This was a False, Staged Arrest from the Very Beginning

On August 11, 2023, I was pulled over by the Galveston Police Department while commuting onto the island at approximately 2AM. What began as a traffic stop had in a very quick time turned into a DWI Investigation, with an arrest of me made on suspicion of DWI. Here is what is so bizarre. I was not under the influence of ANY substance or alcohol! I had touched neither.

From the moment the officers made contact, it was clear this was not a standard traffic stop. Galveston police claimed to smell alcohol coming from my vehicle. I immediately denied consuming any alcohol, stating I had not had a single drop in over 3 to 4 years.

Then they asked me to step out of my vehicle and perform a field sobriety test. I refused, explaining that these tests are notoriously rigged. Instead, I demanded a breathalyzer test—the most reliable, scientific way to prove my sobriety.

As a First Amendment Auditor, a Journalist, and a constitutional rights activist, I was recording the entire encounter. Two other journalists were also filming from a nearby location.

Despite my repeated demands for a breathalyzer, Galveston police insisted on a field sobriety test. Again, I refused, demanded an attorney, and reiterated my request for a breathalyzer test.

Instead of following standard procedure, the officers arrested me for suspicion of DWI, loaded me into the back of a truck, and transported me to the hospital for a blood test.

Even though they claimed the odor of alcohol was their probable cause, they refused to administer the breathalyzer test I repeatedly requested. Instead, they proceeded with a forcible blood draw, stating that they were applying for a warrant to take my blood sample.

However, I was never shown any warrant. Instead, nearly 10 officers forcibly restrained me while I was handcuffed behind my back. They stabbed my right arm multiple times with a needle in a forced blood draw—without any proof of intoxication or lawful justification.

This was brutal, unconstitutional, and illegal.

Afterward, they transported me to the Galveston County Jail.

The Conspiracy Against Me

While I was in booking, I overheard my arresting officer on a phone call with Deputy Kandi Beavers of the Lafayette County, Mississippi Sheriff’s Department.

I listened as Deputy Beavers allegedly conspired with the officer to charge me with a felony DUI third offense—despite the highly controversial nature of a previous 2021 DUI case involving her.

That 2021 DUI is still under appeal, as crucial evidence proving my innocence was “conveniently” lost before my November 2021 trial. CLICK THIS LINK to view my Appeal in MS Court of Appeals

For years, I have maintained that Deputy Beavers perjured herself on the stand, lying under oath to wrongfully convict me and send me to prison for a year in 2022.

So, when I was released from prison on August 1, 2023, I did exactly what anyone who has been wrongfully convicted and incarcerated due to someone else’s lies should do: I exposed her.

I released a video on August 2, 2023 proving that Kandace Beavers intentionally lied under oath in court, which resulted in my wrongful imprisonment for a year. This video can be seen by clicking here

And for that, she retaliated. Both her and Hoby James featured at the beginning of that video making the traffic stop on me. They tried to set me up once again in order to keep the truth suppressed.

This wasn’t just a routine traffic stop or arrest.

This was a coordinated, multi-state conspiracy involving:

• The Lafayette County Sheriff’s Department
• Deputy Kandace Beavers and Deputy Hoby James
• The Galveston Police Department

Recorded calls confirm that Beavers and James orchestrated this setup to have me arrested. They wanted me silenced because of my previous work exposing their corruption.

This Never Should Have Been a Felony

Even if I had been intoxicated while driving (which I wasn’t), this never should have been a felony. At most, it could have been a misdemeanor, but this was never about the law—it was about silencing me. This was a deliberate, targeted attack to try and put me back in prison by using Galveston law enforcement to do Lafayette County’s dirty work. Lafayette County needed me charged with a felony charge so they could revoke my probation and give me a much longer sentence than they could if I had been charged with a misdemeanor.

Lets examine Galveston Police Officer William Osteen

Now, let’s talk about Officer William Osteen—the corrupt Galveston Police officer who arrested me on August 11, 2023.

