Fabricated: Koch Industries, Law Enforcement, and a Parent’s Fight for the Truth

ENID, Okla., (The Oklahoma Post) –

On October 20, 2022, former prosecutor Kim and her husband, Gregory Moyer, departed from their home in the Northwoods of Minnesota for a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) hearing in Payne County, Oklahoma—the case of Moyer v. City of Stillwater.

Moyer, born in Enid, Oklahoma, spent much of his childhood in Garber before later moving to Stillwater. A former University of Oklahoma football player, he later built a career as an investigative journalist and compliance consultant, specializing in environmental, health, and safety regulations. His experience included working with OSHA, the EPA, and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), often conducting field investigations and incident reporting for private corporations.

The couple looked forward to the long but scenic drive, leaving behind the dense forests of Minnesota and making their way south. The landscape transformed as they traveled—rolling past the golden prairies of Iowa, the towering bridges over the Missouri River, and finally into the vast, open plains of Oklahoma. After staying overnight in Tulsa, they arrived in Stillwater on October 21st for the FOIA hearing at Payne County District 9 Court.

At the heart of the case was Moyer’s fight for transparency. Years earlier, he had filed a child abuse complaint in Stillwater, yet the city had delayed releasing the record of the personal complaint to Moyer. Moyer had argued that there was not a thorough investigation. Then the City had fought the release of related information, so a related FOIA complaint was filed in 2022. Moyer argued that full transparency was crucial for ensuring accountability. The law firm Collins, Zorn & Wagner, PLLC (CZW)—which represents multiple cities and counties in Oklahoma—defended the City of Stillwater, raising concerns about a broader pattern of legal resistance against FOIA requests across multiple jurisdictions.

(See photo of animal boarding information below—because while there are hotel and travel receipts, this one seemed more fun.)

The Need for His Personnel File

Between 2015 and 2016, Gregory Moyer worked at Koch Fertilizer in Enid, Oklahoma—a federally secured facility producing ammonium nitrate, nitric acid, and anhydrous ammonia—all highly regulated chemicals closely monitored under federal and state oversight. While working at Koch, Moyer was repeatedly exposed to chemical releases, and by late 2015, his health took a devastating turn.

His time at Koch ended with a medical crisis straight out of a workplace horror story. On a seemingly routine fall Saturday in 2015, Moyer traveled from Stillwater to Enid to assist with a work assignment. Within hours of arriving at the facility, his body staged a full-scale rebellion—forcing him to abandon work and rush back to Stillwater Medical Center. What started as a workday turned into an extended hospital stay, where doctors diagnosed him with sepsis and perforations in his intestines—conditions that don’t exactly scream “safe work environment.”

After a lengthy hospitalization at Stillwater Medical Center, followed by several days at St. Mary’s Medical Center, Moyer faced a long road to recovery. By 2016, his health struggles had snowballed into a debilitating neuromuscular disease and epilepsy, ultimately leading to his termination from Koch Industries.

A Simple Request Turned Into a Year-Long Battle

Years later, with upcoming legal proceedings in Oklahoma, Moyer needed access to his personnel file—not only for a family court matter but also to help properly diagnose his worsening condition. Naturally, one would think obtaining his own employment records would be a straightforward process.

Spoiler alert: It wasn’t.

For nearly a year leading up to 2022, Moyer made repeated, polite, and professional requests to Koch Industries HR, asking for his records. And for nearly a year, he was met with corporate silence—the kind of silence that only a billion-dollar company with an army of lawyers can perfect. Adding to the absurdity, Moyer hadn’t stepped foot inside the Enid plant since 2016 and had only passed through the area once—for his grandmother’s funeral in Gage, Oklahoma. He wasn’t exactly loitering around Koch’s parking lot waiting for answers.

By October 20, 2022, just before leaving his home in Minnesota for his FOIA hearing in Oklahoma, Moyer decided to make one last attempt to retrieve his records. He called Koch’s Enid office, where a security receptionist—who likely had no idea they were about to become part of a multi-year saga—told him that HR was unavailable but would “pass along the message.”

If only Koch Industries had been as diligent about handling HR requests as they were about silencing whistleblowers, this entire section wouldn’t exist.

Why This Matters: Let Me Begin

Moyer’s battle to obtain his own employment records wasn’t just about bureaucracy—it was about his health, his legal rights, and a system rigged against individuals seeking answers. His civil family court case and his doctors needed this information, yet Koch Industries treated his request like classified government intel. What should have been a simple retrieval process instead turned into a corporate endurance test, one where the only real rule seemed to be: Ignore him long enough, and maybe he’ll give up.

At the heart of it all was the disturbing reality of workplace safety at a federally regulated facility. Moyer had been exposed to hazardous chemicals while working at a site that should have been under strict oversight, yet his employer showed zero urgency in addressing those concerns—either then or now. If a company can’t even handle a basic HR request, imagine how they handle actual environmental and worker safety violations. Spoiler alert: not well.

And let’s not ignore the larger pattern at play. Koch’s refusal to cooperate, communicate, or even acknowledge his requests wasn’t just an oversight—it was part of a broader corporate strategy to make life as difficult as possible for anyone seeking transparency. Whether it’s public records, legal challenges, or their own employees’ health, Koch has mastered the art of stonewalling. It’s the corporate equivalent of covering their ears and yelling “LA-LA-LA, CAN’T HEAR YOU”—except instead of a toddler throwing a tantrum, it’s a billion-dollar conglomerate dodging accountability.

In the end, what should have been a simple request for personnel records became a case study in how corporations use power, bureaucracy, and sheer stubbornness to wear people down. Unfortunately for Koch, Moyer wasn’t one to give up easily.

A company’s personnel file is supposed to be confidential, it is personal. It is also not supposed to contain made up shit, just in case someone needs the health portion of their records. Yet, when an ex-employee needs it the most, corporations suddenly pretend like those records are locked away in the depths of a secret government bunker. Moyer’s year-long struggle to retrieve a few sheets of paper speaks volumes about corporate accountability (or the lack thereof).

Because let’s be honest—if a multinational corporation like Koch Industries can’t handle one man’s simple HR request, imagine how they handle the bigger issues.

While Koch ignored Moyer’s request, they certainly didn’t ignore him. What followed was a disturbing campaign of surveillance, intimidation, and legal maneuvering—all aimed at silencing one man who simply wanted his records.

A Suspicious Call from Koch Security

As Moyer and his wife began their journey from northern Minnesota to Oklahoma in their grey Nissan SUV with MN plates, Moyer placed a courteous call to Koch Fertilizer’s Enid, Oklahoma, office, hoping—perhaps naively—that he could finally retrieve his long-requested personnel records. The call itself was routine, professional, and entirely reasonable.

But what happened next was anything but routine. Moments later, Moyer’s phone rang. The caller? Shon Jackson. Jackson wasn’t just some HR rep returning a request—far from it. He was Koch Industries’ security chief, a former Garfield County Sheriff’s deputy, and, coincidentally, a former co-worker of Moyer’s at Koch. His sudden involvement raised immediate red flags, especially given his history in law enforcement and corporate security.

