The First Amendment
War Chest

Privileged Research Memorandum · Prepared for David Bruce McDermott II

Memorandum of Law

The First Amendment and the Deferred-Prosecution Citizen:

The Right to Write the Book, Publish the Memes, and Tell the Story of One's Own Case

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

I. May a citizen serving a seven-year deferred prosecution or suspended sentence in Oklahoma write and publish a book, commentary, and satirical memes concerning his own criminal case and the public officials who prosecuted and judged it?

II. Does entry into a deferred prosecution agreement or suspended sentence, standing alone, extinguish or suspend a citizen's First Amendment rights?

III. Must the prosecuting attorney, Janet Hutson, "reinstate" those rights before the citizen may speak or publish?

SHORT ANSWERS

I. Yes. Publication about one's own prosecution — including books, criticism, and parody directed at public officials — sits at the very core of the First Amendment. Any rule forbidding it in advance is a prior restraint, "the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights." Nebraska Press Ass'n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 559 (1976).

II. No. Persons under criminal supervision retain their constitutional rights. Even convicted prisoners "do not forfeit all constitutional protections," Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 545 (1979), and a probationer's rights may be limited only by conditions that are expressly imposed, reasonably related to legitimate supervision, and narrowly drawn. United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112, 119 (2001).

III. No. First Amendment rights are not the prosecutor's to grant, hold, or "reinstate." They flow from the Constitution, not from Janet Hutson. Unless Mr. McDermott signed an express, knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of a specific speech right — a waiver the State bears the burden of proving, Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464 (1938) — there is nothing to reinstate. The rights never left.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Mr. McDermott is under a seven-year deferred disposition arising out of proceedings in Oklahoma involving complainant Ethan Ray Mulkey and prosecutor Janet Hutson, with judicial proceedings before Judges Adair, Tucker, and Loge. On April 20, Mr. McDermott filed a civil action naming Mr. Mulkey and prosecutor Hutson. On May 1 — eleven days later — he was released from custody pursuant to a negotiated disposition; the civil action's dismissal was part of the consideration exchanged. Mr. McDermott has a documented history of effective pro se constitutional litigation, including serial constitutional filings in federal court that resulted in the opening of thirty-one federal civil actions on his behalf under Judge James O. Ellison, later resolved in exchange for his liberty. He now intends to write a book, publish commentary, and create satirical memes about these events and the public officials involved.

The full facts and circumstances, in chronological order:

1. On or about 1998 — Mr. McDermott began publicly speaking, writing, and filming on government misconduct — work protected by the First Amendment.

2. On or about 2010 — Mr. McDermott moved that public work to the social media platform Facebook, speaking on topics ranging from everyday life to government misconduct.

3. In or about 2009 through 2011 — Mr. McDermott states that Mr. McDermott served as an original source of information in the federal Tulsa police corruption investigation — the Tulsa Police Department / ATF corruption cases prosecuted under specially designated United States Attorney Jane W. Duke of the Eastern District of Arkansas — which culminated in the conviction of ATF Special Agent Brandon McFadden, who admitted to falsifying evidence and perjury in collusion with corrupt Tulsa Police Department officers. Mr. McDermott states that U.S. Attorney Duke personally telephoned Mr. McDermott from the Little Rock U.S. Attorney's Office and spoke with Mr. McDermott for approximately two and one-half hours regarding systemic law-enforcement corruption in Oklahoma, and that Mr. McDermott later operated the Tulsa enterprise that carried out the U.S. Department of Justice's physical relocation of the Tulsa ATF field office — part of Mr. McDermott's decades-long history of lawful reporting to, and cooperation with, federal authorities.

4. On or about August 4, 2010 — Mr. McDermott states, upon information and belief and per Mr. McDermott's review of public records, that Ethan Ray Mulkey was charged in Muskogee County case CF-2010-723 with manufacturing an explosive device, and that the case was sealed the same day. (To be verified against court records before filing.)

5. The setting — MJ Ranch — Mr. McDermott's neighborhood is the MJ Ranch addition — entered off 184 Road, South of 231st Street and South of Creeger Road, at the end of Disney Road. It is one big circle: one way in, one way out. A law-enforcement vehicle repeatedly entering that closed loop is not passing through; it is coming in on purpose. (Map exhibit — see record).

6. The setting — the county roads — These are county roads — to this very day, in the past, and always. Nobody drives hugged to the right shoulder against the ditch; on these roads that costs a driver the front end and the automobile. Everyone dominantly rides center-road simply to get down the road safely, and when two vehicles meet, everyone slows and yields — that is the gesture, and that is the custom. Any traffic stop premised on center-road driving out here is a stop premised on the way every resident must drive these roads to survive them.

7. On or about 2017 — Ethan Ray Mulkey ("Mulkey"), then an Okmulgee County sheriff's deputy, became increasingly active in Mr. McDermott's neighborhood at the end of Disney Road. Mulkey was a friend of Stephanie Bell — daughter of a neighbor, Mr. Bell, and then dating an Okmulgee County deputy — and began appearing at that house quickly, often, over and over, driving a white Corvette into the neighborhood, eyeballing Mr. McDermott and Mr. McDermott's neighbors, and then pulling them over in the neighborhood — targeting them, with stops of unusual frequency.

8. On or about May 7, 2017 — Deputy Mulkey was parked across from 184 Road off 231st Street, in a neighbor's driveway, his patrol vehicle — a 2016 Ford Explorer — nose facing South, rear to the North, watching Mr. McDermott and Keith Claxton ("Claxton") LIVE on Facebook from that parked position.

9. On or about May 7, 2017 — Keith Claxton pulled up to the stop sign, signaled, and made a lawful right turn onto 231st Street heading East. Deputy Mulkey turned around from his parked position and drove in immediately behind him.

10. On or about May 7, 2017 — From the live videos he had been watching, Deputy Mulkey had studied Claxton and knew that Claxton presents unsteady on his feet and jittery in his speech in his natural state. Mulkey stopped Claxton and accused him of driving under the influence.