Officer Osteen’s bodycam footage shows one of the very first questions Officer Osteen asks Defendant is “You an auditor man?” (Ex. E, 02:48).

He then tells another officer “Hey, I’m doing this one, this is an auditor.” (Ex. E, 03:04-03:06).

After having less than a minute of conversation with Defendant, Officer Osteen later discusses with Officer Larry Murph how they can go ahead and arrest Defendant, stating he “can go off of slurred speech and the smell . . .” (Ex. E, 07:56-07:59). This clearly demonstrates Officer Osteen had already decided to arrest Defendant after less than a minute of interacting with him, before having made any significant observations.

Osteen claimed I was “Walking: Heavy Footed.” However, all video evidence shows the Defendant walking and standing normally. Officer Osteen had virtually no opportunity to observe Defendant’s walking prior to arresting him and obtaining the Warrant. (Ex. E, 09:44-12:38). The bodycam footage shows that Officer Osteen wasn’t even facing the Defendant for the brief period of time that Defendant was walking. (Ex. E, 09:44-10:11). Also, “heavy-footed” typically denotes slow, laborious movements,
but Osteen would later testify that Defendant was “extremely jittery.” (Ex. D, pg. 23, ln. 25).

In his Affidavit, Osteen claimed “Odor of Alcoholic Beverage on breath: Moderate.” The Toxicology Report revealed no trace of alcohol in Defendant’s blood. (Ex. B, pg. 1). “Moderate” is the second highest level of odor, and would not be present for a defendant with no alcohol in his system. Further, Officer Osteen clarified multiple times on camera that he did not smell alcohol on Defendant’s breath, only from his vehicle. (See, e.g., “Osteen Bodycam 1,” Ex. E, 09:35-09:39; “Osteen Bodycam 2,” Ex. F, 05:55-06:10). He would later testify under oath that once Defendant stepped out of his vehicle, he could not detect an odor of alcohol emitting from the Defendant. (Ex. D, pg. 24, lns. 1-5). Yet he still marked that there was a moderate smell of alcohol on Defendant’s breath in the Affidavit, an observation Officer Osteen had already demonstrated that he knew to be false.

Additionally in his affidavit for a blood warrant, Osteen marked “Refused to provide a sample.” Defendant clearly offered to take a breathalyzer test prior to being taken into custody, and consented to be taken into custody for that purpose. (Ex. E, 10:30-12:10). Officer Osteen had no probable cause to arrest Defendant at the point he took Defendant into custody, having smelled no alcohol nor observed any symptoms of intoxication, as described above. Officer Osteen would later testify that he did not suspect a substance other than alcohol, except that Defendant demonstrated a willingness to take a breathalyzer. (Ex. D, pg. 24, Lns. 11-21). However, being willing to take a breathalyzer is not a sign of intoxication which would justify a blood warrant, and Officer Osteen recorded only his alleged observations regarding alcohol consumption in the Affidavit. Officer Osteen intentionally omitted Defendant’s willingness to take a breathalyzer from the Affidavit so that he could use Defendant’s “refusal” as evidence supporting the Warrant.

Officer Osteen would later testify at the probation revocation hearing that Defendant’s “pupils were very small” and “he had pinpoint pupils” (Ex. D, pg. 24, ln. 10, & pg. 35, ln. 7). This is the exact opposite of the dilated pupils described in the Affidavit. Officer Osteen either did not get a good look at Defendant’s eyes and was just making something up in the Affidavit—a reckless disregard for the truth—or he changed his story and perjured himself once he discovered that the Toxicology Report revealed no trace of alcohol in Defendant’s blood.

Between the time of the Affidavit and the time of the probation revocation hearing, Officer Osteen changed the symptoms he claims to have observed from alcohol (slow, thick-tongued, slurred speech; dilated pupils; smell of alcohol on breath) to another substance instead (fast speech; small pupils; jittery movements). Each observation was made under oath, but they obviously aren’t both true. Such a fundamental shift in observations, under oath, suggests intentional misrepresentation rather than innocent mistake.

