed to him, in substance:

• that the hearing recording was transmitted by text message from an assistant district attorney to the temporary reporter, who then transcribed and published it;

• that the reporter has since been counseled that, in the future, she should not produce records texted to her by district attorneys or assistant district attorneys; and

• in answer to Mr. McDermott's direct question — what if the defendant had texted her the same recording? — that she "would have said no."

The prosecution's text was transcribed and filed as the official record of a felony plea. The defendant's identical act would have been refused. That asymmetry is now a matter of disclosed record.

Notice of preservation — read carefully

Formal written preservation demands are in transit. Public notice is hereby added to them: the original recording, the device, and every text message transmitting that recording — including any message from any member or employee of the District Attorney's office to the temporary reporter — are evidence in anticipated motion practice, regulatory complaints, and a contemplated federal referral.

Federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 1519, makes it a felony — punishable by up to twenty years — to destroy, alter, or conceal any record with intent to impede or obstruct the investigation of any matter. Deletion after notice is not housekeeping. It is obstruction.

The questions now before the referees

1. Who authorized the recording of a felony plea on a party's personal cell phone, when the statute offers two lawful alternatives and neither was used?

2. Who conferred the title "Temporary Court Reporter" — and does the Chief Justice's certificate required by 20 O.S. § 106.3B(4) exist?

3. Who engaged, and who paid, the reporter — and where is the written direction of payment the statute requires?

4. Why was an uncertified transcript accepted, stamped, and docketed by the Clerk — and why was counsel of record never told?

Published by David Bruce McDermott II from filed public court records and disclosures made to him directly. Publishing truthful public records is protected speech. Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469 (1975). All persons are presumed to have acted lawfully unless and until the appropriate authorities find otherwise. This page states facts and questions — the findings belong to the referees.