11. On or about May 7, 2017 — During that stop — speaking on Mr. McDermott's telephone while Claxton sat in the back of the 2016 Ford Explorer — Deputy Mulkey asked, "David, when was the last time you smoked crack?"; stated, in substance, that he could lie in a court of law and get away with it; and declared, "They're only going to believe what I say over you two." He treated the episode as funny, and remarked on having been watching the two men live on Facebook. Claxton was taken to jail.

12. Beginning on or about May 7, 2017 — Mr. McDermott produced a sustained series of Facebook Live videos exposing Deputy Mulkey's conduct — new videos every few hours, for months and months, in one-to-two and three-to-five minute increments that together consumed two to three hours a day of viewers' time. The videos gained significant traction across multiple counties, reaching law enforcement and citizens alike, from Tulsa to Oklahoma City to federal agents of the United States Department of Justice.

13. On or about mid-2017 — The viewership grew so heavy inside law enforcement that Okmulgee County Sheriff Eddie Rice ("Sheriff Rice") had to address his entire patrol and order them, in substance: "You will no longer watch David McDermott videos on taxpayer time." Sheriff Rice also ordered Deputy Mulkey to cease contact with Mr. McDermott — an order whose existence Deputy Gerry Mantex confirmed.

14. In or about summer 2017 — The home next to Mr. McDermott's residence at 8485 Disney Road was destroyed by fire; per Mr. McDermott's account, an accelerant device was involved, the Mounds Fire Department responded, and the fire came shortly after the May 7, 2017 episode in which Deputy Mulkey surveilled Mr. McDermott and Claxton on Facebook Live. To Mr. McDermott's knowledge, the fire was never properly investigated.

15. During Mulkey's Okmulgee County service (date to be established) — Per the account of witness Wallace Townsend: while Deputy Mulkey transported Townsend from the Glenpool City Jail back to the Okmulgee County Jail, Mulkey stated, in substance: "I've done bad things as a cop. If it ever came out, I'd never work in law enforcement again."

16. In or about September 2018 — Per public reporting (The Frontier: "Okmulgee County deputy cleared in shooting of unarmed man, but questions remain"), Justin Snelson, an unarmed man, was fatally shot in Beggs, Oklahoma; District Attorney Carol Iski considered charges against the deputy and ultimately declined to file.

17. On or about April 1, 2019 — At the trial of State of Oklahoma v. Keith Troy Claxton, Deputy Mulkey testified, in substance, that he was driving down 184 Road when he looked in his rearview mirror and noticed a defect with Claxton's vehicle or signal. That testimony was false: Mulkey was parked in the neighbor's driveway across from 184 Road, watching the two men live on Facebook, and simply turned around and followed Claxton's lawful right turn. The onboard computer of his 2016 Ford Explorer — which records sudden, abrupt maneuvers — would show no abrupt U-turn from travel, only a departure from a parked position. (Vehicle telematics — see record; preservation demanded). Claxton was convicted on that testimony and served sixty days.

18. On or about April 1, 2019 — Following that trial, Mr. McDermott launched a new series of Facebook Live videos concerning Mulkey and the Okmulgee County Sheriff's Department — protected commentary on a public trial.

19. In or about 2019 — Per attorney Jay K. Ramey's public report: Mulkey left the Okmulgee County Sheriff's Office for the Missouri State Highway Patrol, "didn't last long" there, and surfaced with the Oklahoma Highway Patrol within a couple of years — whether fired, permitted to resign in lieu of firing, or otherwise, Ramey states he does not know.

20. On or about September 4, 2020 — The State alleges Mr. McDermott emailed a video to Missouri Highway Patrol Captain (Major) Scott Shipers ("Captain Shipers") containing a rhetorical figure of speech — alleged in the affidavit as, in substance, "I'll rip your goddamn head off..." — classic hyperbole, not a true threat, under Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705 (1969). The statement was made to Missouri, lies more than five years before the Information in this case, beyond the three-year limitations period of 22 O.S. § 152, and outside Oklahoma's jurisdiction.

21. On or about May 10, 2022 — Catherine Mary Morgan v. Ethan Ray Mulkey was filed in the District Court of Muskogee County, alleging misconduct. (Per Mr. McDermott's review of public records; to be verified against the docket before filing.)

22. On or about 2022 — Per the public complaint in Roach v. Oklahoma, Oklahoma Highway Patrol Captain Mark Roach ("Captain Roach") — a nearly thirty-year veteran then supervising Trooper Ethan Mulkey — documented Mulkey's repeated use-of-force incidents and arrests Roach believed lacked probable cause, and reported those concerns up the chain of command, where they were initially ignored.

23. On or about December 15, 2022 — Per the Roach v. Oklahoma filing, Captain Roach was himself placed under investigation, accused of violating policy by speaking about the misconduct he had reported; per the filing he was cleared, a second investigation followed, and he was told he would be demoted to Trooper — a move that would have severely impacted his pension. Roach thereafter took the State to court in Roach v. Oklahoma, framing the demotion as First Amendment retaliation for reporting Mulkey.

24. In or about November 2023 — Mr. McDermott states, upon information and belief, that Mulkey was added to a Giglio/Brady disclosure list concerning abuse of authority and use of force. (To be verified before filing.)

25. On or about September 10, 2024 — Captain Roach filed Roach v. Oklahoma Highway Patrol; State of Oklahoma ex rel. Department of Public Safety; and Tim Tipton, District Court of Tulsa County — a wrongful-termination action naming OHP Commissioner Tim Tipton in his individual capacity. Per the petition: Roach's protected report of Mulkey's use-of-force incidents was made as a private citizen to the Tulsa County District Attorney, a longtime friend; he was cleared by the first investigation; Commissioner Tipton then organized a second investigation, after which Roach was told he would be demoted to Trooper.

26. Thereafter — Per public dockets: Roach's action was assigned Tulsa County No. CJ-24-03406 and was removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma as No. 4:24-cv-00471. Mr. McDermott further states that Captain Roach testified in federal court before Magistrate Judge Jackson in United States v. Jason Dale Cole and Crystal Faye Chesser, No. CR-24-080-RAW. (Case details to be verified against PACER before filing.)