And here’s the real kicker: Osteen perjured himself twice in my probation revocation hearing, falsely testifying that my toxicology report showed alcohol in my system.

 This is critical because without these false statements, there was no probable cause for my arrest.

Officer Osteen made these materially false or misleading statements knowingly and
intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, in an attempt to set me up.

If you scroll to the bottom of my case docket, you’ll see that on February 25, 2025, my attorney, Ben Campagna, filed a motion for a Franks hearing.

What Is a Franks Hearing?

A Franks Hearing (based on Franks v. Delaware) is held when a warrant affidavit contains false statements or intentional omissions that mislead the judge.

If you remove the false information, there would be no probable cause for the warrant or the arrest.

That’s exactly what happened in my case.

The arrest warrant was based on lies.

And this isn’t just a minor mistake—this was deliberate perjury.

What is the next step?

If Galveston doesn’t drop this case immediately, I am demanding a trial ASAP.

Once this case goes to trial, everything comes out:

• The fabricated charges
• The corrupt police officers
• The illegal extradition
• The multi-agency conspiracy

If this case goes to trial, Officer Osteen will never be able to testify in court again. He needs to be criminally charged. I will be relentless in my pursuit of this along with identifying every single case that Osteen has ever testified as a witness on. I will ensure that the attorneys for each of these cases receives every last piece of evidence and an unconditional guarantee by me to be deposed and testify as a witness. I will demand, collectively, for each and every one of these cases to be reviewed.

This Is Bigger Than Me

If they can do this to me, they can do it to anyone.

This isn’t just about me—this is about precedent.

Every time they get away with violating someone’s rights, it empowers them to do it again and again and again.

And that’s why I’m fighting this.

 Here is the 84 Page Franks Motion

Have you seen the new music video that exposes the corrupt state actors?

---

The Call That Said Everything

When I dialed the Mississippi Department of Corrections commissioner’s office, I expected professionalism, maybe even urgency. What I got instead was a bureaucratic echo chamber.

“This is the commissioner’s office,” the woman said.
I explained the problem — a constitutional one — about inmates at Delta Correctional Facility being denied access to grievance forms and ILAP requests. When I finished, she cut me off:
“I need to send you to the commissioner’s office.”

That’s when it hit me: in Mississippi’s corrections system, even accountability has to be forwarded.

I made it clear who I was — Don Matthews with We the People News — and that the story would run by five o’clock if Commissioner Burl Cain didn’t call me back. Only then did her tone shift. The room on the other end of the line seemed to wake up.

“I’ll have someone look into it,” she finally said.
“That’s what the people need to hear,” I told her.

And that’s where this story begins.

---

The Reports from Inside

Multiple sources from Delta Correctional have told me the same thing: there’s no grievance box. No ILAP box. No confidential way for an inmate to file a request or complaint.

Instead, if an inmate wants to report abuse or mistreatment, they to hand the form to a guard — possibly the very guard they are reporting. That isn’t procedure; that’s intimidation by design.

Mail? Same story. No mailbox. No locked drop point. The only “system” is giving it directly to a corrections officer on night shift.

One inmate put it simply:

“They say we can grieve, but we can’t even drop the paper.”

---

What the Law Says

The law isn’t vague on this. In Bounds v. Smith (1977), the U.S. Supreme Court held that prisons must provide inmates with “meaningful access to the courts.” That includes the right to file grievances and legal assistance requests.

Two decades later, in Lewis v. Casey (1996), the Court reaffirmed that right — and made clear that when prison officials obstruct it, they violate the First Amendment.

Then there’s Farmer v. Brennan (1994), which established that officials who show “deliberate indifference” to known risks or constitutional violations can be held liable under the Eighth Amendment.