Adding to the peculiarity of the situation, Jackson casually mentioned that he, too, was in Minnesota at that very moment, claiming he was working at a Koch refinery in the state. Given that Koch employees sometimes work at different company sites, this wasn’t entirely implausible—but the timing was undeniably curious.

Despite these odd circumstances, the conversation itself was entirely cordial. Jackson spoke in a friendly and cooperative manner, informing Moyer that his personnel records were housed at Koch’s headquarters in Wichita, Kansas and even providing HR contact information. There was no tension, no hostility—just two former co-workers exchanging information.

During the discussion, Moyer casually mentioned that he was on his way to Oklahoma for a court appearance. At the time, this felt like harmless small talk—a passing detail about his travel plans.

In hindsight, this offhand remark would soon take on a far more sinister significance. On the surface, this was just a friendly conversation about an HR request. But in the days that followed, Moyer found himself under surveillance, targeted with harassment, and hit with a bogus security alert labeling him a threat to Koch Industries.

Coincidence? Or was this a calculated information-gathering maneuver by a man with deep ties to both corporate security and law enforcement?

🔊 Listen to the Full Call Here: Shon Jackson’s Phone Call (Oct. 20, 2022)

Gregory and Kim’s Return Home to Minnesota

By the time Gregory and Kim walked out of Payne County District Court on October 21, 2022, they were exhausted, drained, and just ready to get home. The long hours in court, the legal battle weighing on them, and their already fragile health made the journey back to Minnesota feel even longer than the one down.

Greg’s neuromuscular disease symptoms were flaring up, the cramping in his legs worsening with every mile. He relied on Baclofen, a muscle relaxant prescribed to manage the involuntary muscle stiffness and spasms, but the medication wore off every few hours, making long stretches in the car an increasingly painful ordeal. Stretching was key to keeping his symptoms in check, but being confined to a car for hours on end was the worst possible scenario—his muscles tightened, the spasms worsened, and relief was limited to quick stops that barely gave him time to loosen up.

Kim wasn’t faring much better—her stomach pains had been lingering for weeks, and though she brushed it off at the time, she would later be diagnosed with pancreatitis just two months after this trip. The drive home wasn’t long—it was grueling. Each mile became a test of endurance, the medication’s effects fading faster than the road signs passed. What should have been a simple journey back home turned into a physical battle against pain and exhaustion that neither of them was fully prepared for.

Despite their exhaustion, the couple left Stillwater shortly after noon, heading north. Oklahoma faded behind them as they crossed into Missouri, then Iowa, putting as much distance between themselves and the courtroom as possible. But after a full morning in court followed by hours on the road, the wear and tear became too much. By the time they reached Northwood, Iowa, around 8:00 PM, stopping for the night wasn’t a choice—it was a necessity.

They checked into the Holiday Inn Express, threw their bags down, and took a moment to breathe. After getting settled, they decided to walk over to Diamond Jo Worth Casino—not for gambling, but simply to stretch their legs, grab some takeout, and decompress from the trip. They placed a few sports parlays for fun, picked up burgers from one of the casino’s restaurants, and returned to their hotel room for the night. No distractions, no drama—just rest.

The next morning, on October 22, 2022, they checked out around 10:00 AM and made a quick stop at the casino once more to place a final parlay bet at 10:12 AM before getting back on the road. They continued north, stopping in Otsego, MN, and Hackensack, MN, where they picked up their dogs before finally arriving home in northern Minnesota around 4:30 PM.

For the rest of the weekend, they did what anyone would do after such a draining trip—relaxed at home, grateful to be back.

What they didn’t know? At the same time, back in Oklahoma, a false police report was already being crafted against Moyer—one that would launch a years-long nightmare for him and his family.

The Proof They Weren’t in Oklahoma

To add to the absurdity of what would follow, Moyer later found a simple piece of proof that should have shut down any false claims immediately—a sports parlay ticket from their stop in Iowa. The timestamped bet slip alone proved they weren’t anywhere near Oklahoma the night of October 21 – early morning hours of the 22nd, yet that didn’t stop law enforcement and Koch’s security team from pushing their narrative.

This wasn’t just a road trip home—it was the last few hours of peace before their world was turned upside down.

The Week of Surveillance: Law Enforcement Moves Against Moyer

For the next week following Moyer’s return home, it became clear that he was being watched. The Garfield County Sheriff’s Department had placed him under surveillance, a move that reeked of corporate influence disguised as law enforcement action.

At first, it was subtle but then life threatening

• He received “friend” requests on social media from local law enforcement officers, including one from Hanks of Lahoma, Oklahoma, who was based out of Enid PD. The relationship between Enid and Lahoma law enforcement was more than just close—it was symbiotic. If someone in Garfield County wanted to keep tabs on a person, this was how they did it.
• He began receiving harassing phone calls from an unidentified woman. The message was always the same: “Is this Gregory? You’ve been warned.” Then, she would hang up. No explanation. No context. Just a clear and deliberate attempt to intimidate.

Then came the direct escalation.

The October 31st Phone Call: Koch and Law Enforcement Collide

On October 31, 2022, Moyer’s phone rang again. This time, it was Deputy Ream from the Garfield County Sheriff’s Department.

What Ream said next was both bizarre and deeply alarming:

• “You have been trespassed from Koch property.”
• “We have video of you at the facility.”
• “You’ve been warned.”

It was a thinly veiled threat, but the real issue wasn’t just the intimidation—it was the fact that none of it was true.

Moyer hadn’t set foot on Koch Fertilizer property in Enid in years. Yet, here was a deputy sheriff, acting on behalf of Koch Industries, falsely claiming that Moyer had been caught on video.

There was no prior police report, no formal notification, and absolutely no credible evidence—just the word of Koch’s security chief, Shon Jackson.

And, apparently, that was all Garfield County law enforcement needed. This call confirms law enforcement was acting on Koch’s request—despite there being no prior police report, no official notification to Moyer, and no credible evidence.

🔊 Listen to the Full Call Here: Deputy Ream’s Call

November 1st: Demanding the Truth

By Monday, November 1, 2022, Moyer had had enough. He immediately contacted Sheriff Cory Rink, demanding a full police report and any evidence related to the allegations.

At the same time, he and his wife provided clear documentation proving that Moyer was nowhere near Oklahoma at the time that Shon Jackson had alleged he was trespassing on Koch property.

📄 View the Full Unethical, Retaliatory, Careless, Dangerous, Report By Rink

Rink on Audio regarding his lies in this report. Will edit to include audio here. (RR)

Koch staff also reportedly stated that Moyer was searching for St. Mary’s Hospital and needed to use the restroom—another fabrication. Official statements and records from St. Mary’s confirm that Moyer was not at the hospital during the times referenced in the report, directly contradicting the narratives provided by law enforcement and Koch representatives. These inconsistencies raise serious concerns about the validity of the allegations and the motives behind these false claims.