27. On or about March 9, 2024 — An administrative complaint concerning the pattern was lodged with the Oklahoma Highway Patrol (Lt. Dobbs) — an escalation record.

28. On or about April 1, 2024 — Collins v. Mulkey, No. 4:24-cv-00144, was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma — a federal civil-rights action naming Trooper Ethan Mulkey as a defendant, alleging constitutional violations.

29. On or about May 28, 2024 — Birchfield v. Mulkey, No. 4:24-cv-00256, was filed in the Northern District of Oklahoma — a second federal civil-rights action naming Trooper Mulkey.

30. On or about September 26, 2024 — Forester-Slaton v. Mulkey, No. 4:24-cv-00457, was filed in the Northern District of Oklahoma — a third federal civil-rights action naming Trooper Mulkey in a single calendar year.

31. On or about May 1, 2025 — Clack v. State of Oklahoma, et al., No. 4:25-cv-00123, was filed in the Northern District of Oklahoma — a fourth federal civil-rights action, alleging violent detention, verbal threats, denial of medical care, and targeted harassment. (Per Mr. McDermott's review of public records.)

32. On or about 2024 — Per attorney Jay K. Ramey ("Ramey")'s public Facebook report, in the Birchfield matter the defense listed Captain Mark Roach as a witness to "the excessive use of force, unlawfulness of the arrest" — the whistleblowing captain now a witness against the trooper he once supervised.

33. On or about January 2–3, 2025 — Tulsa criminal-defense attorney Jay K. Ramey took to Facebook with a multi-part public report on Trooper Mulkey — describing client experiences he attributes to Mulkey, including alleged fabricated DUI charges later declined by prosecutors, and the treatment of Captain Roach (date per the public post metadata; to be confirmed against the preserved screenshots). Public comments corroborated the pattern, including C.J. Johnson's public accusation of racial profiling, fabricated marijuana odors, and illegal searches. Independent tracking documents between 6,500 and 8,000+ digital mentions concerning these parties across the public square.

34. On or about January 16, 2025 — A second administrative complaint concerning the pattern was lodged with the Oklahoma Highway Patrol (Lt. Dobbs).

35. Throughout 2003–2025 — the speaker's record — Mr. McDermott began writing publicly to strangers in 2003, on eBay — the only public platform then available to Mr. McDermott. But the speaker was made long before that: in the seventh grade at Nimitz Junior High School in Tulsa, Mr. McDermott sought entry into Nancy Sellers' Gifted and Talented Speech class. Mrs. Sellers put it to a class vote, and the entire class voted no — whereupon she called Mr. McDermott in privately and told Mr. McDermott, in substance, that the unanimous vote was exactly why she was letting Mr. McDermott in. In that program Mr. McDermott went head-to-head against a favored classmate for the lead role of Lon in the school's production of The Spirit of St. Louis — and won it. On performance night, when the cast forgot their lines, Mr. McDermott ad-libbed the play forward on the spot and carried it through as though nothing had happened. (The playbill and memorabilia were destroyed in the Konawa fire.) Where every other seller wrote "here's something for sale," Mr. McDermott wrote stories: stories about Mr. McDermott's family, stories about Mr. McDermott's life, woven into the listings themselves — writings so long and so distinctive that strangers emailed Mr. McDermott about them. On one occasion Mr. McDermott listed more than four hundred (400) items from Mr. McDermott's junk-removal service on eBay — from fingernail clippers to pots and pans — and wrote a personal story into each and every single listing. The goods, carried by the stories, sold across the world: a water-soaked set of four French-language dictionaries went to a buyer in Mexico City for one hundred eighty dollars ($180); other pieces went to Korea, to Italy. A man in a Manhattan skyrise bought four pulleys on a rope and told Mr. McDermott he had purchased them because Mr. McDermott was the most interesting thing he had read in the past five years. One man wrote telling Mr. McDermott never to stop doing what Mr. McDermott was doing, because Mr. McDermott was changing the world, and that people like Mr. McDermott were very important. From that beginning and continuing through the close of 2025 — twenty-two (22) years of continuous public speech — Mr. McDermott published, per Mr. McDermott's account, more than twenty-four thousand (24,000) live videos and thousands of memes, and engaged in documented face-to-face communication with more than two thousand five hundred (2,500) law-enforcement officers across the United States, the great majority of it preserved on Facebook. In that entire twenty-two-year public record — tens of thousands of publications, thousands of officers, every state of emotion a man can broadcast — not one listing, not one video, not one meme, and not one encounter ever produced a threat charge. Until this case. A speaker of that volume, that duration, and that discipline knows precisely where the line sits between commentary and threat, and for twenty-two years never crossed it: any coarse or hyperbolic language in Mr. McDermott's videos was rhetoric of the kind protected under Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705 (1969), and was never directed at any one particular person as a statement of intent. [LOCATE: the eBay archive — the account was registered under the name Misty Michelle Collins, and the listings were branded throughout with Mr. McDermott's junk-removal service, "Go Junk"; archived listing pages, feedback records, and buyer emails (the "never stop" writer; the Manhattan pulley buyer; the Mexico City dictionary sale) are the receipts for this paragraph.]

36. In or about late 2025 — Upon information and belief, Trooper Ethan Ray Mulkey — by then an Oklahoma Highway Patrol trooper — made his report to the Oklahoma Highway Patrol.

37. In or about late 2025 — Upon information and belief, the Oklahoma Highway Patrol, through Investigator Jordy Woolsey ("Investigator Woolsey"), assembled the probable-cause package — harvesting fifty-nine (59) Facebook posts and the five-year-old Shipers email, and contacting Captain Shipers concerning it.

38. In or about late 2025 — the unproduced exhibits — Of the fifty-nine (59) harvested Facebook posts, Mr. McDermott states that the posts themselves were never brought forward or produced in the prosecution. It has further been asserted that a video of Mr. McDermott's was placed next to a photograph of Trooper Mulkey and his wife — a juxtaposition Mr. McDermott denies creating or publishing, and which, upon Mr. McDermott's information and belief, the State cannot produce. [ESTABLISH via discovery demand: production of all 59 posts and of any alleged composite/juxtaposition, with metadata and authorship — see the Sullians recorded-line account, supra, of Mulkey retaining others' telephones, as to how content attributed to Mr. McDermott may have originated from devices and accounts not under Mr. McDermott's control.]

