Forward this email to a friend






































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































October 9th 2016 Newsletter
Locker Room Braggadocio
The RINOs are out in force and frothing at the mouth over a decade old tape that surfaced of Donald Trump bragging about trying to seduce a married tramp.  The woman is in show business for God’s sake… decent women don’t last long or get anywhere in that trade.  And decent women don’t go furniture shopping with other men if they are married.  This wasn’t unwanted advances, this was a negotiation and her hoo haw wasn’t worth the price she was asking.
Yeah, Trump isn’t the sort of guy you’d want watching your 21 year old daughter, powerful men seldom are that kind of guy.  Yeah the Donald talked about just grabbing women by their “David Holts” and that they would put up with it.   Again, these sort of women probably would and would consider it a compliment that a powerful or famous man would want them.
And if women didn’t like this sort of talk then who in the hell bought those 80 million copies of Fifty Shades of Grey?
Of course we can’t write the word “p****y” in our newsletter because of filters on some office emails might get the reader in trouble but a good synonym for that vulgar word would indeed be Senator David Holt.  
Holt you see became hysterical the other day and decided to jump on the Trump resign band wagon, really more of an opportunity to show his RINO ass and build some brownie points with the disintegrating donor class and GOP elites.  Holt forgot that he once served as a close aide to Dennis Hastert when Hastert was U.S. Speaker of the House.  Hastert of course was busted paying off hush money to young men he had raped or molested while working as a wrestling coach.   Hold bragged about being Hastert’s aide and his access as the gatekeeper to Hastert.   One has to assume that he also knew of Hastert’s deviant leanings when it came to young men and being that Hastert was 22 years old at the time who is to say he didn’t get the job because Hastert had the hots for him?  Only David Holt knows the answer to that and to many it seems the lady doth protest too much.
Hastert wound up going to federal prison for evading money laundering laws while withdrawing hundreds of thousands of dollars for hush money.  How long it went on no one knows but the close relationship that Senator David Holt had with the man leaves open the possibility that Hold knew of Hastert’s perversions and chose to say nothing.
Fact is that normal people will talk locker room trash when we think we can get away with it.  Straight men do it, the homosexuals do it (probably talking about David Holt), and even women do it.   A lot of women dress the way they do so as to attract attention and are avid devotees of the trashy bodice ripper paperback books.  Not all women certainly but a lot of women.
Senator David Holt had a RINO Index score of 30 last session, getting 14 out of 20 votes wrong.  You really thing this tool wants Donald Trump cleaning things up?  You really think he wants Trump supporting the issues in the GOP Party Platform?
Senator David Holt is an opportunistic dirt bag as is any GOP elite that uses this decade old trash talk to damage the GOP presidential nominee.  We think that Holt has more than earned the nickname “Cooter” a slang term for you know what.  Has a nice ring to it…Senator David “Cooter” Holt…
Judicial Recommendations for the General Election
We got an email the other day asking this:
“Greetings!   I am voting by Absentee Ballot and wonder if you have any input on re-electing the Judges? I have no way of knowing who is voting liberal and who is not. I appreciate your efforts and read all your emails.
Thank you!!
J. G.
There are two Court of Criminal Appeal judges up for retention, Rob Hudson and Carlene Clancy Smith.  Rob Hudson is a conservative hero judge that follows the law and the Constitution.   Clancy Smith is a woman judge that is the polar opposite and needs to be defeated.  More on that below.
Then there is one Oklahoma Supreme Court judge that is so liberal as to need removing, Douglas L Combs.    Ballotpedia has a judicial ranking system that rated Combs way below the dividing line between liberal and conservative.  Liberal Democrat Brad Henry appointed Combs back at the end of Henry’s administration.  I don’t think a judge has ever lost a retention election in Oklahoma but this is one that certainly deserves to be ousted.
Rob Hudson was appointed by Fallin on March 12th 2015 and in October of that year he wrote a specially concurring opinion to buttress the majority opinion in the Gerhart vs. State of Oklahoma case:
¶1 I write separately to emphasize the context in which this case arose, i.e., political speech directed to a political actor in the political arena. Appellant sent an email to a state senator urging that a bill be heard, and passed out of, a legislative committee over which the senator presided as chairman. As Judge Lumpkin shows us, the elements of the Oklahoma blackmail statute are not met in this case and Appellant's convictions must be reversed and dismissed.