Sheriff Rink’s report falsely claims that Moyer attempted to enter the Koch facility by tailgating on October 22, 2022—a serious allegation, as Koch is a federally regulated facility. The report further asserts that Koch personnel identified Moyer through an ID check; however, this claim is demonstrably false, as records attached to this article confirm Moyer was out of state at that time. Additionally, the report alleges that Moyer called Koch while acting erratically, yet no evidence supports this assertion.

📄 View the Statement By St. Mary’s of Enid

Will edit to include audio here. (RR)

Legal Obligations for Truthful Reporting in Oklahoma

In Oklahoma, both law enforcement officers and private individuals are legally obligated to provide truthful statements during investigations and official proceedings. False statements can lead to legal consequences under specific statutes:

False Reporting of Crimes by Individuals

• Oklahoma Statutes Title 21, §589: It is unlawful to willfully or knowingly make a false report of a crime or falsely claim circumstances indicating the possibility of a crime, thereby prompting police action or an investigation. Violations of this statute are classified as misdemeanors, punishable by up to 90 days in county jail, a fine of up to $500, or both. (Justia Law)

False Statements by Law Enforcement Officers

• Oklahoma Statutes Title 22, §34.2: Any peace officer who witnesses another officer using excessive force is required to report it. Failure to report excessive force—or knowingly making a materially false statement in such a report—is classified as a misdemeanor offense. (Justia Law)

Requirement for Thorough and Accurate Law Enforcement Reports

Law enforcement officers in Oklahoma are also expected to provide thorough and accurate reports as part of their duties. The Council on Law Enforcement Education and Training (CLEET) sets standards for proper report writing, emphasizing clarity, factual accuracy, and the inclusion of all relevant details. Reports that omit critical information or include fabricated claims can undermine the integrity of the justice system and result in legal consequences for those responsible.

These statutes underscore the legal and ethical responsibility of both civilians and law enforcement personnel to uphold honesty in investigative and judicial processes. False reporting—whether by private individuals or officers—not only erodes public trust but also carries clear legal penalties under Oklahoma law.

Potential Federal Crimes in Coordinated Suppression of Critics

Such conspiracies not only infringe on individual rights but also erode public trust in the justice system. The misuse of legal processes to target and silence dissenters poses a significant threat to democratic principles and the integrity of governmental institutions.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 241, it is unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any individual in the free exercise or enjoyment of their constitutional rights. If proven, violations of this statute are considered felonies, punishable by fines, imprisonment of up to ten years, or both. (Cornell Law)

Any coordinated effort to fabricate charges or falsely report incidents with the intent to suppress lawful criticism or petitioning activities could lead to severe federal penalties, underscoring the gravity of such misconduct.

If the false statements and reports against Moyer are part of a broader conspiracy to suppress critics or petitioners opposing interests aligned with Koch’s Heritage Foundation or maybe against the wishes of the local mayor, legislator, or pet project, OKDHS, etc. etc, such actions could constitute serious federal offenses. These politics change often, and our constitution and laws safeguard citizens against these political winds. I only bring this up, because on a local level, Koch OWNS Enid and has since it bought the “Co-Op” nitrogen plant.

Regulatory Requirements for Security Reporting at Chemical Facilities

Facilities that handle hazardous chemicals, such as nitrogen and ammonium, are subject to strict federal regulations to ensure security and prevent unauthorized access. Sheriff Rink’s claim that Moyer attempted to tailgate into the Koch facility raises serious legal implications, as Koch is a federally regulated site. Under federal law, facilities dealing with hazardous chemicals must implement security measures and, in some cases, report security breaches or unauthorized access attempts.

Key regulations governing these security protocols include:

1. Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS): Administered by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), CFATS mandates that high-risk chemical facilities develop Site Security Plans (SSPs) to “[d]eter, detect, and delay” unauthorized access. Security incidents, including unauthorized entry attempts, must be addressed and reported to DHS and local authorities.
2. Process Safety Management (PSM): Enforced by OSHA, PSM requires facilities handling hazardous chemicals to establish management programs that include security measures to prevent unauthorized access and accidental releases.
3. Risk Management Program (RMP): Under the EPA’s RMP rule, facilities must develop Risk Management Plans detailing chemical accident prevention and emergency response protocols. These plans also encompass security threats that could lead to hazardous incidents.
4. Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA): This law requires facilities to report hazardous chemical storage, usage, and releases to federal, state, and local authorities, ensuring public awareness and emergency preparedness.

Although these laws do not explicitly mandate the reporting of all security breaches, facilities must maintain security protocols, document incidents, and, when necessary, report breaches to regulatory bodies. Given these legal requirements, the claim of an attempted unauthorized entry at Koch Industries is not just a serious accusation but also one that, if true, should have been properly documented and reported under federal law. The lack of transparency surrounding this alleged event raises questions about the accuracy of the claims and whether the situation was misrepresented to law enforcement.

The Security Alert and BOLO: Koch Industries’ Attempt to Label Moyer a Threat

They also reached out to District Attorney Mike Fields, laying out the indisputable evidence that the allegations against Moyer were fabricated. But instead of correcting the report, admitting an error, or taking any action against Jackson for making a false claim, the response was silence.

• Sheriff Rink refused to correct the report, despite knowing it was false.
• Rink refused to file a new, corrected report documenting that Jackson had made a false claim.
• DA Fields refused to prosecute Jackson or other Koch employees for knowingly filing a false police report.
• Rink, nor Fields were in a hurry: they dragged their feet and did not send the requested report to Moyer for more than a month after it was requested.
• The Enid Police Department refused to investigate the sheriff or pass the investigation to OSBI.
• Mike Fields and the local District Attorney’s office ignored emails and disregarded all phone attempts.

In other words, law enforcement had no interest in the truth.

What started as a routine request for a personnel file had now spiraled into a full-blown coordinated attack—one in which corporate security, local law enforcement, and the District Attorney’s office worked together to silence, intimidate, and falsely incriminate Moyer.

And despite undeniable proof that the allegations were false, Garfield County officials refused to back down.

The police report contained shocking information:

• A BOLO (Be-On-The-Lookout) alert had been issued for Gregory Ashley Moyer, listing him as a security threat at Koch Industries.
• The alert was prepared in May 2022, months before the alleged incident, indicating a premeditated attempt to flag Moyer as a risk.
• The BOLO instructed employees to report Moyer to security or escalate to 911 if seen.

📄 View the BOLO Alert Here:

The security alert was allegedly based on “aggressive” and “belligerent” calls Moyer made to HR—a claim without evidence.

According to District Attorney Mike Fields, Koch employee Shon Jackson personally orchestrated the BOLO alert and continued to press allegations against Moyer even after their recorded phone conversation showed no hostility.

Federal Lawsuit: Moyer v. Jackson, Koch—A Fight for Justice

With no other recourse, Gregory Moyer was forced to file a federal lawsuit against Shon Jackson, Koch Industries, and others for defamation, false reports, and the coordinated effort to destroy his reputation. The case, Moyer v. Jackson, Koch, was a direct response to the fabricated trespassing allegations and the malicious attempts to label him a security threat.