39. In or about late 2025 — Upon information and belief, the assembled package was then presented to the office of District Attorney Janet Hutson ("DA Hutson"). The case was orchestrated and built by the Oklahoma Highway Patrol and delivered to the prosecutor.

40. In or about late 2025 — Mr. McDermott stated publicly — on the same public Facebook channels — that Mr. McDermott was preparing a sworn affidavit for the United States Department of Justice concerning the conduct described herein. The felony Information and no-bond warrant followed.

41. On or about December 30, 2025 — The Information was filed in State v. McDermott, No. CF-2025-708 (District Court of Muskogee County) — felony stalking, 21 O.S. § 1173, alleging a "course of conduct" from January 1 to December 30, 2025. (Exhibit A — see record).

42. On or about December 30, 2025 — The same day, a felony arrest warrant issued, its bond blank completed "HWOB" — held without bond — before any appearance, on a charge the Oklahoma Constitution, art. II, § 8, presumes bailable. The warrant bears only an unidentifiable scribbled mark — no judge's name, no title of office. (Exhibit B — see record).

43. Thereafter — Mr. McDermott states that after release, Mr. McDermott manually compared the scribbled mark on the warrant against published judicial signatures and determined that the issuing judge was more likely than not Judge Orvil Loge — a former Muskogee County District Attorney — an identity not disclosed on the face of the warrant.

44. On or about January 4, 2026 — Mr. McDermott was arrested in Tampa, Florida on that warrant and thereafter held without bond — a detention that would ultimately run one hundred eighteen (118) days. (Exhibit B — see record).

45. On or about January 28, 2026 — A Governor's Warrant was filed of record in CF-2025-708 — the interstate-extradition instrument by which Mr. McDermott was returned across state lines. (OSCN docket, 1/28/2026).

46. In or about early 2026 — While detained in the Hillsborough County Jail (Tampa) awaiting extradition, Mr. McDermott interviewed R.J. Sullians on a recorded jail line. Per Sullians' account: during a traffic stop, Trooper Mulkey took his cellular telephone and a quantity of methamphetamine; the methamphetamine was never logged into OHP evidence; Mulkey told him he would get the phone back after Mulkey was "done searching it"; and Sullians was made to strip to bare skin on the side of the highway. Sullians had to buy a new telephone. Mulkey wrote a ticket and noted the telephone number. Per Mr. McDermott's analysis, this suggests Mulkey may have taken telephones from multiple persons and potentially used them to access or create social-media content — including Facebook activity — under others' identities, meaning online activity attributed to Mr. McDermott may have been created or amplified from devices and accounts not under Mr. McDermott's control. (Recorded line — see record.)

47. On or about April 2, 2026 — Mr. McDermott filed pro se: an Entry of Appearance, Motion to Proceed Pro Se, Motion to Dismiss, Speedy Trial Demand, Motion for Pretrial Release, Notice of Civil Claims, and Notice to Challenge Accuser Credibility. All were set for hearing on April 29, 2026.

48. On or about April 17, 2026 — Mr. McDermott was extradited and arrived in Muskogee County; the held-without-bond posture was maintained over Mr. McDermott's objection. (Exhibit B — see record).

49. On or about April 18, 2026 — At a bond hearing before Judge Roy D. Tucker ("Judge Tucker"), Assistant District Attorney Hanna Scandy ("ADA Scandy") — at District Attorney Janet Hutson's direction — demanded a bond of $1,000,000, characterizing Mr. McDermott in theatrical and inflammatory terms throughout the courtroom, including the false claim that Mr. McDermott attacked a man in the extradition van; the record shows Mr. McDermott was the one attacked. Mr. McDermott was afforded no opportunity to respond. The court declined the demand but continued Mr. McDermott on no bond. (Exhibit C — see record).

50. On or about April 20, 2026 — The OSCN docket records an appearance — ADA Hannah Scandy for the State, Mr. McDermott pro se from the jail — at which bond remained "HWOB" (held without bond) with Mr. McDermott's objection expressly noted of record ("DEF OBJECTS TO BOND"); a bond condition of no contact with Ethan Mulkey and Kayla Mulkey was imposed; and Mr. McDermott declined a court-appointed attorney. (OSCN docket, 4/20/2026).

51. On or about April 20, 2026 — Mr. McDermott filed McDermott v. Mulkey, Hutson, et al., No. CV-2026-121, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma, naming District Attorney Hutson and the complaining witness. (Exhibit — see record).

52. On or about April 21, 2026 — "Courts Findings for Purposes of Initial Bail Determination" were entered of record — only after the no-bond posture had already been imposed and sustained: the paper trail runs backward, detention first, findings later. (Exhibit C — see record).

53. On or about April 29, 2026 — At that hearing, District Attorney Janet Hutson personally attacked Mr. McDermott's competence, stating in substance that she had been LISTENING TO Mr. McDermott's JAIL TELEPHONE CALLS and on that basis believed Mr. McDermott mentally unfit; she recited a chaotic accusation of "twenty-five cases in thirty counties" and incorrectly cited "CF-2010-725" as a case in which Mr. McDermott had posted about Trooper Mulkey — Mr. McDermott corrected her in open court: the case was CF-2010-723, Muskogee County, and it had been sealed.

54. On or about April 29, 2026 — Judge Robin Adair ("Judge Adair") began a Faretta inquiry, then abandoned it after asking whether Mr. McDermott intended to file a federal action.

55. On or about April 29, 2026 — The colloquy, per Mr. McDermott's sworn recollection: mid-inquiry — after Mr. McDermott had answered every Faretta question clearly and competently — Judge Adair asked, in substance, "Mr. McDermott, do you intend on filing a federal action?" Mr. McDermott answered honestly: "Yes." Judge Adair immediately declared, in substance, "That does it for me. This case is now stayed until the federal case is over." When Mr. McDermott attempted to speak — "No, wait, Judge Adair—" — the court cut Mr. McDermott off: "Nope. Nope. Nope." — and smiled. Deputies then surrounded Mr. McDermott and Mr. McDermott was extracted from the courtroom. Mr. McDermott's pending motion for pretrial release on no-cash bail was never ruled upon.