¶2 The purported victim in this case is a public figure. But more than that, he is an elected representative in the Oklahoma Legislature. Legislators and other public officials expect to receive "vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks[,]" Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 75, 85 S. Ct. 209, 216, 13 L. Ed. 2d 125 (1964) (quoting New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270, 84 S. Ct. 710, 721, 11 L. Ed. 2d 686 (1964)), from the citizens they represent. That is the nature of elected public office. As Judge Lumpkin's opinion points out, evidence presented at trial show emails similar to the one sent by Appellant were received by the Senator as part of the normal course of legislative business.
¶3 The First Amendment does not require that constituents be rational, reasonable, kind or even polite in their communications with elected representatives and public officials. The First Amendment does require, however, that the people be heard on matters of public interest without threat of prosecution. Communications like the email at issue in this case receive the broadest possible First Amendment protections because they focus on citizen-led political change through the legislative process. The First Amendment guarantees "the freedom of speech . . . [and] the right of the people . . . to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." These rights are "implicit in '[t]he very idea of government, republican in form.'" McDonald v. Smith, 472 U.S. 479, 482, 105 S. Ct. 2787, 2789, 86 L. Ed. 2d 384 (1985) (quoting United States v. Cruikshank, 2 Otto 542, 92 U.S. 542, 23 L. Ed. 588 (1876)). The right to petition government officials was included in the First Amendment along with the guarantee of freedom of speech and freedom of press "to ensure the growth and preservation of democratic self-governance." Id., 472 U.S. at 489, 105 S. Ct. at 2793 (Brennan, J., concurring). "[S]peech concerning public affairs is more than self-expression; it is the essence of self-government." Id. (quoting Garrison, 379 U.S. at 74-75, 85 S. Ct. at 216). "The First and Fourteenth Amendments embody our 'profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.'" Garrison, 379 U.S. at 75, 85 S. Ct. at 216 (quoting Sullivan, 376 U.S. at 270, 84 S. Ct. at 721).
¶4 In this case, Appellant sought with his email merely to get a bill heard and passed out of a legislative committee. Appellant's email does not amount to blackmail under Oklahoma law. Rather, it represents legitimate political activity. We must never allow the Oklahoma blackmail statute to become a sword used to suppress mere political speech or communications of this type with elected public officials. The First Amendment forbids it, especially when the message--or the messenger--are unpopular or controversial. See Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm'n, 558 U.S. 310, 340, 130 S. Ct. 876, 898, 175 L. Ed. 2d 753 (2010) ("Premised on mistrust of governmental power, the First Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor certain subjects or viewpoints."). I therefore concur in reversing and dismissing Appellant's convictions.
You can’t read what Judge Hudson wrote without being proud to be an American and damned proud that we still have these sort of men in our legal system.  Hudson saw that the prosecution was politically motivated and corrupt and wouldn’t allow “the Oklahoma blackmail statute to become a sword used to suppress mere political speech or communications of this type with elected public officials.”
Then there is Carlene Clancy Smith, the presiding judge of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals who disagreed with the majority decision and by doing so refused to follow higher court law that has defended our First Amendment and other constitutionally guaranteed rights.   She argued that the court should punish acts that might have occurred or had the potential to occur.  Below is her opinion with our dissection below each paragraph in italics:
¶1 I disagree with the majority's conclusion that Gerhart's message was protected speech. In Oklahoma, blackmail includes a written communication, made with the intent to compel another to do an act against his will, which threatens to either (a) accuse the person of conduct tending to degrade and disgrace him, or (b) expose a fact, report or information which would in any way subject the person to the ridicule or contempt of society. 21 O.S.2011, § 1488 (emphasis added). Gerhart sent an email to Senator Branan demanding that he ensure a particular bill was heard and passed. If it was not, Gerhart stated, he would make Branan "the laughing stock of the Senate", would "dig into your past, yoru [sic] family, your associates and once we start on you there will be no end to it. This is a promise." Gerhart's communication explicitly threatened to dig into the lives of Branan and his family, in order to disgrace him and expose him to ridicule, if Branan did not do what Gerhart wanted.