This lawsuit wasn’t just about clearing Moyer’s name—it was about exposing the corruption and collusion between Koch’s corporate security, local law enforcement, and the judicial system in Oklahoma. Moyer sought accountability for the false statements made by Jackson, which were used to justify a fraudulent police report and a BOLO alert that falsely portrayed him as a danger to Koch Industries, the public, law enforcement, and even family. The BOLO alert issued against Moyer was more than just a procedural security notice—it was a direct attack on his family life, personal security, and reputation. By falsely labeling him a threat to Koch Industries, the alert painted him as dangerous, creating unwarranted fear and suspicion around his name. Even more alarming, the BOLO included false claims about his mental health, an accusation that had serious implications for his ongoing family court case—the very reason he was traveling to Oklahoma in the first place. By pushing this false narrative, Koch and its allies in law enforcement not only jeopardized Moyer’s personal safety but also sought to undermine his credibility as a father—a tactical move designed to weaken his legal standing and destroy his ability to fight back.

But the legal battle was far from straightforward. Despite overwhelming evidence that the allegations were false, the Federal case was ultimately dismissed—not on the merits, but solely on jurisdictional grounds. The court ruled that it lacked the proper authority to hear the case in that venue, an all-too-common legal loophole that lets powerful entities dodge responsibility without actually addressing the substance of the claims.

However, this dismissal did not mean the end of the fight—because during the course of litigation, a critical piece of evidence surfaced: a security video, allegedly showing Moyer trespassing at Koch Fertilizer in Enid. The video that was mentioned in Deputy Reams’ phone call to Moyer and in the police report, yet was never disclosed to Moyer despite his requests for all information related to the case.

The discovery of this highly suspect video changed everything.

The Fabricated Video and Other Key Discovery in Federal Court

As the lawsuit progressed, Koch’s legal team submitted video evidence, claiming it proved Moyer had been on their property. But a deeper forensic analysis told a very different story. The metadata didn’t match the alleged timeline, the resolution was too low to positively identify anyone, and the footage lacked any verifiable indicators linking it to the Koch facility in Enid.

This revelation was not just an attack on Moyer—it was proof that corporations like Koch, backed by local law enforcement, were willing to fabricate evidence to justify their actions. The fact that this video was only discovered because of Moyer’s federal lawsuit highlighted the depth of misconduct involved in his case.

Despite the court’s jurisdictional dismissal, this lawsuit was far from a loss—it brought the truth to light, exposed the manipulative tactics of corporate security, and laid the groundwork for future legal action against those responsible.

The question now was: what would come next?

🔎 Metadata Analysis—How the Video Fell Apart Under Scrutiny

Metadata Analysis: Of Document Sent From Koch’s Attorney

• File Format: MP4
• Creation Date: October 22, 2022, at 06:51:57 UTC
• Encoder Used: 00000001-0000-0000-0000-00408cfb5627 (System default identifier, possibly indicating re-encoding)
• Software Used: Genetec Video (A security camera software system)
• Timezone in Metadata: (UTC-06:00) Central Time (US & Canada)
• Video Codec: H.264
• Bitrate: 111,494 bps (Low bitrate, typical for security camera footage)

Suspicious Elements & Possible Tampering

• The encoder information appears generic, meaning the video may have been re-encoded or processed before submission.
• The creation date (October 22, 2022) does not match the original alleged trespassing timeframe, raising concerns about whether this is the original file or a manipulated version.
• No prior timestamps or signs of previous encoding history were found, which would have provided more traceability.

Frame-by-Frame Analysis

• No clear license plate identification was possible in the extracted frames.
• No facial recognition of the driver could be determined from the provided resolution.
• The video lacks clear elements linking it to Moyer, reinforcing the possibility of misidentification or fabrication.
  

Financial Influence: Koch’s $10,000 Payment to Law Enforcement

One of the most damning examples of corporate influence over law enforcement in Garfield County is a photo of Shon Jackson—Koch Industries’ security chief—presenting a $10,000 donation from Koch to Garfield County Sheriff Cory Rink. This transaction raises serious ethical and legal concerns, as it directly ties a corporate security official to the law enforcement agency responsible for investigating and acting on fabricated allegations against Gregory Moyer.

Under Oklahoma state law, public officials, including law enforcement officers, are bound by strict ethical standards to prevent conflicts of interest and maintain impartiality in the administration of justice. According to Oklahoma’s Ethics Rules (Title 74, O.S. § 4201-4247) and the Oklahoma Governmental Ethics Act, public officials are prohibited from accepting gifts or donations that could create a conflict of interest or the appearance of undue influence. While donations to law enforcement agencies are not outright illegal, they must not be tied to personal benefits or influence over official duties.

In this case, Sheriff Rink accepted a financial contribution from the very corporation whose security team initiated false claims against Moyer. This not only creates the appearance of bias but also undermines the integrity of law enforcement’s role in fairly investigating alleged crimes. The fact that Rink took action against Moyer based on Shon Jackson’s report—despite a lack of evidence—implies that Koch’s financial relationship with local law enforcement may have played a role in shaping their decisions.

Moreover, Sheriff Rink’s conduct during this investigation further compounds the ethical violations. By refusing to correct the fabricated report, failing to investigate Jackson for knowingly filing false claims, and continuing to uphold a fraudulent BOLO alert, Rink has not only shown bias but has actively obstructed justice. Under Oklahoma Statutes 21 O.S. § 540, obstructing a public officer in the discharge of their duty is a criminal offense—meaning that Rink’s failure to address the misconduct could, in itself, be grounds for legal consequences.

The close financial relationship between Koch Industries and Garfield County law enforcement highlights a dangerous precedent—one in which private corporations can effectively buy influence over public officials, shaping investigations and enforcement actions to suit their interests rather than serving the public good. This case raises serious concerns about the role of corporate donations in law enforcement policy and the potential for abuse when financial contributions align with legal actions against private citizens.

At its core, this is not just a case of corruption—it is a blatant breach of public trust, where law enforcement, rather than serving the interests of justice, has become an extension of corporate security.

📷 See the Photo Here:

Shon Jackson’s Pattern of Abuse: The Wrong Man for the Job

Newly uncovered documents reveal a troubling history—Shon Jackson has been accused of abuse before. And not just once. His past misconduct allegations raise serious concerns, not only about his credibility in the case against Moyer but also about how someone with such a record ended up in charge of security operations at a federally regulated facility. Because if you’re looking for someone to fabricate a crime and wield authority irresponsibly, well—Koch Industries apparently found their guy.

Jackson’s reputation as an enforcer—first in law enforcement, then in corporate security—wasn’t built on integrity or fairness. If he had a history of misconduct in law enforcement, why was he trusted with overseeing security operations at a federally regulated facility handling hazardous materials? And more importantly, how did someone with his track record get the authority to initiate law enforcement action based on what now appears to be a completely false trespassing claim against Moyer?

If a man has a history of wielding power irresponsibly, it’s not a stretch to believe he’d do it again. So when Jackson conveniently accused Moyer of trespassing, provided unverified evidence, and worked closely with a sheriff’s office that seemed all too eager to play along, it wasn’t just a coincidence—it was a well-worn playbook.