56. On or about April 29, 2026 — Every motion Mr. McDermott had filed pro se — including the motion to dismiss on First Amendment grounds and the demand for speedy jury trial — was denied in a single setting without written findings.

57. On or about April 29, 2026 (setting to be confirmed) — In open court, Mr. McDermott addressed DA Hutson and Judge Adair directly on the elements, stating in substance: "You cannot put a set of jury instructions together and explain to a jury that I should be convicted of anything related to stalking, because you do not have the elements that meet stalking" — a reference to the elements of 21 O.S. § 1173 and the Oklahoma Uniform Jury Instructions (OUJI-CR). Per Mr. McDermott's account, the court's and the prosecutor's demeanor toward Mr. McDermott hardened from that moment — the recorded reaction of a bench and a prosecutor confronted with the elements they could not charge to a jury.

58. On or about April 29, 2026 — Judge Adair announced a STAY in open court. The stay was never entered on the docket, never appeared on OSCN, never appeared in the public case file, and was never lifted of record. Mr. McDermott's no-bond detention continued notwithstanding the stay. (Exhibit D — see record).

59. On or about April 30, 2026 — From the Muskogee County Jail, Mr. McDermott spent approximately two and one-half hours directing Mr. McDermott's wife, daughter, and secretary in actions taken in reliance on the announced stay — including the preparation of judicial complaints and contact with the media — reliance the concealed record made impossible to verify.

60. On or about May 1, 2026 — While that stay stood unlifted, Mr. McDermott was transported from the jail to the District Attorney's office under escort by a high-ranking undersheriff, where Mr. McDermott's release was conditioned on dismissal of the federal action — "Don't take my kindness for weakness."

61. On or about May 1, 2026 — Mr. McDermott then entered a plea of no contest and received a seven-year deferred sentence — at a hearing where, upon Mr. McDermott's personal observation, NO COURT REPORTER was present; an assistant district attorney recorded the proceeding on a personal cellular telephone placed near the bench, with the court's acquiescence. (Exhibit E — see record).

62. On or about May 1, 2026 — The same single setting produced, per the OSCN docket, an entire battery of dispositive paperwork filed at once: a Waiver of Counsel, a Waiver of Preliminary Hearing, Rules and Conditions, a Plea of Guilty Summary of Facts, an Acknowledgment of the State's Right to Speak Directly to Defendant, and the Deferment — seven years deferred, a $250 fine, and a $125 victim-compensation assessment — with the docket folding a "FARETTA INQUIRE" and the no-contest plea into one entry. (OSCN docket, 5/1/2026).

63. On or about May 1, 2026 — Mr. McDermott states that the conditions of that disposition included, in substance: dismissal of the federal civil-rights action; the seven-year deferred sentence; a special condition that Mr. McDermott "delete all posts" about Ethan Mulkey; and, per Mr. McDermott's sworn account, that Mr. McDermott not pursue exposure of these matters to the United States Department of Justice — a condition purporting to bar a citizen's communication with federal law enforcement.

64. Continuing — the banishment condition (VERBATIM, exhibit in hand) — The Rules and Conditions filed May 1, 2026 (OSCN #1088137788, exhibit in hand) impose, as Special Condition 4, verbatim: "Banned from Judicial District 15 to include Muskogee, Wagoner, Cherokee, Adair and Sequoyah Counties." Five named counties. The practical operation: Mr. McDermott cannot lawfully enter the county where Mr. McDermott's own case remains pending, where the clerk holds the transcript of Mr. McDermott's own unreported plea, and where any future hearing would be held — a condition that walls a pro se litigant off from the courthouse that controls Mr. McDermott's liberty. [RESEARCH before asserting: (a) Oklahoma authority on banishment-style conditions of deferred/suspended sentences — long disfavored and subject to being struck as void against public policy; (b) the condition's own label — Oklahoma's District 15 is Muskogee County; Wagoner, Cherokee, Adair, and Sequoyah lie in District 27 — the condition appears to banish Mr. McDermott from a 'district' that does not contain four of its five named counties. Verify district maps before asserting.]

65. The written conditions, verbatim (exhibit in hand) — The same Rules and Conditions impose, verbatim: Special Condition 3 — "Remove all posts about Ethan Mulkey or any persons associated by family or employment with Ethan Mulkey from any and all social media platforms within 30 days" — a condition reaching not only Mulkey but every person 'associated by... employment' with him, i.e., on its face, the Oklahoma Highway Patrol; Special Condition 5 — "The plea to Case No. CF-2025-708 will resolve any outstanding federal lawsuits arising out of this matter; more particularly In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma, Case No. CIV-26-121-JFH" — a release-dismissal term extracting surrender of a pending federal civil-rights action as the price of a state plea [RESEARCH: Town of Newton v. Rumery, 480 U.S. 386 (1987) — release-dismissal agreements enforceable only on a showing of voluntariness, absence of prosecutorial misconduct, and public interest; verify before asserting]; and Special Condition 6 — "This is not intended to deny the Defendant access to legal remedies when such remedy is warranted" — sitting directly beneath the condition that just extinguished one. NOTABLE OMISSIONS AND IRREGULARITIES on the face of the document: (i) no written condition bars communication with the United States Department of Justice — the DOJ-related term Mr. McDermott swears to was, if made, imposed OFF the written record; (ii) supervision runs 18 months through the Muskogee County District Attorney's Office at $40/month — the same office that prosecuted — while the deferment runs seven years; (iii) the signature block reads 'Assistant District Attorney for [B/L]arry Edwards, District Attorney' [VERIFY: the elected DA of District 15 vs. Janet Hutson's actual office and role]; and (iv) per counsel's review of the exhibit, the 'Judge of the District Court' signature line does not bear a legible judge's name [VERIFY against the original]. (Rules and Conditions, filed 5/1/2026.)

