OKLAHOMA CITY, Okla., (The Oklahoma Post) – July 26th, 2025
A troubling pattern of contradictory statements by a Tulsa-based attorney representing the Stillwater News Press has emerged in ongoing federal civil rights litigation, raising serious questions about professional credibility and potential witness tampering in a high-stakes case involving alleged constitutional violations.
The Discrepancy
In the federal case Moyer v. Murray, et al. (Case No. 5:25-cv-00429-SLP), attorney S. Douglas Dodd of Doerner Saunders Daniel Anderson attempted to characterize a July 23, 2025 phone conversation with plaintiff Gregory Moyer in a way that directly contradicts what actually occurred during the call.
In an email sent the same evening, Dodd claimed that while plaintiff “mentioned Michelle Charles during your call to me, you didn’t ask, nor did we discuss ‘…whether Ms. Charles was acting within the scope of her employment with CNHI, the Stillwater News Press, or a related CNHI media entity.'”
However, court documents filed by Moyer paint a dramatically different picture of the conversation. According to Moyer’s detailed account, he explicitly asked Dodd whether he was speaking on behalf of the Stillwater News Press, CNHI, or Michelle Charles specifically. Dodd not only confirmed he was representing the newspaper but also stated he would speak on Charles’s behalf if she was indeed an employee.
A Pattern of Misrepresentation
This isn’t an isolated incident of poor communication. The discrepancy appears to be part of a calculated strategy to rewrite the historical record of settlement discussions in a case that has already seen numerous defendants engage in what the court filings describe as systematic evidence destruction and witness intimidation.
Legal experts note that accurate documentation of settlement communications is crucial for maintaining the integrity of the judicial process. When attorneys mischaracterize their own statements in writing, it undermines the foundation of professional legal practice and can constitute a serious ethical violation.
The Recording Promise
Perhaps most tellingly, Dodd promised during the phone conversation to provide Moyer with a copy of the recorded call “within the next week.” This commitment, made by the attorney himself, suggests he was confident the recording would support his position. However, his subsequent written mischaracterization of that same conversation raises serious questions about what the recording actually contains.
Given the public interest in this case and the credibility questions now surrounding Dodd’s representation, there are growing calls for the attorney to release the recording publicly. If, as his email suggests, the conversation was limited in scope, the recording should vindicate his position. If not, the public deserves to know the truth about how attorneys conduct themselves in high-profile civil rights cases. Why wait?
The Broader Context
The Moyer case involves allegations of a decade-long conspiracy to violate the constitutional rights of a father attempting to maintain relationships with his children. The lawsuit names over 20 defendants, including judges, attorneys, law enforcement officials, and media entities, alleging they worked together to fabricate evidence and obstruct justice.
According to court filings, several defendants have already entered into settlement discussions or acknowledged liability, suggesting the allegations may have more merit than initially appeared. Notably, Moyer voluntarily dismissed the Stillwater News Press from his second amended complaint filed July 24, 2025, but only after Dodd’s admissions during their phone conversation and due to time constraints in meeting court deadlines.
Professional Standards at Stake
The Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct require attorneys to be truthful in their dealings with opposing parties and to maintain accurate records of legal communications. Rule 4.1 specifically prohibits lawyers from making false statements of material fact to third persons.
“When an attorney fundamentally mischaracterizes a conversation that occurred just hours earlier, it raises immediate red flags about their fitness to practice law,” said one legal ethics expert who asked not to be named. “If they’ll distort a simple phone call, what else might they be willing to misrepresent?”