So let’s get this straight: A guy with documented accusations of abuse, a background in questionable law enforcement tactics, and a clear vendetta against Moyer just so happens to be the one who fabricates the trespassing allegation?

At what point does this stop looking like bad luck for Moyer and start looking like a coordinated effort to weaponize corporate security and local law enforcement against him?

📄 View the Full Report on Jackson’s History: Shon Jackson Previous Complaints

Ongoing Allegations of Misconduct and Inmate Deaths Under Sheriff Cory Rink

Garfield County Sheriff Cory Rink has faced mounting scrutiny over a series of alleged civil rights violations, inmate deaths, and accusations of corruption. His tenure has been marred by legal settlements, lawsuits, and public outcry over the treatment of detainees under his administration.

One of the most high-profile cases under Rink’s administration was the $2.5 million settlement related to the death of Kyle Lara, an inmate who died by suicide in his cell, undiscovered for over 18 hours. This incident fueled criticism of jail oversight and prompted calls for systemic reform.

However, Lara’s case is not the only instance of wrongful inmate deaths under Rink’s leadership. In 2016, Anthony Huff, a 58-year-old detainee, died after being restrained in a chair for over 55 hours without medical attention. Arrested for public intoxication, Huff—who had a history of alcoholism—was left in deteriorating health until he was found unresponsive. The county ultimately settled a $12.5 million wrongful death lawsuit with Huff’s family in 2019. (Prison Legal News)

In 2024, another lawsuit was filed against Sheriff Rink and the Garfield County Jail, alleging inhumane jail conditions and inadequate medical care. The plaintiff claimed that medical requests were ignored, detainees were provided insufficient bedding, and food rations were dangerously low. (Casetext)

Federal Lawsuits and Extortion Allegations

Beyond concerns over detainee treatment, Sheriff Rink has also been named in a federal civil rights lawsuit accusing him of participating in a statewide extortion scheme. The lawsuit alleges that more than fifty Oklahoma sheriffs, including Rink, conspired to jail individuals who were unable to pay court debts, violating their due process rights while generating revenue for local law enforcement agencies. (Citizens Overseeing)

These repeated incidents and legal battles have placed Sheriff Cory Rink’s administration under intense scrutiny, with calls for reform growing louder. Advocates and legal experts argue that the systemic failures at Garfield County Jail reflect a broader culture of misconduct and neglect within Oklahoma’s criminal justice system. As these cases continue to unfold, public pressure on Rink and his department continues.

Attorney General Complaint: State-Level Investigation Begins

With false police reports, corporate interference in law enforcement, and a court system seemingly allergic to due process, Moyer had no choice but to take his fight to the highest legal authority in the state—the Oklahoma Attorney General’s Office. The situation had escalated beyond just a wrongful police report; this was now a full-blown abuse of power involving Koch Industries, Garfield County law enforcement, and a judicial system willing to look the other way.

Moyer’s formal complaint to Attorney General Gentner Drummond outlined a damning pattern of misconduct, including:

• Fabricated police reports designed to frame Moyer
• Koch Industries’ security team acting as an extension of law enforcement
• Fabricated documents and videos submitted to state and federal investigators
• Fabricated information and evidence submitted to state and federal Judges
• Local officials suppressing evidence that disproved the claims against him
• The failure of Garfield County to correct false records, despite irrefutable proof

If this wasn’t a textbook case for an Attorney General’s intervention, what was?

Moyer wasn’t just filing a grievance—he was demanding real action to prevent future abuses like the one he endured. Because here’s the hard truth: The longer the Attorney General and the Oklahoma judiciary remain silent, the clearer it becomes that the system is being manipulated for the benefit of the powerful. And justice? Justice isn’t a privilege—it’s a right. And it damn well needs to be enforced for everyone—not just for those with political influence and corporate connections.

📄 Read the Full Signed Complaint: Signed AG Complaint

📄 View the Supporting Documents: Attachments for AG Complaint

The Legal Mandate of the Attorney General

Under 74 O.S. § 18c, the AG has the authority to investigate and prosecute misconduct by public officials, including judges and court clerks. The AG’s office is also responsible for ensuring compliance with the Oklahoma Open Records Act (51 O.S. § 24A.1-24A.30) and the Open Meeting Act (25 O.S. § 301-314)—laws specifically designed to prevent secrecy and corruption within government institutions.

Moreover, the Attorney General’s Unit for Government Accountability (74 O.S. § 18b(A)(20)) exists for the very purpose of holding public officials accountable. Yet, despite official complaints being filed and legal violations being apparent, there has been no meaningful intervention by the AG’s office in this case.

Manufactured Silence: How Oklahoma Courts Weaponize Protection Orders to Suppress Accountability

In a disturbing pattern of judicial misconduct and the on-going saga that began in October of 2022, the Oklahoma court system appears to have strategically obstructed due process by issuing and finalizing a protective order against Moyer without ever serving him notice or allowing him to respond. The case, initiated by R. Shon Jackson in 2024—the same individual involved in the 2022 false police report—was filed in Garfield County, a jurisdiction already notorious for judicial corruption. The protective order was conveniently finalized on Moyer’s birthday, a move that can only be interpreted as an act of targeted harassment. Moyer was never served with notice of the hearing. There is no doubt Jackson filed his request for protection in retaliation for Moyer continuing his fight against Koch, Jackson, Rink and others involved in the corruption taking place in Oklahoma. Moyer had simply reached out to Jackson and Jackson responded by engaging in further harassment of Moyer by filing the request for a protection order and using the judicial system as a weapon for more abuse.

This court’s history is tainted by scandal, including well-documented reports of clerks engaging in improper relationships with judges. Moreover, it has been linked to the same corruption that led to the downfall of Judge Lovell. Given this backdrop, it is not surprising that Moyer was neither properly notified of the case nor afforded an opportunity to contest the allegations. The Oklahoma Protection from Domestic Abuse Act (22 O.S. § 60.1-60.6) explicitly requires service of process to ensure a defendant’s ability to respond, yet this fundamental right was ignored.

Upon conducting his own search of public records, he discovered that the case had already been closed in February 2025—without his knowledge. Had he not taken the initiative to investigate, he would have remained unaware of the legal constraints imposed upon him. Now, after requesting copies of the documents and informing the court clerk of the improper service, he is being forced to pay for access to records that should have been provided as a matter of legal due process.

🔊 Listen to the Full Calls to the Garfield County Clerk’s Office Here:

This blatant circumvention of rights raises serious constitutional concerns. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees due process, ensuring that no individual is deprived of life, liberty, or property without fair legal proceedings. By failing to serve Moyer with proper notice, the Garfield County court effectively denied his right to defend himself—a clear violation of both state and federal law.

More troubling is the broader implication of this tactic. Protective orders, when misused, can serve as powerful tools for silencing individuals and discrediting them in legal battles. By securing a protective order without opposition, Jackson and his associates have weaponized the judicial system to suppress accountability and limit Moyer’s ability to challenge their conduct. This aligns with a wider trend in Oklahoma, where politically connected individuals and corporations evade scrutiny while using the courts as instruments of retaliation.