66. The Waiver of Counsel, on its face (exhibit in hand) — The Waiver of Counsel filed May 1, 2026 (OSCN #1088137783, exhibit in hand) is a one-page form whose entire judicial finding is a single pre-printed sentence: "I have questioned the defendant and find that he/she intelligently and knowingly waived counsel and was competent to do so." On the face of the exhibit: (i) the judge's signature block is PRE-PRINTED for a different judicial officer — "Roy D. Luker, Special District Judge" — with "Robin Adair" written in at the signature line [VERIFY against the original: whose signature actually certifies the finding]; (ii) the handwritten year blank appears irregular on the exhibit copy [VERIFY: the '20__' blank and its completion against the original]; (iii) the form recites that Mr. McDermott was informed of Mr. McDermott's rights "orally... by the Court" — an oral advisement given at a proceeding for which no court reporter made any record; and (iv) the form nowhere references a reporter or a record. SIGNIFICANCE: a Faretta waiver of counsel in a felony case is tested on the RECORD of the colloquy — and here the entire record of that colloquy is one pre-printed sentence on another judge's form, because the proceeding itself went unreported. The waiver and the missing record are not two problems; they are one problem wearing two documents. (Waiver of Counsel, filed 5/1/2026.)

67. The Waiver of Preliminary Hearing, on its face (exhibit in hand) — The Waiver of Preliminary Hearing filed May 1, 2026 (OSCN #1088137785, exhibit in hand) is a question-and-answer form. On its face: (i) the form carries a dedicated signature line printed "COURT REPORTER PRESENT" — and it is BLANK; the court's own waiver form contemplates a reporter attending and certifying the proceeding, and none signed; (ii) the lines for "Attorney for Defendant," "Assistant District Attorney," and "Court Clerk Present" are likewise BLANK — of six signature lines, only the defendant and an illegible magistrate signature appear; (iii) Question 10's bond blank is completed "$HWOB" — held without bond — and the recorded answer to "Do you understand this?" is "NO": on the State's own form, the defendant answered that he did NOT understand the bond provision, and the plea proceeded anyway; (iv) the year blank at Question 13 is completed irregularly ("20" then what reads as "250") [VERIFY against original]; and (v) Question 9 sets the plea appearance for "5-1-26" at "5 o'clock" with the a.m./p.m. blank empty — the same day the waiver itself was signed, collapsing waiver and plea into a single unreported afternoon. (Waiver of Preliminary Hearing, filed 5/1/2026.)

68. The Acknowledgment, on its face (exhibit in hand) — The 'Acknowledgment of State's Right to Speak Directly to Defendant Due to Pro Se Status' filed May 1, 2026 (OSCN #1088137786, exhibit in hand) is a two-page instrument, prepared for the defendant's signature, in which Mr. McDermott 'acknowledges' — citing Rule 4.2 of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct (5 O.S. App. 3-A) — that because Mr. McDermott is pro se, 'there is no violation of law' in the District Attorney 'entering into direct communication with this Defendant.' On its face: (i) it recites that Mr. McDermott 'had a 3rd person contact the Muskogee County District Attorney's Office to request a meeting with Janet Hutson'; (ii) it is signed by Mr. McDermott and NOTARIZED (Kerri McDaris, Notary Public) — but bears NO judge's signature and no court approval; (iii) no reporter, no record, and no counsel reviewed it with Mr. McDermott. SIGNIFICANCE: Rule 4.2 protects REPRESENTED persons — it never authorized what happened next: the chief prosecutor negotiating a seven-year felony disposition with an uncounseled defendant, in her own office, two days after the court abandoned his Faretta inquiry mid-stream, with no judicial officer and no verbatim record present. The document does not paper a right; it papers a consciousness that the meeting needed papering. (Acknowledgment, filed 5/1/2026.)

69. The Deferment order, on its face (exhibit in hand) — The Deferment filed May 1, 2026 (OSCN #1088137789, exhibit in hand) defers judgment on Count 1 (Stalking, 21 O.S. § 1173, alleged committed on or about January 1, 2025) for SEVEN YEARS, until May 1, 2033, with DA supervision by MAIL-IN, a $250 fine, $125 VCA, and costs. On its face: (i) the banishment — 'BANNED FROM JUDICIAL DISTRICT 15 (MUSKOGEE, ADAIR, WAGONER, CHEROKEE, AND SEQUOYAH COUNTIES)' — and the federal-dismissal term — 'This plea will resolve [CIV]-2[6]-121-JF[H] in EDO[K]' — are HANDWRITTEN additions onto the pre-printed form, not standard conditions; (ii) the order is signed 'Robin W. Adair, JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT COURT' — while the same judge's June 24 transcript order is signed 'Robin Adair, SPECIAL JUDGE': the same judicial officer using two different titles on the two most consequential documents in the case [ESTABLISH: Adair's actual commission — special judges hold limited jurisdiction under 20 O.S. § 123, and the title he holds controls what he could lawfully do on May 1]; (iii) the order recites advisement of appeal rights including a State-furnished 'transcript of the proceedings' for an indigent appellant — a transcript no reporter was present to make; (iv) the 'COURT CLERK'S DUTY [TRIAL JUDGE TO COMPLETE THIS SECTION]' checkboxes are entirely blank; and (v) the clerk's certification-of-copies date line is blank. No court reporter is mentioned anywhere in the instrument. (Deferment, filed 5/1/2026.)

70. The Release, on its face (exhibit in hand — counsel has now reviewed the photograph directly) — The Commitment/Release form filed May 4, 2026 (OSCN #1088142424) — the document that actually opened the jail door — is, on counsel's direct review of the photographed exhibit: (i) addressed 'BEFORE ______ JUDGE' with the judge's name line effectively BLANK; (ii) dated 'this 1st day of Ma_, 20__' with the YEAR BLANK never completed, and file-stamped three days later, May 4; (iii) the defendant's name on the order line is written so poorly as to be NEARLY ILLEGIBLE — automated review first read it as a different surname entirely; (iv) the CASE # entry is an illegible scribble; the CHARGES, BOND, FINES, and COSTS lines are blank; the SENTENCE line bears a barely legible notation; (v) the judge's signature at the foot is an illegible scrawl above the printed word 'JUDGE,' with no printed name; and (vi) no reporter, no record. A man ended 118 days of custody on a form with no judge named, no year completed, no case number legible, and a defendant's name that cannot be confidently read. (Release, filed 5/4/2026.)