(While the blackmail statute and every other crime on the books requires actual action Judge Smith believes that a threat of investigation into a politician amounts to the ability to disgrace and ridicule a politician.   One would think that she either knows more about what is hidden away from the voters or has a poor opinion of the average politician.  She would also find illegal the act of a constituent that wishes to remind their city councilman of the repercussions of supporting the wrong issue.)
¶2 The majority admits that speech integral to criminal conduct is not protected by the First Amendment. Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co., 336 U.S. 490, 498, 69 S. Ct. 684, 688-89, 93 L. Ed. 2d 834 (1949). Gerhart's communication clearly meets the statutory requirement for blackmail. In finding that this is not enough to support his conviction, the majority adds two unwritten requirements to § 1488. First, the majority claims that speech is protected under the First Amendment unless it constitutes a true threat of violence. In Virginia v. Black, the United States Supreme Court found that a statute prohibiting cross-burning was permissible because the First Amendment allows States to punish expression which inflicts injury, is likely to provoke a violent reaction, incites a breach of the peace or imminent lawless action, or constitutes a true threat of violence. 538 U.S. 343, 359, 123 S. Ct. 1536, 1548, 156 L. Ed. 2d 535 (2003). Nothing in Black suggests that the State cannot prohibit communication as blackmail if the speech does not include an act of unlawful violence, and the Supreme Court has not so held in any other case. To do so, as the majority does, eviscerates the scope and protection afforded by the law against blackmail. The majority also suggests that Gerhart's threat was mere political hyperbole, or political speech, relying on Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705, 88 S. Ct. 1389, 22 L. Ed. 2d 664 (1969). On the contrary, the factual differences between this case and Watts underscore why Gerhart's speech was not protected. Watts told a small group of people at a rally that, if he had to carry a rifle, the first man in his sights would be the President. Watts, 394 U.S. at 706, 89 S. Ct. at 1401. The Supreme Court found that, given the conditional nature of the threat, its audience and the circumstances, this was protected political speech. 394 U.S. at 708, 89 S. Ct. at 1401-1402. By contrast, Gerhart's threat was explicit rather than conditional and made directly to his intended victim.
(Another huge stretch of misreading settled law.  The majority opinion was that the email didn’t meet ANY of the three elements required for a blackmail charge.  Investigating a politician isn’t illegal and neither is coercing a politician.  Judge Smith quotes Virginia v. Black which is used to allow the states to prohibit speech that constitutes imminent lawless action or a true threat of violence yet the email in question did neither.  Smith goes on to claim that the majority decision was reached because the email didn’t include any acts of violence, a point that would be moot as there were no violent action or threats charged, coercion or blackmail was the intent of the criminal charges, yet Smith believes that if the higher courts don’t prohibit  a judicial action then they are allowed to do anything they wish.  Higher court decisions are based upon what the law says, not what it didn’t say.  But the worst thought process was stating that a man that stated he would shoot a sitting president if drafted and given a rifle was less explicit of a threat of true violence than a promise to investigate a politician.  Smith ignores that the audience of that public reply all email was many times larger than the crowd that Watts addressed at the anti war rally.)
¶3 Second, the majority states the blackmail charge was premature; the majority holds that a blackmailer's threat must specifically state exactly what facts or information he has and intends to use, and how he will use it, in exposing his victim to disgrace or ridicule. Nothing in the statutory language remotely supports a requirement for this level of specificity. The majority has, for no apparent reason, unnecessarily added this element to the crime. In so doing, the majority fails in our duty to construe the statutory language according to its plain and ordinary meaning, giving effect to the intention of the Legislature as expressed by the words actually included in the statute. State ex rel. Mashburn, 2012 OK CR 14, ¶ 11, 288 P.3d 247, 250. The Legislature could have required that a blackmailer specify what information he would use and how, but chose not to do so. Addition of this element has the effect of ensuring that Gerhart (and any other blackmailer who makes a specific threat without disclosing his information or projected course of action) is not guilty of blackmail.