As Moyer await the court documents, one thing is clear: this is not just a legal battle—it is a fight against systemic corruption. If Oklahoma’s judicial system is to have any credibility, it must be held accountable for its role in enabling these abuses of power. The courts are meant to serve justice, not act as enforcers for the privileged and powerful. Until meaningful reforms are enacted, Oklahomans will continue to face a legal system that operates not by the rule of law, but by the rule of influence.

📄 View the Highly Suspect OSCN Report on Jackson, Koch, and The Courts Retaliatory Order Here

Selective Justice: The Oklahoma Attorney General’s Failure to Act on Judicial Misconduct

The role of the Oklahoma Attorney General (AG) is not merely symbolic; it is a constitutional duty that demands action in the face of legal misconduct. Under 74 O.S. § 18b, the Attorney General is charged with enforcing the law, overseeing state agencies, and ensuring that justice is served without bias or favoritism. However, in cases where judicial corruption and due process violations are evident—such as the issuance of a protective order against Moyer without proper service—the AG’s inaction raises serious concerns about selective enforcement and the abuse of judicial power.

The Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees that no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. This principle is reflected in Oklahoma’s 12 O.S. § 2004, which outlines the requirement for proper service in civil cases, ensuring that defendants are informed of proceedings against them and given the opportunity to respond. The failure to serve Moyer notice, yet proceeding with a final order, is a direct violation of this law.

Additionally, Oklahoma’s 22 O.S. § 60.4 mandates that any protective order must be served before a hearing can be held. In Moyer’s case, the docket reflects that service was either incomplete or questionable, yet the court moved forward regardless. This is a clear abuse of judicial authority and a textbook case of “ex parte orders” being issued without the presence or knowledge of the accused—a tactic often weaponized to silence individuals without due process.

Halting Further Misconduct After a Complaint is Filed

Once an official complaint regarding judicial misconduct is filed, the Attorney General has the responsibility to intervene. Under 74 O.S. § 18b(A)(13), the AG has broad authority to initiate actions against public officials engaged in unlawful conduct. The continuation of improper filings, fees, and enforcement actions after a complaint has been lodged demonstrates either negligence or complicity on the part of those responsible for enforcement.

This is especially concerning given that the case against Moyer has already been closed, yet a tax lien or financial warrant remains active against him in Oklahoma—a state where he does not reside. The Full Faith and Credit Clause (Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution) dictates that states must recognize and respect judicial proceedings from other states; however, it does not permit a state to wrongfully enforce judgments on an individual who was never properly served and did not reside in that jurisdiction.

Furthermore, the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (12 O.S. § 719-726) outlines the process by which judgments from one state can be enforced in another. Yet, this law requires that due process has been met before enforcement can occur. The Oklahoma court’s action of placing a financial claim against Moyer, despite the lack of jurisdiction and proper notice, flies in the face of both state and federal law.

Justice Delayed: Oklahoma’s Selective Investigations and the Power of Inaction

This case is not an isolated incident. Oklahoma has a long history of judicial and clerical corruption, with documented cases of court clerks engaging in unethical behavior, including improper relationships with judges and case tampering. When courts are permitted to violate due process without consequence, it erodes the entire legal system, undermining the public’s faith in justice.

The failure of the Oklahoma Attorney General’s Office to step in, despite having both statutory and constitutional authority to do so, suggests either gross negligence or intentional selective enforcement. When politically connected individuals—such as those associated with Koch Industries and Shon Jackson—are allowed to manipulate the legal system without repercussions, ordinary citizens are railroaded without due process, exposing a two-tiered system of justice.

In March 2023, Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond called for an investigative audit into the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority (OTA), citing financial misconduct, improper transfers, and violations of the Open Meeting Act. His request followed mounting concerns from legislators, community leaders, and state employees over transparency and compliance with the law. Two years later, that audit remains incomplete, leaving Oklahomans wondering whether justice is merely slow—or if it is being intentionally obstructed.

This pattern of inaction is not an isolated case. Moyer personally received an acknowledgment of an investigation regarding Sheriff Rink, was assigned a case number, yet has never been contacted about it. Similarly, numerous complaints against powerful entities such as Koch Industries and individuals like Shon Jackson remain buried in bureaucratic limbo, raising serious concerns about selective enforcement and whether certain interests are being shielded from scrutiny.

Oklahoma law is clear on government transparency and accountability. The Oklahoma Open Records Act (51 O.S. § 24A.1-24A.30) and the Open Meeting Act (25 O.S. § 301-314) require public agencies to maintain transparency and ensure that governmental decisions are made in full view of the public. Violations of these statutes are not just technicalities—they undermine public trust and erode democratic accountability. If officials are selectively choosing which laws to enforce and which investigations to pursue, they are actively subverting these protections.

Moreover, the Oklahoma Whistleblower Act (74 O.S. § 840-2.5) is designed to protect those who expose misconduct. Yet, when state leaders call for audits and investigations, only for them to stagnate indefinitely, it sends a chilling message to whistleblowers and concerned citizens: the law exists, but it may not be enforced.

The ongoing OTA investigation is a prime example of this troubling trend. Despite a court’s finding that the OTA “willfully” violated the Open Meeting Act, there has been no apparent accountability. This deliberate inaction mirrors other cases where politically connected individuals and corporations evade scrutiny while those exposing corruption face stonewalling.

If Oklahoma’s Attorney General’s office is serious about upholding the rule of law, it must ensure that investigations move forward with urgency—not at a pace dictated by political convenience. Justice delayed is justice denied. The people of Oklahoma deserve answers, not endless waiting.

A Legal System in Crisis v. a Poor Pro Se Dad

The Garfield County court system has been exposed as deeply flawed, with corrupt judges, unchecked power, and favoritism playing a larger role in judicial outcomes than justice itself. The scandals surrounding judges like Brian Lovell are symptomatic of a wider problem—one that demands urgent reform and accountability.​

In the midst of these systemic issues, the case of Moyer v. Jackson et al has brought additional attention to the challenges within the Garfield County judiciary. Filed on January 17, 2023, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, this lawsuit involves plaintiff Gregory Ashley Moyer against defendants Shon Jackson and Koch Industries, Inc., alleging assault, libel, and slander. ​dockets.justia.com

This case underscores the pressing need for transparency and integrity within the legal system, as individuals like Moyer seek justice amidst allegations of misconduct and defamation. The convergence of such cases highlights the critical importance of judicial accountability and the restoration of public trust in the judiciary.

Until meaningful changes are made, the people of Oklahoma will continue to face a legal system that protects the powerful and punishes the vulnerable. The question remains: Will state leaders take action, or will corruption continue unchecked? This is about integrity, civil liberties, and the abuse of power by billion-dollar corporations working with local law enforcement to silence individuals and movements for change.

The Garfield County judicial system has been embroiled in significant scandals, raising deep concerns about judicial integrity, ethical misconduct, and systemic corruption. The most prominent figures at the center of these allegations include Associate District Judge Brian Lovell and District Judge Paul K. Woodward—both of whom have faced serious accusations that eroded public trust in the county’s legal system.