71. Continuing — the impossible condition — Mr. McDermott has attempted in good faith to comply with the "delete all posts" condition and states that it is impossible to perform: the posts span years and dozens of accounts, some no longer within Mr. McDermott's control; likes, shares, reposts, copycat accounts, and mirrored content created by others cannot be deleted by Mr. McDermott; more than one hundred other citizens — including Tulsa attorneys — have published about Mulkey; and Mr. McDermott's name and these matters are replicated across federal dockets and legal databases (Justia, Casetext, CourtListener) and automated archives beyond any person's control — an independent quantification: multi-defendant federal docket trees for No. 6:2026-cv-00121 (roughly twenty separate defendants, each generating automated PACER-network sub-pages) account for approximately 1,200–1,800 mentions; hard-coded podcast RSS metadata ("Your host DAVID BRUCE MCDERMOTT, II") syndicated to Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Listen Notes, and Podchaser accounts for approximately 800–1,100 more; and social-media archives and web mirrors add approximately 200–300. A condition impossible to perform, and vague and overbroad in scope, operates only as a trap for further punishment and a prior restraint on protected speech.

72. On or about May 1, 2026 — Mr. McDermott was released that day — past a known Creek County hold — ending one hundred eighteen (118) days of custody. (Exhibit E — see record).

73. On or about May 4, 2026 — The "RELEASE" document was filed of record — a paperwork delay consistent with irregular, off-record handling.

74. On or about May 19, 2026 — Jail fees of $810.00 were entered against Mr. McDermott on the OSCN docket — the county billing Mr. McDermott for the one hundred eighteen days of no-bond detention itself. (OSCN docket, 5/19/2026).

75. On or about May 20, 2026 — After release, and once a stable environment allowed it, Mr. McDermott conducted a comprehensive review of every record in the case and discovered that the State's foundation was the stale, extraterritorial, time-barred 2020 information, and that the warrant bore only the illegible scribble.

76. In or about June 2026 — Mr. McDermott submitted the assembled timeline, cases, and record of misconduct to the United States Department of Justice, Public Integrity Section.

77. On or about June 24, 2026 — With no motion filed by Mr. McDermott pending, the OSCN docket records two same-day entries: a NOTICE OF FILING — CHANGE OF PLEA HEARING (document #1088626215) and an ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT (document #1089000474) of the May 1 hearing. The file-stamped Order itself (exhibit in hand) is one sentence: 'IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the transcripts of the hearing held on May 1st of 2026, be provided by the court fund' — signed by Judge Robin Adair, over the title 'SPECIAL JUDGE,' entered SUA SPONTE, on no party's motion, at public expense, fifty-four days after the unreported plea. The file-stamped Notice of Filing (exhibit in hand) states that on June 23, 2026, 'one (1) original and two (2) copies of TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS from May 1st, 2026' were filed with the Deputy Court Clerk (Robyn Boswell, Court Clerk), over the signature of TOSHA STRAWN, 'TEMPORARY COURT REPORTER' — a transcript of a proceeding at which, upon Mr. McDermott's personal observation, no court reporter was present, necessarily prepared, if at all, from the prosecution's cellular-telephone recording. NOTE the sequence on the face of the two exhibits: the transcript was FILED June 23 — the ORDER authorizing it is file-stamped June 24. The record was made first and papered after. [ESTABLISH: the scope of a Special Judge's jurisdiction under 20 O.S. § 123 to accept a felony plea and impose a seven-year deferred sentence — Judge Adair signed as 'Special Judge'; research before asserting.] (OSCN docket and file-stamped exhibits, 6/23–24/2026).

78. The docket's own silence — The OSCN docket for CF-2025-708 contains a designated "Reporter" column in its table of events. For every event in the case — including the felony no-contest plea of May 1, 2026 — that column is EMPTY. The court's own docketing system, which provides a field to record the certified reporter present at each proceeding, records none. (OSCN docket, entire case.)

79. On or about August 12, 2026 — Mr. McDermott received written acknowledgment from the United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Special Litigation Section, of Mr. McDermott's June 7, 2026 letter, assigned Department reference number 784092-GDJ — confirming the submission is in the Department's intake system, to be collected, analyzed, and potentially used as evidence in an existing case. The Section's letter noted that it addresses widespread institutional problems rather than individual criminal matters; the criminal referral accordingly remains directed to the Civil Rights Division's Criminal Section, the FBI Oklahoma City Field Office, the Public Integrity Section, and the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Oklahoma.

80. Continuing conduct — The April 29, 2026 stay has never been entered of record and never lifted of record — yet orders continue to be signed in CF-2025-708 without entering the stay, without recognizing the stay, and without addressing it, and motions concerning a change of plea have been taken up while that unentered, unlifted stay hangs over the case.

81. Stated plainly, for every record — Mr. McDermott has been framed. Mr. McDermott did not stalk Ethan Ray Mulkey — not under 21 O.S. § 1173, and not under any honest reading of these facts. Years of documented, public, protected speech between Mr. McDermott, these officers, and this community were repackaged by the Oklahoma Highway Patrol as a crime and delivered to District Attorney Janet Hutson — who, upon information and belief, has no earthly idea what was actually assembled beneath her name and is now caught up in carrying it. That is a frame-up, and this record calls it what it is.

I. A CITIZEN UNDER SUPERVISION RETAINS HIS FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS

The Supreme Court has never held that criminal supervision works a forfeiture of expressive rights. To the contrary: "A prison inmate retains those First Amendment rights that are not inconsistent with his status as a prisoner." Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817, 822 (1974). If the incarcerated retain the right to speak, a fortiori a free citizen on deferred status — presumed innocent, never even convicted under Oklahoma's deferred framework — retains it in full. In Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U.S. 98 (2017), the Court struck down a speech restriction imposed even on convicted, registered sex offenders, holding that the State may not foreclose "the vast democratic forums" of expression to persons who have passed through the criminal system. Justice Kennedy wrote that it is "unsettling to suggest that only a limited set of websites can be used even by persons who have completed their sentences." Id. at 108.