So when MDOC ignores reports that inmates have no safe way to file grievances, that’s not a paperwork problem. That’s a constitutional one.

Even MDOC’s own internal policy — Administrative Remedy Program (ARP), Policy 20-08 — mandates accessible, confidential grievance procedures. “Confidential” doesn’t mean slipping a form to a guard who controls your daily life.

---

The Bureaucratic Deflection

When I raised these issues, the response from the commissioner’s office was not outrage, not even concern — just redirection.

“I can’t comment on that… I’ll have someone look into it.”
“He’s not in the office right now.”

The tone was polite, careful, professional — the kind of tone that gets people through their workday but never fixes anything.

If you listen closely to the call, you can hear something more subtle: a system that’s learned to protect itself. Every question gets rerouted. Every responsibility diluted. By the time it’s “looked into,” the problem has already gone quiet again.

---

The Cost of Silence

What’s happening at Delta Correctional isn’t unique — it’s just quieter there. At Parchman, the neglect made headlines. At Delta, it hides behind procedure.

A grievance system that doesn’t function is more than a missing box; it’s a message. It tells the men inside that their voices don’t count. It tells the guards they can act without oversight. And it tells the public that “corrections” in Mississippi still means control, not rehabilitation.

One source told me she’d never had a problem at Delta but didn’t want to be retaliated against for speaking up. That line alone says it all: when the fear of retaliation outweighs the faith in justice, the Constitution becomes a ghost in its own house.

---

What Comes Next

As of publication, Commissioner Burl Cain has not returned my call. His office did say they would “look into the ILA procedure” at Delta Correctional Facility.

Looking is one thing. Fixing is another.

The Constitution doesn’t take weekends off, and it doesn’t stop at the prison gate. If the State of Mississippi is serious about justice, it can start by giving its inmates something simple — a locked box, a piece of paper, and the right to be heard without fear.

In a stunning development that raises serious questions about judicial bias, Magistrate Judge Carol B. Whitehurst has issued an ex parte interim protective order the same day the government filed their motion – without waiting for the defense response – effectively gagging journalist Matthew Reardon from exposing evidence of ex parte communications between U.S. Marshals and federal judges.

THE ORDER: Granted Ex Parte Without Hearing Defense

On October 15, 2025, Judge Whitehurst issued what she calls an “Interim Order” that:

1. Restricts access to discovery materials containing “courthouse security information”
2. Defines “security information” to include EMAILS – the very ex parte communications to judges
3. Requires all materials be kept in a “secure place”with restricted viewing
4. Acts immediately – before defense can file opposition (due October 22)

WHAT “EX PARTE ORDER” MEANS

An “ex parte order” means the judge granted relief to one party (the government) without hearing from the other party (the defense) first.

What happened:

• Morning: Government files motion for protective order
• Afternoon: Judge grants it as “interim order”
• Problem: Defense response not due until October 22 (7 days away)

Judge Whitehurst acted on the government’s motion without waiting for the defense to respond. This denied Reardon:

• The opportunity to be heard
• Due process
• The ability to argue against the restrictions

This is highly unusual and suggests urgency to hide something.

THE SMOKING GUN: What She’s Trying to Hide

The order specifically defines “courthouse security information” as:

“information including emails, camera footage, or other law enforcement sensitive materials that may tend to reveal the methods or operational behavior of the US Marshal”

Translation: The emails between U.S. Marshals and federal judges – the ex parte communications that violate judicial ethics rules – are now classified as “security information.”

WHY THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS

1. The Emails Are NOT Security Information

The ex parte communications revealed by FOIA records:

• Were sent to judges and chambers staff (@lawd.uscourts.gov addresses)
• Characterized Reardon’s journalism as “suspicious behavior”
• Created prejudice against Reardon before charges were filed
• Violated the Code of Conduct for United States Judges

These are evidence of judicial ethics violations, not security protocols.

