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?

---

In a significant development that raises serious questions about the government’s motives, federal prosecutors have added an additional attorney to their case against independent journalist Matthew Reardon. This escalation comes as Reardon fights for his constitutional rights after being arrested for peacefully protesting government surveillance outside the John M. Shaw Federal Courthouse in Lafayette, Louisiana.

Government Doubles Down with Additional Prosecutor

Court documents obtained by We the People News reveal that on September 19, 2025, the U.S. Attorney’s Office filed a motion to enroll Myers P. Namie as an additional prosecutor in the case. The motion was quickly approved by Magistrate Judge Carol B. Whitehurst on September 22, 2025.

This unusual move to add prosecutorial firepower against a journalist facing a minor regulatory charge suggests the government recognizes the weakness of their case and is preparing for a more aggressive legal battle. The timing is particularly suspicious, coming just days after Reardon’s defense team filed a powerful motion to dismiss based on clear First Amendment violations.

Why the Extra Resources?

The addition of another prosecutor raises troubling questions:

1. Why does the government need additional legal resources to prosecute a single journalist for peaceful protest?
2. Is this an attempt to intimidate Reardon and drain his legal resources?
3. Does this signal the government’s recognition that their case faces serious constitutional challenges?

The Underlying Constitutional Crisis

As previously reported, Reardon was arrested on August 25, 2025, after peacefully protesting outside the federal courthouse. His protest was prompted by his discovery through a Freedom of Information Act request that U.S. Marshals had placed a BOLO (“Be On the Lookout”) alert on him simply for engaging in protected journalistic activities.

The facts remain clear: Reardon was conducting constitutionally protected activities on courthouse steps—a traditional public forum where First Amendment protections are at their strongest. When asked to move his camera equipment, he complied immediately, yet was still arrested when Marshal Newsom forcibly seized his equipment.

Government’s Weak Legal Position

The government’s opposition to Reardon’s motion to dismiss reveals the weakness of their case. They attempt to redefine courthouse steps as “nonpublic forums” to justify their censorship, directly contradicting Supreme Court precedent in United States v. Grace (1983).

Even more telling, the government admits they cannot address Reardon’s as-applied constitutional challenge before trial, essentially acknowledging they need to put him through the ordeal of criminal proceedings before addressing the fundamental constitutional issues at stake.

What This Means for Press Freedom

The addition of another prosecutor signals that this case has become more than just about a single incident—it represents a broader attack on press freedom and the right to criticize government actions. By allocating additional resources to prosecute a journalist for peaceful protest, the government sends a chilling message to independent media and citizen journalists everywhere.

This case now represents a critical test of whether peaceful protest on courthouse steps—a location specifically recognized by the Supreme Court as a traditional public forum—can be criminalized when that protest criticizes government officials.

The Path Forward

Despite the government’s escalation, Reardon’s defense remains strong, grounded in binding Supreme Court precedent that clearly protects political protest in traditional public forums. His defense team has cited Edwards v. South Carolina (1963) and United States v. Hylton, which affirm that criminal sanctions cannot be imposed for the “legitimate and protected exercise of the right to petition for the redress of grievances.”

As this case proceeds with heightened government resources aligned against a single journalist, We the People News will continue to monitor developments and fight for the constitutional rights that protect all Americans’ ability to hold their government accountable.

Don Matthews is the founder of We the People News, an independent journalism platform dedicated to government accountability and constitutional rights.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE- August 27, 2025

Journalist Violently Arrested for Protected Speech: “Cohen v. California Has Already Decided This”

LAFAYETTE, LA — On August 25, 2025, journalist Matthew Oliver Reardon was violently arrested outside the U.S. District Courthouse in Lafayette, Louisiana, for holding a sign reading “Fuck the U.S. Marshals Service.”

The arrest and assault closely parallel the landmark Supreme Court case Cohen v. California (1971), in which the Court overturned a conviction of a man wearing a jacket with the words “Fuck the Draft.” Justice Harlan’s majority opinion declared: “One man’s vulgarity is another’s lyric.”

“The Supreme Court already settled this fifty-four years ago,” Reardon said. “What happened to me is unconstitutional, illegal, and proof of a federal conspiracy to silence journalists.”

Violent Assault by Marshal Hayden Newsom

According to Reardon, U.S. Marshal Hayden Newsom baited him into moving his camera away from a locked courthouse door. As Reardon backed up, Newsom slammed him to the ground, destroying a 4K camera, brand-new gimbal, and tripod.

Inside a holding cell, Newsom allegedly drove his knuckles into Reardon’s chest while he struggled to breathe. When Reardon knocked his arm away in self-defense, Newsom threatened him with a felony charge of “assaulting a federal officer.”

Despite his elevated heart rate (140–160 bpm) and visible distress, medical help was delayed nearly an hour. Paramedics and Newsom accused him of faking to “delay jail.”

Unlawful Transfer and Torture at St. Martin Parish Jail

After being discharged from the hospital, Reardon was shackled and transferred to St. Martin Parish Deputy Olliviette. When asked what charge he was being booked on, Olliviette admitted there was none—only “a hold for the U.S. Marshals.”

“I told him transporting me without charges is kidnapping under 18 U.S.C. § 1201,” Reardon said. “I reminded him of Nuremberg—that ‘just following orders’ is not a defense.”

At St. Martin Parish Jail, Reardon reports being assaulted again. Deputy Olliviette and a female booking officer nearly broke his wrists by hoisting him up by overly tight handcuffs. He was thrown into a freezing cell given only a torn blanket without a mat to lay on the floor.

FOIA Records Confirm Conspiracy

Earlier this year, Reardon filed a FOIA request with the U.S. Marshals Service. The agency produced 14 heavily redacted pages referencing nationwide BOLOs and bulletins targeting him for “First Amendment auditing” and journalism .

“These redactions now demand full disclosure,” Reardon said. “The documents show foreknowledge. The Marshals knew what they planned to do. And then they carried it out—on camera, in plain daylight.”

Call for Accountability

Reardon asserts this chain of events constitutes:

• Retaliation for protected First Amendment activity.
• Destruction of press equipment in violation of constitutional protections.
• Torture and cruel treatment while in federal and parish custody.
• Kidnapping under federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1201) due to detention without charges.

“Marshal Hayden Newsom and Deputy Olliviette tried to silence me through violence and disappearance,” Reardon said. “They failed. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Cohen still stands. And now, so do I.”

See Emergency Fundraiser Here: https://givesendgo.com/fed-assault-and-kidnapping

For Press Inquiries Contact:

Matthew Oliver Reardon

Journalist, We The People News

[email protected]