Oklahoma law is in accord. A deferred prosecution agreement under 22 O.S. § 305.1 is a creature of contract: it contains only "such conditions as the parties may agree upon," and its statutory examples — restitution, community service, supervision fees — are rehabilitative, not censorial. A suspended sentence under 22 O.S. § 991a likewise carries only the conditions actually imposed by the court on the record. A condition never imposed cannot be enforced; a condition never signed cannot bind.

II. ANY RULE FORBIDDING THE BOOK IS A PRIOR RESTRAINT — PRESUMPTIVELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL SINCE 1931

A government directive that speech may not occur is a prior restraint, condemned since Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931), where the Court struck down an injunction against a scandal-mongering newspaper that had accused public officials — including prosecutors — of corruption. "Any system of prior restraints of expression comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity." Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58, 70 (1963). The presumption held even against the President of the United States claiming national security. New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971) (Pentagon Papers). It holds against trial judges seeking to protect their own proceedings. Nebraska Press, 427 U.S. at 570. It assuredly holds against a county prosecutor seeking to protect her own reputation.

Even the narrower device of confiscating a criminal storyteller's profits — New York's famous "Son of Sam" law — was struck down unanimously as a content-based burden on speech. Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of N.Y. State Crime Victims Bd., 502 U.S. 105 (1991). The Court noted that such a law would have reached The Autobiography of Malcolm X, Thoreau's Civil Disobedience, and the Confessions of Saint Augustine. Id. at 121–22. If the State cannot even take the money from the story of one's own crime, it certainly cannot forbid the story itself.

III. CRITICISM AND PARODY OF JUDGES AND PROSECUTORS IS CORE PROTECTED SPEECH

Judges and prosecutors are public officials, and speech about their official conduct occupies "the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values." Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 145 (1983). A citizen may criticize them harshly, even unfairly: "The assumption that respect for the judiciary can be won by shielding judges from published criticism wrongly appraises the character of American public opinion." Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 270 (1941). Judges "are supposed to be men of fortitude, able to thrive in a hardy climate." Craig v. Harney, 331 U.S. 367, 376 (1947). Criminal libel prosecutions for criticizing official conduct are themselves unconstitutional absent knowing falsehood. Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64 (1964). And civil recovery by a public official requires actual malice proved with convincing clarity. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 279–80 (1964).

Memes and satire enjoy the same armor. In Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988), a unanimous Court protected an outrageous parody precisely because "the political cartoon is a weapon of attack, of scorn and ridicule and satire," and public figures must endure it. Id. at 54. Satirical memes about Judges Adair, Tucker, and Loge, prosecutor Hutson, or complainant Mulkey — presented as commentary and opinion on a matter of public record — are Falwell speech.

IV. NO "REINSTATEMENT" BY JANET HUTSON IS REQUIRED OR EVEN POSSIBLE

The question "must Janet Hutson reinstate my rights?" answers itself once properly framed. Constitutional rights are not licenses issued by prosecutors. Waiver of a constitutional right must be "an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right," proved by the State, with every reasonable presumption indulged against waiver. Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464 (1938); Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 748 (1970) (waiver must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary). A speech waiver extracted as the price of liberty would additionally collide with the unconstitutional-conditions doctrine: the government "may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected interests — especially, his interest in freedom of speech." Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593, 597 (1972).

Accordingly: unless the written deferred-prosecution instrument or the court's journal entry contains an express, specific, signed non-publication condition, Mr. McDermott's First Amendment rights are — and always were — fully intact. No letter, blessing, or "reinstatement" from the district attorney's office is legally necessary. The demand letter prepared herewith seeks only written confirmation of that status, to build a record for any later 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action should the State retaliate.

V. RETALIATION FOR THE BOOK OR MEMES WOULD ITSELF BE ACTIONABLE UNDER § 1983

If any official responds to protected publication by seeking acceleration, revocation, or new charges, that response is First Amendment retaliation. The elements are protected conduct, adverse action that would chill a person of ordinary firmness, and retaliatory causation. Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (2006) (retaliatory prosecution); Nieves v. Bartlett, 587 U.S. 391 (2019); Gonzalez v. Trevino, 602 U.S. 653 (2024) (per curiam) (objective comparison evidence may substitute for the no-probable-cause showing). Prosecutorial absolute immunity does not shield investigative or administrative conduct, Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 273 (1993), nor sworn factual attestations, Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118 (1997), and never bars declaratory or injunctive relief against ongoing violations. Private actors who conspire with state officials act under color of law. Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24, 27–28 (1980).

VI. THE HONEST LIMITS — WHAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT DOES NOT PROTECT

A Harvard-grade opinion states the boundaries as firmly as the rights. The shield does not cover: (1) true threats made with at least recklessness as to their threatening character, Counterman v. Colorado, 600 U.S. 66 (2023); (2) knowingly false statements of fact about the named individuals, which remain actionable as defamation under Sullivan's actual-malice standard; (3) violations of any express, signed condition actually contained in the deferred-prosecution instrument, until modified or struck by a court; and (4) direct contact or harassment of protected persons where a valid no-contact order exists. The safe harbor is simple: publish truth, label opinion as opinion and satire as satire, work from the public record, and threaten no one. Everything else is fair game — the book, the memes, the commentary, all of it.

CONCLUSION

Mr. McDermott's First Amendment rights survived his deferred disposition intact. He may write the book. He may make the memes. He may name the names, criticize the officials, and tell the story of his own case, subject only to the ordinary law of threats and defamation and any express written condition he actually signed. Janet Hutson holds no power of "reinstatement" because she never held the rights at all. The accompanying letter demands written confirmation; the accompanying motion secures a judicial declaration; and the accompanying complaint stands ready should any official mistake the exercise of the First Amendment for a violation of anything.

Prepared in the research chambers of Atticus Bradstreet McDermott · I Am The Law Skunk