Douglas Dodd’s professional background makes his apparent mischaracterization of the phone conversation particularly troubling. A partner at the prestigious Tulsa firm Doerner Saunders since 1982, Dodd spent 14 years in journalism before entering law, serving as News Director, Reporter, Anchor, and Documentary Producer for major Oklahoma television stations including KOTV and KTUL S. Douglas Dodd. He currently serves as lead general counsel for the Oklahoma Press Association and has been recognized in Best Lawyers® for First Amendment Law every year from 1993-2025. As a contributing author of the Media Law Resource Center’s Annual Survey of Oklahoma Media Privacy and Related Law, Dodd lectures both attorneys and journalists on professional ethics, open meetings, and open records issues. His numerous professional honors include the Neil E. Bogan Award for Professionalism from the Tulsa County Bar Association (2009), the Outstanding Service to the Public Award from the Oklahoma Bar Association (2008), and the recent William G. Paul Oklahoma Justice Award (2023) for his commitment to equal justice. For someone who has built a career teaching others about truthful communication and professional integrity and who literally wrote the book on Oklahoma media law to apparently misrepresent the contents of a phone conversation just hours after it occurred raises profound questions about what the Stillwater News Press might be trying to hide.
Implications for Media Credibility
The Stillwater News Press’s involvement in this controversy is particularly troubling given the media’s role as a watchdog for public accountability. Court documents suggest that Michelle Charles, identified as a former News Press employee, may have been involved in coordinating false information campaigns against Moyer while he was fighting for access to his children.
While Moyer ultimately dismissed the newspaper from his lawsuit due to time constraints, the attorney’s apparent willingness to mischaracterize basic facts about their own legal communications raises serious questions about the organization’s commitment to truthfulness and accuracy core principles of journalism. The dismissal came only after what Moyer describes as significant admissions during the recorded phone call.
Legal Consequences
Moyer has filed a “Judicial Notice of Material Discrepancy” with the federal court, preserving the contradiction for the official record. Despite voluntarily dismissing the News Press from his second amended complaint due to time constraints, Moyer explicitly reserved his right to reassert claims against the media organization as discovery progresses or if new information becomes available.
The dismissal was filed “without prejudice,” meaning Moyer could refile claims against the News Press if additional evidence emerges or if Dodd’s promised recording reveals further misrepresentations. The timing of the dismissal coming after Dodd’s phone admissions but before his contradictory email suggests strategic legal maneuvering rather than abandonment of potentially valid claims.
A Test of Judicial Oversight
Federal judges have broad authority to sanction attorneys who engage in misconduct during litigation. The documented discrepancy between Dodd’s written characterization and the actual content of his phone conversation with Moyer may warrant investigation by both the court and the Oklahoma Bar Association.
“The legal system depends on attorneys being truthful about basic facts,” noted the ethics expert. “When that breaks down, the entire adversarial system becomes compromised.”. The case will probably move forward now, if not there are several grounds for appeal.
Moving Forward
As this federal civil rights case continues to unfold, the credibility questions surrounding the Stillwater News Press’s legal representation serve as a reminder that professional accountability must be maintained at all levels of the justice system.
For a case that already involves allegations of systematic evidence destruction and witness tampering by public officials, the addition of apparent attorney misrepresentation creates another layer of concern about institutional integrity in Oklahoma’s justice system.
The ultimate resolution of these credibility questions may well determine not just the outcome of individual claims, but the broader question of whether Oklahoma’s legal and media institutions can police themselves when faced with evidence of misconduct.
Court documents referenced in this article are part of the public record in Case No. 5:25-cv-00429-SLP, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma.
DJ Vance is a staff writer for The Oklahoma Post. Editor: Robbie Robertson
Got evidence, events, birthdays, obits or inside info?
Email The Oklahoma Post confidentially: editor@theokpost.com
And for the record: unlike the courthouse clique, The Oklahoma Post runs on facts, not dark money.
© 2025 The Oklahoma Post |
By The People’s Popular Paper | Oklahoma Special Report
2025 -The Oklahoma Post – TheOKPost.com is dedicated to delivering relevant news and information to Oklahomans, sharing their stories, pictures, and experiences. The content on this website includes contributions from various individuals and links to external public and privately owned sources. The views and opinions expressed in user-generated content are solely those of the respective authors and do not necessarily reflect The Oklahoma Post. The Oklahoma Post does not independently verify the accuracy of third-party contributions and rely upon contributors to fact-check their work. By sharing links and allowing open contributions, TheOKPost.com exercises the right to free speech and providing a platform for diverse perspectives.