In 2024, Associate District Judge Brian Lovell was at the center of one of the most shocking judicial scandals in Oklahoma history. The allegations against Lovell were wide-ranging and deeply disturbing, including:

• Engaging in sexual acts with court employees within courthouse premises
• Participating in drive-by shootings across state lines
• Exhibiting erratic behavior, raising concerns about his mental state

As these allegations surfaced, judicial oversight committees began reviewing his conduct, leading to calls for his immediate removal from the bench. However, in September 2024, Lovell preemptively resigned, citing a diagnosis of frontotemporal dementia—a degenerative brain disorder known to cause impulse control issues, inappropriate behavior, and cognitive decline.

In his resignation letter to Governor Kevin Stitt, Lovell acknowledged that his condition was progressive and irreversible, an admission that raised more questions than answers. Critics argue that his resignation was a convenient way to avoid legal consequences, rather than a genuine step toward accountability.

Lovell’s resignation did little to restore faith in the judicial system, as many pointed out that his misconduct was not an isolated incident but rather a symptom of a deeply flawed and unchecked system. The scandal exposed broader issues within Garfield County’s judiciary, including:

• Lack of judicial oversight to prevent unethical behavior
• Unchecked judicial power, allowing misconduct to persist for years
• An internal culture of favoritism and cover-ups to protect legal elites

Many legal experts and watchdog organizations demanded a full investigation into how Lovell was able to remain on the bench despite numerous red flags. However, little action was taken beyond his quiet resignation, reinforcing concerns that the system prioritizes protecting its own over serving justice.

While Judge Lovell’s case gained national attention, District Judge Paul K. Woodward, the presiding judge of Oklahoma’s Fourth Judicial District (which includes Garfield and Grant counties), has also been at the center of numerous judicial controversies.

Woodward, who has served as a district judge since 2010, has been accused of judicial bias, conflicts of interest, and misconduct in high-profile cases. Some of the most serious concerns regarding his tenure include:

• Repeatedly ruling in favor of powerful political and corporate entities over individual plaintiffs
• Failing to disclose conflicts of interest in cases involving government officials and law enforcement
• Obstructing open records requests and transparency efforts

Oklahoma Post’s Advocacy and Allegations Against Judge Paul Woodward in OKDHS Petition Processes

Woodward’s influence extends beyond the courtroom, as he also plays a key administrative role in overseeing case assignments and judicial operations. This power dynamic has led many to question whether his rulings are based on legal merit or political allegiance.

One of the most controversial cases under Judge Paul K. Woodward’s jurisdiction was the Tulsa Petition Case, a high-stakes legal battle concerning government transparency and citizen-led efforts to challenge municipal policies. The case became a flashpoint for legal activists, as Woodward’s handling of the matter was widely seen as favoring establishment interests over public accountability.​

In October 2024, Oklahomans for Children’s Rights filed a petition in Oklahoma County, requesting a grand jury investigation into alleged misconduct by OKDHS. The petition outlined ten specific allegations against the department, including failure to report child abuse, falsification of documents, and perjury to conceal crimes against children. Representative Justin “JJ” Humphrey supported this initiative, emphasizing the need for Oklahomans to reclaim their government and address the purported systemic issues within OKDHS. Senator Shane Jett’s own family submitted affidavits to courts regarding the individuals’ cases as well as his witness to the failure of the State to hold itself accountable within its own rules.

In November 2024, the case involving Tulsa’s petition to impanel a grand jury against OKDHS and other entities was reassigned to Garfield County, with Judge Paul Woodward presiding. This petition, comprising over 400 pages of attached evidence exhibits, underscores the dedication of concerned citizens addressing issues within OKDHS. However, it was amended and still dismissed. There were interferences from the Tulsa County DA. However, the accounts were brushed off, citing a lack of sufficient signatures. The petition, organized by Dr. Francetta Mays, State of Oklahoma OKDHS worker Rosario Chico, and others aimed to investigate the Oklahoma Department of Human Services (DHS) over alleged failures to protect children and families. Despite the dismissal, the case sparked significant public discourse on the challenges citizens face when seeking governmental accountability. ​Moyer has also made personal complaints to OKDHS.

The Oklahoma Post, under the stewardship of Moyer, has been a vocal advocate for petitions across Oklahoma, challenging the practices of the Oklahoma Department of Human Services (OKDHS), particularly in family court matters. This advocacy aligns with broader citizen-led initiatives seeking accountability and transparency within OKDHS.

Furthermore, Moyer, in collaboration with other concerned parents, aimed to initiate a similar petition in Payne County. However, they allege that Judge Woodward’s previous actions discredited their efforts, hindering the progress of their advocacy in that jurisdiction.

Additionally, Moyer contends that Judge Woodward attempted to portray him as both criminally liable and mentally unfit. This allegation stems from the case of Jackson v. Moyer, where Moyer believes Judge Woodward should have recused himself from the protection order proceedings due to obvious procedural and conflict bias. Moyer asserts that the judge’s failure to do so compromised the fairness of the process.

Critics argued that Judge Woodward’s decision exemplified a judicial system more inclined to protect established institutions than to facilitate citizen-led oversight. This perception was further fueled by Woodward’s history of ruling in favor of powerful political and corporate entities over individual plaintiffs, raising concerns about potential biases within the judiciary.​

The Oklahoma Post believes that Judge Woodward’s actions were not merely procedural but were attempts to undermine all citizens of Oklahoma advocacy efforts. This belief is rooted in the perception that his dismissal of the petition was an effort to suppress initiatives aimed at holding OKDHS and family courts accountable. Blowing past procedural stop signs to silence the whistleblowers. Woodward and Drummond, through their own actions and words have resisted holding any government agency accountable, holding any state employee accountable, holding non-government entity accountable, and finally, neither Drummond nor Woodward have the guts to hold his own Office accountable.

The Tulsa Petition Case underscored the difficulties citizens encounter when attempting to hold governmental bodies accountable, highlighting the need for judicial reforms to ensure impartiality and fairness in the legal process. Critics of Woodward argue that his rulings in politically sensitive cases consistently align with the interests of local government officials and corporate attorneys, rather than those of everyday Oklahomans seeking justice. This pattern of judicial bias has raised serious concerns about the fairness of the legal system under his leadership. Imagine a courtroom where justice is less about fairness and more about who you know. In counties across Oklahoma, it’s as if the scales of justice have been replaced with a corporate logo, and the gavel comes with a price tag. Court clerks, seemingly more interested in extracurricular activities with judges, couldn’t spare a moment to verify whether Moyer was ever notified of his own case. If this isn’t the very definition of a kangaroo court, what is?​

The involvement of the Oklahoma Post, Moyer, a Major Political Donor, Judge Woodward, and Attorney General Gentner Drummond failing at his job, highlights the complexities and challenges inherent in Oklahoma’s petition processes and judicial oversight. Their actions reflect ongoing efforts to uphold legal standards and ensure the integrity of the state’s legal and administrative frameworks.