(Here is probably the most troubling look into Judge Smith’s mind.  The blackmail law requires that a specific threat of an accusation of conduct that would disgrace or degrade or a threat to release a fact, a report, or information which would subject the target to ridicule or the contempt of society.  The email in question merely threatened or promised to investigate, only Judge Smith assumes that disgraceful conduct would be found.  A threat to accuse Brannan of having sex with farm animals would have met the element of blackmail or a threat to reveal a report or other information of a known and true disgraceful past conduct in Brannan’s past would have met one of the elements of blackmail.  She goes further and says that the legislators could have specified that a specific threat was required but that is exactly what they did when they wrote “(b) expose a fact, report or information which would in any way subject the person to the ridicule or contempt of society.”  This shows that Judge Smith is comfortable writing the law instead of interpreting the law and that her view of what someone intended to do is more important than what they actually did do.)
¶4 Gerhart may or may not have been an irritant to Oklahoma lawmakers. However, in this communication he explicitly threatened one lawmaker, promising to investigate him and his family and expose him to ridicule, if the lawmaker did not ensure a bill was heard and passed. This conduct crosses the line from "irritant" to criminal conduct. The majority adds unwritten elements to the blackmail statute, then finds that because Gerhart's communication does not meet those elements it is protected speech. In doing so, the majority eviscerates Oklahoma's prohibition against blackmail. I believe this is neither required by First Amendment law nor expresses the will of the Oklahoma legislature. I dissent.
(Judge Smith read the briefs on this case and hopefully she also read the SCOTUS opinions quoted by the briefs and by her fellow judges.  She knows that coercion in politics or public matters is perfectly legal according to the Watts, NAACP vs. Claiborne Hardware  and Better Austin v. Keefe decisions.  She fully understands that lobbyists and constituents both use forms of coercion on politicians and also that politicians likewise coerce each other.  Smith took a promise to investigate as worse than threatening to shoot a sitting president and equated it to a violent act.)
¶5 I am authorized to state that Judge Johnson joins in this dissenting opinion.
In their defending of the appeal even the A.G. office didn’t try to gut the First Amendment as Judge Smith has advocated.  They claimed that the speech was criminal because the speech was a true threat or speech integral to criminal conduct.  A true threat being threats of violence that were imminent (I’m going to beat you to a pulp) while having the capacity to carry out that threat due to capability and being close enough to actually do it.  Speech integral to criminal conduct is saying “This is a hold up.”
In short Judge Smith preferred to gut the First Amendment rights for all Oklahomans in order to protect the political class and the influence of the donor class.  The other female judge joined her in attacking your free speech rights but she isn’t up for retention this year.
Southside Republicans Club
Dave Spaulding chairman of the Cleveland County Republican Party as our speaker for this month SOC RC meeting., it will be Tuesday October 11th from 6:30 to 8:30.  The event will be held at the public library at Southwest Oklahoma City Public Library at 2201 SW 134th St, Oklahoma City, OK 73170
Tulsa Republican Mens Club
October 12th @ 11:30 am
WE HAVE MOVED locations to Oklahoma Joe's BBQ 6175 E. 61st on 61st just West of Sheridan next to Goldie's!
 Our goal is to be fun and informative so bring a friend they might win a DOOR Prize!!! Lunch is $13 includes, lunch, drink, dessert, tax, and tip for the table servers. 
 We open at 11:30 in their brand new meeting room and we will start at 12 noon. This meeting will be jammed packed with information on state questions from: Steve Kunzweiler, Tulsa County D.A., State Rep. Glenn Mulready, Tyler Parette, who is our Outreach and Operations Associate for OK Policy team member, Bud Scott  Director, Attorney, and Campaign Manager, he is representing Oklahomans for Food, Farm & Family, Tom Buchanan President of Oklahoma Farm Bureau, Farmer and Rancher in Jackson County,  and District Manager Luggert Altus Irrigation District and Oklahoma Water Board and Spokesman for SQ 777.
This will be a great meeting bring a friend your freedom may be in your hands there is a ton to talk about and we will get to all of the questions.
State Question 776: Constitutional Amendment on the Death Penalty
State Question 777: Constitutional Limits on Regulation of Agriculture
State Question 779: Sales Tax for Education
State Questions 780 & 781: Criminal Justice Reform
State Question 790: Use of Public Resources for Religious Purposes
State Question 792: Alcohol Law Reform
How Whetsel Runs His Jail
Last week we wrote about a case of jail inmates working as detention officers at Oklahoma County Jail.  Here is the complete affidavit.   This guy was in jail because an apartment manager wanted him out of the complex.  He had been drinking but was on his own patio.  Drinking is legal, drinking on your own patio is legal.  Most cops would have told the guy to go back inside for a while and upheld the law. 
