09/01/2026
🚨🚨$1,500 TO OBEY A SUBPOENA? IDABEL POLICE OFFICERS ATTEMPT TO EVADE SUBPOENA AND DEMAND THEIR OWN FEES.🚨🚨
🚩Two Idabel police officers. An alleged child-abuse matter. An after-midnight drop. And a handwritten demand that Oklahoma’s fee statutes do not recognize.🚩
We were under the impression subpoenas worked like this:
👉🏼You get lawfully served.
�👉🏼You appear.
�👉🏼You tell the truth.
Apparently brand new officer Geoffry Williamson along with Jessica Bullard in McCurtain County would like a fourth option:
💥Write your DEMAND on the paper and give it back.💥
Subpoenas from a McCurtain County District Court, show subpoenas directed to Sgt. Jessica Bullard and Officer Geoffrey Williamson of the Idabel Police Department.
The anticipated testimony, allegedly concerned their official police work in a matter involving allegations of child abuse.
🚨Then the paperwork acquired a price tag! 🚨
Just after midnight an officer arrived on a dark business street and slid paperwork under the door. 🫨
➡️Newly cleet certified Police Officer Geoffry Williamson’s subpoena contains this handwritten notation:
“Work night before & night of both my time is worth more than $20 $1500 per court appearance”
😳😳😳
🤯Yes.
🚩One thousand five hundred dollars. Per appearance.🚩
This “Genius”(we use that loosely 🤣) Williamson has an opinion about the value of his time while being a civil servant and testifying to his time….. while on duty. 😳
Oklahoma law is not an opinion.
🚨WHAT THE CODE ACTUALLY SAYS🚨
Start with process. Under 12 O.S. § 2004.1(E):
🚩“Failure by any person without adequate excuse to obey a subpoena served upon him may be deemed a contempt of the court from which the subpoena issued.”🚩
➡️“Any person” is not a riddle. It includes police officers. There is no handwritten-fee exception.
Contempt is not automatic — the statute says “may be deemed” — but the remedy for a bad subpoena is still a motion, not a markup.
If the subpoena was lawful and the complaint is inconvenience, the code already has a lane for that. Section 2004.1(C)(1) requires the issuing party to avoid undue burden and lets the court sanction lost earnings and attorney fees. That is a court-ordered sanction.
🚩It is not a self-serve $1,500 tariff.🚩
➡️THE FEE STATUTE GOES THE OTHER DIRECTION
This was not, as described to us, testimony about a fender-bender the officers happened to see off duty. It concerned official duties.
That matters because 28 O.S. § 84.1 already answers the money question. 👉🏼Any employee of the state or a political subdivision — a city police officer qualifies — who is subpoenaed to testify on a matter pertaining to employment, including an investigation conducted as a duty of that employment for which the employee is fully compensated, is not entitled to the ordinary witness fee and mileage in 28 O.S. § 81.💥
👉🏼Read that again.
💥The Legislature did not forget about cops. It wrote a statute that says: you already got paid for the work. You do not also collect the $10-a-day civilian witness fee.
The ordinary statutory witness fee, for people who are entitled to it, is $10 per day plus mileage — not $20, and certainly not $1,500.
👉🏼A civil witness who later qualifies and testifies as an expert may seek a reasonable expert fee under 28 O.S. § 81(F). That still requires qualification as an expert, and it still is not a number an officer gets to scribble on the subpoena.
So the question remains embarrassingly simple:🤔
What statute, ordinance, court order, or department policy authorized $1,500 per appearance for testimony about police work?
If one exists, produce it.
Problem solved.
🚨🚨AND WHO, EXACTLY, WAS SUPPOSED TO CASH THE CHECK?🚨🚨
This is not a trick question.
👉🏼Was the $1,500 payable to the City of Idabel?
�👉🏼The police department?�
👉🏼Or the individual officer?
If the money was a personal demand by the officer as the price of appearing to testify about official work, that is a different animal.
If the $1,500 was not paid, would the officer still obey the subpoena?
THAT IS WHY THE CRIMINAL STATUTES GET ASKED ABOUT
Criminal liability requires proof of statutory elements, including intent.
🚩21 O.S. § 1481 defines extortion as obtaining property from another with consent, induced by wrongful force or fear, or under color of official right.🤔🤔
�🚩21 O.S. § 1484 makes extortion under color of official right a misdemeanor where no other punishment is prescribed.🤔
A scribble is not automatically extortion. Obtaining — or conditioning an official act on — unauthorized money is the part that has to be proved. 🤔
Oklahoma also has older public-officer statutes that do not require anyone to use the word extortion:
💥• 21 O.S. § 269(A): an executive officer who asks or receives any emolument, gratuity, or reward for doing an official act, except as authorized by law, commits a misdemeanor.
💥• 21 O.S. § 271: asking or receiving a fee for an official service not actually rendered, or not allowed in advance, is a misdemeanor.
💥• 21 O.S. § 382: peace officers are expressly covered by the bribery statute if they corruptly request a gift or gratuity as consideration for official action.
🚨We are not applying those labels. We are noting that they exist, and that “my time is worth $1,500” is not a defense found in any of them.🚨
Can a public officer condition compliance with a subpoena about official police duties on receiving $1,500?
If someone tried that without lawful authority, which of the statutes above would a prosecutor examine?🤔
OH, AND THIS INVOLVES ALLEGED CHILD ABUSE
That part should not get lost under the sarcasm.
These officers reportedly possess information relevant to allegations involving a child. Police officers investigate, document, interview, and collect evidence. When a court needs them under oath, the public already paid for the underlying work.
Exactly why testimony about that work would require another $1,500 has not been explained by reference to any authority we can find.
“DIGNITY, LEADERSHIP & HONOR”
A publicly available Facebook post dated November 21, 2025, celebrates Officer Geoffrey Williamson’s CLEET completion.
The advice posted with the graduation photographs was:
“Go and serve your community with Dignity, Leadership & Honor.”
Nine months later, his name is on paperwork surrounding subpoenas for official-duty testimony.
Does CLEET teach that subpoenas come with a negotiable appearance fee?
Oklahoma statutes cover that lesson. They cover it at $10 a day for ordinary witnesses, and they cover it at zero extra statutory fee for government employees called about the job they already draw a salary to do.
👮🏻♂️Dignity looks good at graduation.�
Following Title 12 and Title 28 afterward looks better.👀
Until then, the question is the same size it was when the ink hit the page:
If police officers expect everyone else to obey lawful court process, why would complying with theirs cost $1,500?
So much for protecting and serving the community unless they can get additional money from the community members they swore to protect.