2. She Granted Government’s Motion Without Hearing Defense

The order acknowledges that “defense objects to the Motion” and sets the response deadline as October 22, 2025.

But she granted the government’s motion on October 15, 2025 – the same day they filed it – a full week before the defense response is due.

No emergency justified this. Courts can issue ex parte orders only when:

• There’s a genuine emergency
• Delay would cause irreparable harm
• Notice would defeat the purpose

None of these factors exist here:

• Reardon has had discovery for weeks without incident
• No security breach has occurred
• Government identified no specific threat
• Waiting 7 days would cause no harm

This denies Reardon:

• The opportunity to be heard
• Due process
• The ability to argue against the restrictions

3. She May Have Received the Ex Parte Communications Herself

Here’s the critical question: Did Magistrate Judge Whitehurst receive any of the ex parte communications about Reardon?

FOIA records prove U.S. Marshals sent emails to multiple @lawd.uscourts.gov addresses on June 24 and 26, 2025.

Judge Whitehurst uses an @lawd.uscourts.gov email address.

If she received those communications, she is biased and must recuse.

Her immediate action to grant the government’s protective order—without hearing from the defense—suggests she may have something to hide. Why the rush to protect these communications from disclosure?

THE CATCH-22: Protecting Judicial Bias

The Interim Order creates an impossible situation:

1. Reardon suspects judges received ex parte communications (confirmed by FOIA)
2. Discovery materials would reveal which judges received them
3. But the order prevents Reardon from viewing those materials
4. Without viewing them, he cannot seek recusal of biased judges
5. Without recusal, he faces trial before potentially biased judges

This is a textbook due process violation.

WHAT THE ORDER ACTUALLY DOES

Despite claiming to be about “security,” the order:

1. Prevents exposure of judicial ethics violations
2. Protects biased judges from being identified
3. Denies Reardon the right to challenge bias
4. Allows the government to hide its misconduct
5. Ensures the cover-up continues

THE GOVERNMENT’S PRETEXTUAL “FINDINGS”

Judge Whitehurst found:

• Government demonstrated “good cause”
• “Serious potential of harm to individuals” if materials are disseminated
• “Serious potential” that dissemination would reveal “methods or operational behavior”

But these findings are based solely on the government’s one-sided motion – without hearing from the defense.

WHY “SECURITY” IS A LIE

The government’s security concerns are contradicted by their own conduct:

1. They disclosed the information through FOIA – if truly sensitive, they wouldn’t have released it
2. They filmed the same events Reardon filmed – no security issue with recording
3. They waited 20+ minutes before arresting Reardon – no urgent security threat
4. The emails went to judges, not just security personnel – not about security operations

The real concern is accountability, not security.

REARDON’S RESPONSE: Emergency Motion to Vacate

Reardon is filing an emergency motion demanding:

1. Immediate vacation of the Ex Parte Interim Order
2. Disclosure of whether Judge Whitehurst received ex parte communications
3. Recusal of Judge Whitehurst if she received them
4. Full disclosure of all judges who received communications
5. Denial of the protective order motion
6. Full access to all discovery materials
7. Full briefing before any protective order issues – including defense response and hearing

THE BROADER IMPLICATIONS

This case now involves:

Layer 1: The Original Charges

• Arrest for peaceful protest on courthouse steps
• First Amendment violations

Layer 2: The Ex Parte Communications

• U.S. Marshals emailed judges before filing charges
• Judicial ethics violations
• Due process violations

Layer 3: The Cover-Up

• Government seeks protective order to hide communications
• Prior restraint on publication

Layer 4: The Ex Parte Order

• Judge grants government’s motion same day without hearing defense
• Premature restriction of access
• No emergency justification
• Possible judicial bias

Each layer makes the scandal worse.