Warning, there is some vulgar language used by some of the guards at the jail that is being reported so don't read this at your office or if a child is sitting with you.
Here is his statement:
To whom it may concern,
My name is Michael John Haines and I am writing this letter to shed light on some very serious problems and concerns during my incarceration at the Oklahoma County Jail on Thursday, September 22, 2016, for Public Intoxication at my own residence.  This is the first time in 33 years of age that I have been arrested, besides once when I was 18, but that case was immediately dismissed, so that does not count against me.  I am going to consider this the first time in 33 years of age that I was arrested and that I am clearly not a criminal and what I observed this night was corruption at its finest, with my own two eyes.  Now you might ask yourself what credibility do I have? 
Allow me too give a brief introduction of myself.  I am a 100 percent Service-Connected Disabled Army Veteran who served in Operation Iraqi Freedom, during the Iraq wars, from September 2003 to 2004, I also went to Kuwait for two months before invading Iraq.  I received an Army Commendation Medal after being injured in Ar Ramadii, Iraq when I was 19; I also received a Congressional coin from the U.S Senate and the House of Representatives when I was receiving surgery on my right eye in in Landstuhl, Germany in 2004.  I have Blindness in my right eye, scars on my forehead, and suffer from severe Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, (PTSD) for short.  I hold a Bachelor's Degree in Criminal Justice with a Biology minor with 155 credit hours in Crime and Biology from Southwestern Oklahoma State University.  I am reserve C.L.E.E.T (Council on Law Enforcement Education and Training) certified with the State of Oklahoma as of 2012 and have been doing Law Enforcement both reserve and full-time with 5 different agencies since 2012.  My last full-time Police Officer job being in June of 2016.  I did a 6 month internship with the Clinton County Police Department as a Correctional Officer, In addition, doing security work all along the way. 
So where should we begin, there is so many problems on so many different levels that took place that I am not really sure where too even start, however, I will do my best to try and cover all of the topics I want to discuss in a clear and chronological order.  Essentially, what I would like to discuss with you is nothing more than complete corruption and total unprofessional-ism at the highest of levels.  Upon my arrival at the Oklahoma County Jail, I was patted down, by what I thought to be Oklahoma County Sheriff's Detention Officers, as they were dressed in the same attire that an actual Detention Officer would wear, I am unable to recall if they were wearing duty belts because I was not paying that much attention and I was slightly intoxicated at this point, however, I would not find out until several hours later that the two people that patted me down were actually in fact inmates, trustees I presume, but nonetheless, inmates. 
The reason I know this is due to the fact that I was put in an isolated cell by myself because one of the Corrections Officers stated too another Correctional officer upon my arrival, that I was possible ex-Law Enforcement, and that I should be put in a cell by myself because it was a security risk.  Notice how I said arrival, and not booked in, that is because I was not booked into the jail until 22 hours later, which I will discuss in the next paragraph, the booking procedures section.  Back to the topic at hand, at around 1700-1800 hours, which would be 7 to 8 hours later from the time I arrived at the facility, I observed those same two males come to the segregation wing just past booking, stand right in front of my cell with an “actual” Correctional Officer, take off their uniforms, get naked, and dress into orange jumpsuits.  At this point my jaw dropped.  Not only is that illegal, but it poses a huge security risk.  At this point of the night, the Correctional Officers have no idea what my credentials are, nonetheless, I started observing and taking mental notes of every little detail.
Let's touch on the booking process.  I am not 100 percent sure what the Oklahoma County Jail's policy is on detox time, however, in my professional experience as a Police Officer it is typically between 10-12 hours.  Which I am fairly confident that Oklahoma County Jail's policy is just that, a 10 hour OR (Observational recognition) detox time.  I never worked for Oklahoma City Police Department, nor would I want too, as I have heard of the corruption within that agency from talking with other Police Officers over the years and seeing the news, so that is why I don't know their policy and procedures. 
