OKLAHOMA CITY (The Oklahoma Post) Jan. 7, 2026
“Trial by Ambush”: Judge Siderias Dismisses Year-Old VPO Case Hours Before Supreme Court Review, Citing Fear of Being Recorded
Special Judge James M. Siderias dismissed Julie Ann Kramer’s protective order petition on January 6, 2026 just three weeks before the Oklahoma Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments challenging his handling of the case.
The dismissal came less than 24 hours after the judge’s bailiff sent notification to counsel, denying Kramer’s request to appear remotely for safety reasons. The stated reason, documented in writing by court staff: “The Court has lost confidence that the proceedings will not be recorded by Plaintiff.”
The Eleventh-Hour Ambush
For months, the court docket listed January 6, 2026 as a “place marker” or routine hearing. But early morning, on January 5 less than 24 hours before the scheduled proceeding Kramer’s attorney Rob Hopkins received notice that the hearing had been converted to a final hearing requiring all parties to appear in person.
This notification did not come through official court channels or appear on public dockets. Instead, it arrived via email from a Bailiff directly to the attorneys, according to court records reviewed by The Oklahoma Post.
Hopkins immediately filed a motion requesting that Kramer be allowed to appear remotely, citing her documented safety concerns and the fact that she had temporarily relocated for protection. Remote appearances are standard accommodation for domestic violence victims under Oklahoma law.
Then, on January 5 after normal business hours the court denied the request.
The Smoking Gun Email
The denial email, obtained by The Oklahoma Post, reveals reasoning that legal ethics experts say constitutes prima facie evidence of judicial bias and retaliation. The Bailiff, writing on behalf of Judge Siderias, provided eight reasons for denying remote appearance. The seventh reason has become the centerpiece of what legal teams are calling “judicial paranoia weaponized against a victim”:
“The Court has lost confidence that the proceedings will not be recorded by Plaintiff.”
This statement is an extraordinary admission. Rather than citing statutory requirements, evidentiary concerns, or legitimate procedural grounds, the judge based his denial on personal fear of transparency specifically, fear that his own conduct in the courtroom would be documented or challenged.
The email also cited Kramer’s previous complaints about the court as justification for the denial, which could amount to First Amendment retaliation. The message to Oklahoma domestic violence victims is chilling: if you complain about judicial misconduct, the judge will eliminate your safety protections and dismiss your case. We have heard this before in cases where the judge tells the victim, usually a woman, that she needs to behave or calm down. Completely inappropriate.
“Constructive Denial of Access”
Judge Siderias was fully aware that Kramer had temporarily relocated for safety reasons pursuant to Oklahoma statute 43 O.S. § 112.3. In fact, her husband did not temp relocation and is in a different location. He was aware she had formally notified the court of her temporary relocation. That should show the proof of temporary nature of the event. Julie fully expects protection.
He was aware that forcing a domestic violence victim to appear in the same small courtroom as her alleged rapist without safety protocols, without adequate notice, and without the protection of remote appearance created an impossible choice.
By denying remote appearance at the eleventh hour while simultaneously converting a routine hearing into a final trial, Judge Siderias engaged in what legal scholars call “constructive denial of access to justice.” He technically “allowed” a hearing, but imposed conditions he knew the victim could not meet.
When Kramer did not appear in person to face her alleged abuser in an ambush proceeding, Judge Siderias dismissed the case for “failure to prosecute.”
The 379-Day Delay Finally Resolved — On the Judge’s Terms
Kramer filed her victim’s protective order petition on December 23, 2024. Under 22 O.S. § 60. ( the court was required to hold a full hearing within 14 days.
Instead, Judge Siderias delayed the hearing for over a year, granting the defendant 76 days of continuances for vacations and personal convenience while denying the victim’s requests for remote appearance during documented medical emergencies.
The January 6 dismissal came exactly 21 days before the Oklahoma Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments on January 27, 2026, examining whether Judge Siderias violated state and federal law in his handling of Kramer’s case.
The Defendant’s 160-Page Binder
Court observers present on January 6 reported that defendant attorney, arrived with a binder exceeding 160 pages of prepared exhibits and evidence. Yeah, we have those in almost every county of Oklahoma.
This level of preparation for what was officially listed as a “place marker” hearing suggests that opposing counsel had advance notice, potentially days or weeks, that January 6 would be a final trial, while Kramer’s attorney would have only received less than 24 hours’ notice.
If accurate, this disparity would constitute a due process violation of extraordinary magnitude, suggesting possible ex parte coordination between the court and defense counsel regarding the hearing’s true nature.
Pattern of Alleged Violations
My view of the case has documented 36 separate violations of the Oklahoma Code of Judicial Conduct in Judge Siderias’s handling of the case, including:
∙ Integrity violations (Canons 1.1, 1.2, 2.2)
∙ Bias and prejudice (Canon 2.3)
∙ Ex parte communications (Canon 2.9)
∙ Abuse of prestige of office (Canon 1.3)
∙ Improper consideration of gender in decision-making (Canon 2.3)
∙ Denial of right to be heard (Canon 2.6)
The January 5-6 actions add multiple new violations to this list, including what appears to be the first documented instance of an Oklahoma judge explicitly stating that fear of transparency justified denying a domestic violence victim’s safety accommodation.
Supreme Court Review Continues
Despite the dismissal, the Oklahoma Supreme Court oral arguments remain scheduled for January 27, 2026. Kramer’s emergency petition challenges the validity of Judge Siderias’s December 19, 2025 custody order and raises broader questions about systematic violations of the Protection from Domestic Abuse Act.
Attorney Rob Hopkins could file an emergency amendment to the Writ of Prohibition, adding the January 5-6 conduct as additional evidence of the judicial misconduct pattern alleged in the original petition.