Conclusion: The Influence of Koch Industries and Judicial Corruption

Judge Paul K. Woodward’s cozy relationship with corporate and government power players has raised more than a few eyebrows, particularly when it comes to his handling of cases involving Koch Industries and its head Charles Koch. Given every Oklahoma Judges’ long history of siding with the establishment, it’s no surprise that rulings often align with the interests of political and corporate elites rather than everyday citizens. But the plot thickens. Enter Koch Industries, a super conglomerate with tentacles reaching into various think tanks and policy organizations, notably the Heritage Foundation. The Koch brothers have been instrumental in funding and shaping the agendas of several conservative institutions, including the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, and the American Enterprise Institute. ​

The Heritage Foundation, in particular, has been a significant player in the conservative movement, formulating policies that have influenced various administrations. During Trump’s tenure, the administration embraced nearly two-thirds of the policy recommendations from the Heritage Foundation’s “Mandate for Leadership.” ​

The Heritage Foundation has historically played a significant role in shaping conservative policy, notably during the Trump administration, which adopted nearly two-thirds of the recommendations from the Foundation’s “Mandate for Leadership.” ​

However, recent developments indicate a shift in this relationship. The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, a comprehensive conservative policy agenda, has faced criticism from various quarters, including former President Trump. Trump has distanced himself from the initiative, labeling some of its proposals as “seriously extreme” and asserting that it was crafted by individuals on the “severe right.” ​apnews.com+10vanityfair.com+10courthousenews.com+10livenowfox.com+1courthousenews.com+1

This distancing culminated in the resignation of Paul Dans, the director of Project 2025, from the Heritage Foundation. While the Foundation stated that Dans left voluntarily, reports suggest that the Trump campaign had previously expressed concerns about the project, emphasizing that it did not represent the campaign or the former president. ​wired.com+8cbsnews.com+8livenowfox.com+8apnews.com+3livenowfox.com+3courthousenews.com+3

These events highlight a growing rift between the Heritage Foundation and Trump, reflecting broader debates within the conservative movement about the direction of future policy initiatives.

In response, Trump has signaled intentions to counteract what he perceives as the weaponization of the legal system. His administration has been urged to adopt reforms that would curtail the influence of entrenched bureaucracies and ensure that governmental power is more directly accountable to elected officials. ​theguardian.com+4opensecrets.org+4aclu.org+4heritage.org

In essence, the intricate web of corporate influence, think tank agendas, and political maneuvers has created a landscape where justice can feel like a rigged game. For individuals like Moyer, navigating this terrain is akin to playing a game where the rules are constantly changing, and the referees might just be on the opposing team’s payroll.

But it doesn’t stop there. Without structural reforms, cases like these will continue to undermine public trust in the judiciary and erode confidence in the rule of law.

In the context of Moyer’s protection order case and the broader allegations against Koch Industries, Judge Jeff Crites’ involvement raises even more red flags. As a judge operating under Woodward’s jurisdiction, his ability to remain impartial is, at best, questionable. Critics argue that:

• Crites’ rulings may not be based on law but rather on judicial hierarchy, where stepping out of line with Woodward isn’t an option.
• To ensure fairness, the case should be heard by a judge outside of Garfield County—somewhere where Koch’s influence doesn’t spread like fertilizer runoff.
• Oklahoma’s judicial structure enables corruption by concentrating too much power in the hands of a few key figures, who protect their own and punish those who dare to challenge them.

In short, this isn’t just about one judge—it’s about an entire system built to shield the powerful. The more corporate and judicial forces intertwine, the harder it becomes for anyone without a billion-dollar legal team to receive a fair hearing.

And this is where Attorney General Gentner Drummond’s inaction becomes a glaring problem. Drummond has been made fully aware of these issues, yet he has done absolutely nothing to address them. In theory, the Attorney General exists to uphold justice, investigate misconduct, and ensure the system is functioning lawfully. In reality, it seems Drummond is more interested in watching the corruption unfold like it’s a season finale of a crime drama he has no intention of intervening in.

At some point, when faced with repeated corruption, false reports, harassment, and legal threats, a man is bound to react. When persons like Shon Jackson, Sherrif Cory Rink, and Gentner Drummond weaponize law enforcement against a private citizen, uses corporate-backed influence to paint a person, a dad, a uncle, brother, husband, journalist, etc. etc. as a criminal, and does so with zero consequences, it’s completely rational for that person to push back. Fear, frustration, and the fundamental need to defend oneself are not irrational—they’re human. And let’s be honest, at a certain point, you either call out the corruption, or you let them walk all over you. Freedom of speech.

And this is why people like Moyer aren’t just fighting for themselves—they’re fighting against an entire system built to silence anyone who refuses to bow down. So, when the courts and corporations act in tandem to crush individuals, when law enforcement is bought and paid for, and when the Attorney General sits idly by and does nothing, what choice does someone like Moyer have? Sit back and take it? Or stand up and fight back?

The reality is that this isn’t just Moyer’s fight—it’s a fight for every American who has been steamrolled by a system designed to serve the elite while crushing the people who dare to challenge it. This is lawfare in its purest form, a weaponization of the courts to silence dissent, ruin reputations, and protect the interests of billion-dollar corporations like Koch Industries and their army of high-powered law firms.

And who else has been targeted by this same machine? President Donald J. Trump.

Just as Moyer was dragged through a corrupt legal process orchestrated by corporate interests, Trump himself has been the victim of a relentless, coordinated lawfare campaign, where politicized prosecutions, fabricated allegations, and legal witch hunts are wielded like weapons to stop him from disrupting the status quo.

This isn’t about partisan politics—this is about a system so desperate to maintain its grip on power that it will destroy anyone who refuses to play by its rules. The same giant law firms, think tanks, and political operatives that spent years trying to take down Trump are the same ones funding and orchestrating lawfare against everyday Americans like Moyer.

But just like Trump refuses to back down, neither should the American people. This fight against judicial corruption, corporate control over law enforcement, and weaponized legal attacks isn’t just about one man or one case—it’s about reclaiming justice, restoring integrity, and making sure that the law serves the people, not just the powerful.

So the question isn’t just whether Moyer will fight back—it’s whether America will fight back. Because if we don’t take a stand now, how long before they come for the next person who refuses to kneel? Because if history has taught us anything, it’s that corruption never ends on its own—it ends when people refuse to accept it any longer.

Want to help? Join the conversation. Share your stories. Demand reform.

📢 Stay tuned as The OK Post continues investigating this case.

(Writing by Cole Crowley; Editing by Robbie Robertson)

Citations

• NonDoc (2024). Judge Brian Lovell resigns amid misconduct allegations. Retrieved from NonDoc
• Oklahoma Judicial Ethics Commission Reports (2024). Judicial Oversight in Garfield County
• Oklahoma Bar Association (2024). Ethical Violations in the Judiciary: A Closer Look at Oklahoma Courts
• Tulsa World (2024). Judge Paul Woodward’s role in Tulsa petition controversy sparks debate
• Grant County – OKCounties. District Judge – Grant County. Retrieved from Grant County – OKCounties

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.