Nevertheless, I was kept at the facility for 24 hours without a phone call, in which I will go into more detail in just a little bit.  I would like to state that I only had two mix drinks at 9 AM the previous day of Mountain Dew and Vodka, mixed at a proportion of 40 percent Vodka with 60 percent Mountain Dew with no ice on an empty stomach.  The human body processes alcohol at faster rate on an empty stomach, as food absorbs the alcohol.  Even though it is not required for a public intoxication charge, as any amount of Alcohol in your system is valid enough to constitute public intoxication, I asked the arresting Officer if I could blow to see what my BAC (Blood Alcohol Content) was.  I blew a .100, barely over the legal limit, “if I were driving a vehicle,”.
The Officer could have simply asked my too go back inside and I would have complied immediately, that is what I would have done if I were the Officer in that situation. I would have simply told that person, go inside your home and stay there for the rest of the day, if I have to come back out here, you will go to jail. Instead, the Officer arrived, placed me in detainment for their safety and mine, which is common Police practice, placed me in the back of their patrol car while they talked to the RP (Reporting Party) again, common Police practice.  The Officer just got in their car and said you’re under arrest for public intoxication without hearing my side of the story.  The human liver processes about 1 mix drink/per hour for a 150 lb male.  I weigh 155 pounds; therefore, by around 1 PM that afternoon I was completely sober.  To reiterate, I arrived at the jail at around 10AM, completely sober at around 1 PM that afternoon as I only had two mix drinks on an empty stomach; my body had processed all of the Alcohol in my system; and kept there an addition 21 hours from that point, again, without a phone call.  That is terrible!
By the time I was actually booked in was about 4 hours before my release, when I asked why am I just now being booked in, their response was because you were being belligerent earlier, too which I stated, are you kidding me?  I was not belligerent at all.  Whoever is reading this paper right now, look at the cameras, you will see I was not being belligerent, at all!  In fact, when they were “supposedly” booking me in earlier, I was tugged in the female Correctional Officers direction, to the right, by her.  She then said to me, “quit resisting me”, too which I replied I'm not, you pulled me that direction.  Too which she replied, “your flexing on me”, too which I replied, because you pulled on me, it was just a natural reaction too regain my balance from you almost pulling me over.  At no point during my stay at this terrible, terrible, facility was I belligerent.  If anything, after about 12 hours with no phone call,  I remember banging on the door demanding too talk to a supervisor, of course I was ignored.  And at this point I was pretty upset, but I think anybody would have been given the circumstances, but I was not belligerent.  Apparently, someone committed suicide when I was there that night.  And I can see why, that is why I am writing this paper so that it stops or is reduced.  
The next topic I would like to touch base on is the cell conditions.  The cell conditions were extremely poor too say the least.  I was put on a hard metal bunk that had no pad and was given no pillow or blanket at all for 24 hours.  That is not only wrong; it is inhumane, especially when I am in the State's custody.  Inmates have the right to be free, under the 8th Amendment, from inhumane conditions because those conditions constitute “cruel and unusual” punishment.  I was given 2 bologna sandwiches during the 24 hour stay, while I observed the other inmates around me getting hot trays of food.  When they got a hot tray of food, I got a sandwich.  I am pretty confused still as too why this was the case.
Now I would like to discuss the unprofessional-ism of the Correctional Officers.  This is going to be a long section, yes it's that bad.  Under the 5th Amendment you have the right to an Attorney, if you cannot afford one, one will appointed too you.  It stands to reason that if “you have the right to speak too an Attorney,” you should be provided with the means to do so (e.g. a phone call), after a reasonable amount of time, basic Miranda principles.  After being there for around two to three hours, I asked a Correctional Officer, by knocking on the cell door and saying, excuse me Deputy may I have my phone call now, I am allowed a phone call.  His response was, “why do you keep calling me a fucking deputy?” I said, well I'm sorry what rank are you?  He stated too me, “I a damn Captain!” I said ok well, I see that you don't have your Captains collar brass on, so I had nothing to go off of, other than the fact that your shirt sleeve says Oklahoma County Sheriff's Office, so I assumed you were a Deputy.  I then said to him, you know if we were in Iraq and I was a Private and you were a Captain and I didn't salute you, which would be your fault since you don't have your collar brass on.  Then I asked him, if you don't mind me asking, how come you are not wearing it?  He then smirked and stated too me in a smart manner, because I left it at the strip club.  I said to him at this point, wow bro, real professional you are, so professional.  He then wrote something next too my door and walked off. 