The dismissal itself may strengthen Kramer’s Supreme Court case rather than weaken it. By forcing a final hearing with less than 24 hours’ notice, denying safety accommodations based on fear of being recorded, and dismissing the case three weeks before High Court review, Judge Siderias has created a near-perfect evidentiary record of retaliatory judicial conduct.
What Happens Next
January 8, 2026: Respondents’ deadline to file response to Kramer’s emergency stay motion (original deadline, may be affected by dismissal)
January 21, 2026: Respondents’ deadline to file response on merits (original deadline, may be affected by dismissal)
January 27, 2026: Oral arguments before Oklahoma Supreme Court
Hopkins may file emergency motions with the Supreme Court arguing that the dismissal was void ab initio due to lack of proper notice and constituted judicial retaliation designed to moot the pending Writ of Prohibition.
The central question before the High Court has now crystallized: Can an Oklahoma County judge dismiss a protective order case on the eve of Supreme Court review, using an ambush hearing and fear of transparency as justification, or does such conduct constitute a violation so egregious that it warrants extraordinary intervention?
On January 27, the Oklahoma Supreme Court will have the opportunity to answer that question.
Writing By: Robbie Robertson | Editing by Robbie Robertson
EDITOR’S NOTE: This article is based on court documents, audio recordings, and investigative reporting.
This investigation is based on court filings, sworn affidavits, official court minutes, public records, and documents provided by private sourcing. All claims attributed to court filings are sourced from documents currently before the Oklahoma Supreme Court or sent in by Court Watchers.
Questions regarding this case should be directed to counsel: Rob Hopkins, Hopkins Law and Associates, P.C. (representing Julie Ann Kramer) or Daisy S. Borders, Phillips Murrah P.C (representing Ferris Weston Howland).
A Note to Potential Victims
According to court filings, a licensed person allegedly exploited their professional role and the trust that comes with it to commit sexual assault against a client while she was unconscious and medically vulnerable.
If you have experienced similar conduct or have information about other potential victims in Logan and Oklahoma Counties, The Oklahoma Post urges you to contact law enforcement immediately. Sexual assault cases can be reported to:
Oklahoma County Sheriff’s Office – Sex Crimes Unit (405) 713-1000
Oklahoma City Police Department (405) 231-2121
If you have already filed a police report or have information you believe is relevant to this investigation, you may also contact The Oklahoma Post confidentially at tips@theoklahomanpost.com. All sources will be protected under Oklahoma’s journalist shield law.
The Oklahoma Post is committed to exposing corruption, defending constitutional rights, and giving voice to those the system seeks to silence.
Sources and records referenced
Oklahoma Statutes Cited:
- 21 O.S. § 1114(A)(4) – First-degree rape (unconscious victim)
- 22 O.S. § 60 et seq. – Protection from Domestic Abuse Act
- 22 O.S. § 60.2(F) – Prohibition on requiring other legal proceedings before VPO hearing
- 22 O.S. § 60.4(B)(1) – 14-day VPO hearing requirement
- 22 O.S. § 60.6 – Penalties for VPO violations
- 43 O.S. § 109.3 – Consideration of domestic abuse in custody determinations
- 43 O.S. § 111.4 – Suspension of visitation for child safety
- 43 O.S. § 112.2 – Domestic violence evidence requirements before visitation orders
- 43 O.S. § 112.3 – Relocation notice requirements
- 12 O.S. § 2012(A)(1) – 20-day answer requirement
- 12 O.S. § 2015(D) – Amended and supplemental pleadings
Oklahoma Case Law Cited:
- In re Childers, 310 P.2d 776 (Okla. Crim. App. 1957) – Unconscious person cannot consent
- Murlin v. Pearman, 371 P.3d 1094 (Okla. 2016) – Protection from Domestic Abuse Act provisions
- Marquette v. Marquette, 686 P.2d 990 (Okla. Civ. App. 1984) – Due process in protective order proceedings
- Kite v. Culbertson, 565 P.3d 38 (Okla. 2025) – Preventative purpose of Protection from Domestic Abuse Act
- King v. King, 107 P.3d 570 (Okla. 2005) – Good cause for withholding visitation
Texas Statutes Cited:
- Texas Family Code § 152.204 – UCCJEA temporary emergency jurisdiction
- Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) – Interstate custody jurisdiction
Oklahoma Judicial Rules Cited:
- Oklahoma Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 2.3 – Prohibition on bias, prejudice, and harassment
- Oklahoma Rules of Evidence 401-403 (codified at 12 O.S. §§ 2401-2403) – Relevance and prejudice standards
U.S. Constitutional Provisions:
- Fourteenth Amendment – Due process guarantees
Court Documents Referenced:
- Kramer v. Howland, Case No. PO-2024-4026 (Oklahoma County District Court) – Victim protective order case
- Kramer v. Howland, Case No. FP-2025-311 (Oklahoma County District Court) – Paternity case
- Application to Assume Original Jurisdiction and Petition for Writ of Prohibition and Mandamus, Oklahoma Supreme Court (filed December 22, 2025)
- Emergency Motion for Stay of Proceedings, Oklahoma Supreme Court (filed December 22, 2025)
- Affidavit of Domestic Violence, Frio County, Texas (sworn December 25, 2025)
- Application for Temporary Ex Parte Emergency Protective Order, Frio County, Texas (filed December 25, 2025)
Support Independent Journalism
At The Oklahoma Post, we report on stories that others overlook; from local courtrooms to statewide accountability. We rely on reader support to stay independent. Your contribution helps keep the public informed. If you’d like to help us keep publishing local voices and independent reporting, consider making a one-time donation today. Every contribution makes a difference.
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.