QUESTIONS THAT MUST BE ANSWERED

1. Did Magistrate Judge Whitehurst receive any ex parte communications about Reardon?
2. If so, why didn’t she disclose this and recuse?
3. Why did she grant the government’s motion the same day without waiting for the defense response?
4. What emergency justified issuing an ex parte order without hearing from the defense?
5. Why is she classifying emails to judges as “security information”?
6. Is she protecting her own bias or the bias of other judges

THE STAKES

If this interim order stands:

• Judges can be secretly prejudiced against defendants
• Defendants can never learn about the bias
• Evidence of judicial ethics violations can be hidden
• The government can coordinate with judges behind closed doors
• No one gets a fair trial

This is not about one journalist. This is about whether our justice system works.

TIMELINE OF ESCALATING COVER-UP

June 24, 2025: U.S. Marshals email judges about Reardon

June 26, 2025: Follow-up email encouraging distribution

August 25, 2025: Reardon arrested

October 15, 2025 (morning): Government files motion for protective order

October 15, 2025 (afternoon): Judge Whitehurst grants government’s motion as ex parte interim order (same day, without waiting for defense response)

October 22, 2025: Defense response due (but order already in effect)

The pattern: Act fast, hide evidence, prevent exposure.

REARDON’S STATEMENT

“This ex parte order proves exactly what I’ve been saying: they’re desperate to hide evidence of judicial bias. Judge Whitehurst granted the government’s motion the same day they filed it—without waiting for my opposition, without any emergency justification. That’s not how justice works.

There was no emergency. I’ve had these materials for weeks without incident. The only urgency here is their desire to hide evidence of judicial bias before I can expose it.

If she received those ex parte communications herself, she’s protecting her own bias. If she didn’t, she’s protecting other judges’ bias. Either way, this is a cover-up—and the court is helping them do it.

I will not be silenced. I will not accept a system where judges can be secretly prejudiced against defendants, and courts help the government hide it. And I will not stop fighting for transparency.

The government created this scandal by violating judicial ethics rules. They cannot now hide behind ‘security’ to conceal their misconduct.

Sunlight is a disinfectant. They’re trying to turn off the lights.”

HOW YOU CAN HELP

1. Share this story – The mainstream media won’t cover judicial corruption
2. Contact the Fifth Circuit Judicial Council – File complaints about judicial ethics violations
3. Demand transparency – Call your representatives and demand accountability
4. Support independent journalism – We the People News needs your help to continue investigating
5. Stay informed – This case is developing rapidly
6. GoFundMe: https://gofund.me/d7e84db6

WHAT TO WATCH FOR

• Emergency motion to vacate (filing this week)
• Judge Whitehurst’s response to recusal demand
• Disclosure of which judges received communications
• District Judge’s review of interim order
• Possible appeal to Fifth Circuit

THE BOTTOM LINE

A federal magistrate judge has issued a gag order before the defense could respond, classifying evidence of judicial ethics violations as “security information,” and potentially protecting her own bias.

This is not justice. This is a cover-up.

And it’s happening in broad daylight.

---

BREAKING UPDATES:

We will update this story as developments occur. Follow We the People News for real-time coverage.

DOCUMENTS:

• [Interim Protective Order – October 15, 2025]
• [Government’s Motion for Protective Order]
• [FOIA Records Showing Ex Parte Communications]
• [Emergency Motion to Vacate (forthcoming)]

CONTACT:

• Email: [email protected]
• Website: WTPNews.org
• YouTube: We the People News
• Linktree: https://linktr.ee/wtpnews

---

SHARE THIS INVESTIGATION

🚨 BREAKING: Federal judge grants government’s protective order motion SAME DAY without hearing defense – hiding evidence of ex parte communications to judges. No emergency justified this. Cover-up in real time. #JudicialCorruption #ExParteScanal

[Share on Twitter] [Share on Facebook] [Share on Reddit]

---

© 2025 We the People News. All rights reserved.

This is investigative journalism documenting judicial proceedings. All facts are sourced from court documents and FOIA records.