I would come to find out later that he wrote Mental Health observation next too my door.  The night started getting worse and worse from there.  I assume he did this because I made him mad somehow.  Perhaps he did it because he knew that it would keep me there for hours upon hours longer than I should have been.  I can also speak and understand some Spanish.  At a later point in the night I hear this same Correctional Officer, “Captain” Reylenez or something very close to that, say out loud and I don't know who he was talking too when he said it, himself, another inmate trustee, who knows, but what was said was “I'm gonna Chinga la ponocho, later on tonight!  And I am sorry if you are a female reading this, but that means “I'm gonna fuck some pussy, later on tonight.”  Absolutely and utterly unprofessional.
At this point, I told him my intentions.  I stated too him, you are really digging yourself in a hole man, you guys can't keep my in here forever, and I said to him I am going to write the most detailed, accurate, articulate, paper you have ever seen, and get it out too all the right people.  And he obviously did not care, or realize who I was and what I have been doing with my life since the age of eighteen, or perhaps he has been getting away with the corruption for a long time and is just used too it now.  But that is exactly what I am doing right now, writing and typing what I observed and how I was treated on probably one of the lightest charges you can get, public intox, besides D.U.S, Driving Under Suspension.  I can only imagine how actual long staying inmates, or repeat offenders, are being treated.  At least I got too stay in my nice American Eagle dress shirt and jeans, I'm fortunate for that right?  Not really, I would rather have an orange jumpsuit with Constitutional rights, than get too stay in my nice, expensive, street clothes with no Constitutional rights. 
                 Essentially, every single Correctional Officer was unprofessional or rude,  I observed an African-American female Correctional Officer at one point sitting in a chair eating popcorn outside of an inmate’s cell eating snacks having a conversation with him as if it were almost the relationship level, discussing things such as what exercises she is currently working on, yet when I ask her for a phone call, I am ignored.  At one point in the night a “Sergeant” came up too my window when I was looking out it with my head rested on the palm of my hand, with me calmly looking out the cell window, say to me, if you threaten my Correctional Officer again, I'm going to file State Charges on you!  I put two fingers behind my ear to push my ear forward due to the fact it was hard to hear him with all the echo, but I said, “Excuse me, what did you say?  What are you talking about?” He said, “You heard what the fuck I said” as he was walking off.  At no point, under any circumstance, in any way, shape, or form, did I threaten a Correctional Officer, look at the Cameras. 
Two other female Correctional Officers finally came up too me the 20 hours later, the next day, a Caucasian one and an African-American one, the African-American one being different that the aforementioned one, which I would come to find out later were the two that finally booked me.  Nonetheless, they asked me if I was ready to process now, I said, what are you talking about?  I was ready to process hours ago, or better yet I could have gotten a phone call.  She got instantly rude and said, “If you would shut the fuck up and let me fucking talk” I will tell you, as soon as she said that the African-American Correctional Officer rolled her eyes and walked away, the Caucasian Officer said, you get your phone call when you are booked in, you were being belligerent earlier so we couldn't book you in, too which I said, no I was not!  She then walked away, several more hours pass,  It was clear to me at this point, after being there for 24 hours on a simple municipal public intoxication ticket, that they all told one another to give me “special treatment.”  At no point during my stay was I ever aggressive or peaceful.  Having PTSD, I cannot describe too you the helpless, panic stricken, anxiety feeling, that I started having after being there for hours upon hours, being treated like I was. 
Too summarize, this facility is doing things that are illegal, the cell conditions are terrible, the way inmates are treated is wrong, the booking procedures are a joke, where they book you out two hours before your release so you can’t get a phone call, the staff is completely unprofessional, and at the end of all that they will take cash from you.  I had a $20 dollar bill that was in my pocket, when I was getting released they gave me $5 dollars back cash.  I said what happened to my $20 dollar bill?  Too which they pointed to a sign and said all inmates have to pay $15 dollars for Medical Triage, so I was not given a chance to be billed for that, or make a payment arrangement.  That was money for me to take a taxi too get back to my residence in Edmond, Oklahoma.   Something needs to be done about this, it is absolutely a joke.  Thanks for taking the time for reading this.
                                                                                                                                Michael Haines