RECEIVEE

   

0 AW OCT 2 2 2019

DCAM RISK MANAGEMENT
October 22, 2019

Office of the Risk Management Administrator

Administrator of the O?ice of Public Affairs
PO. Box 53364

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73152
OTICLLOF CLAIM

This constitutes a ?Notice of Claim? ?led against the County of Oklahoma
County, the State of Oklahoma, and its representative(s) David L. Prater,
Oklahoma County District Attorney in accordance with the Oklahoma
Governmental Tort Claims Act, 51 Okla. Stat. Ann. 156.1

Name of Claimant: William Muller. Mr. Muller is a former Investigator for
the Oklahoma County District Attorney?s Of?ce (May 2017 January 31,
2019). Mr. Muller, who began his career as a Enid and Stillwater Police
Of?cer (1996-2002), served as a Special Agent for the United States Secret
Service (2002?2015) who served as the leads on details for President George
Bush, on high-risk missions in Africa, and as the lead case agent on many
federal cases for the US. Department of Justice. The federal government
recognized Mr- Muller as the Federal Employee of the Year in 2007. An

Eagle Scout himself, Mr. Muller volunteers his time with his son in the Boy
Scouts of America.

Address of Claimant: William Muller, c/o Robert D. Gifford, Attorney-at-

Law, GIFFORD LAW, P.L.L.C., PO. Box 2682, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
73101

 

1 Please note that this claim is also being submitted independently and

separately to both the County Clerk for Oklahoma County and to the State of
Oklahoma as it involves the county of Oklahoma County as well.

P.O. BOX 2682 OKLAHOMA CITY. OK 73101 405.810.5406 877.295.0287 

 

Telephone Number of Claimant: do his attorney at (405) 810-5406.

Date of Occurrence Giving Rise to Claim: January 29, 2019, (date that
claimant was noti?ed), however Mr. Muller was paid through January 31,
2019 and compelled to use his earned vacation leave.

Circumstances of Claim: This is a claim for wrongful termination arising
from Mr. Muller?s refusal to continue an illegal criminal investigation run
only by David Prater, with no open ?le or no other law enforcement agency
investigating, into the Oklahomans for Criminal Justice Reform, one of its
leaders, and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) with state multi-
county grand jury subpoenas that were issued without the required ?probable
cause,? and for the subsequent malicious interference by David Prater into
Mr. Muller?s future employment opportunities.

William Muller served as an Investigator for the Oklahoma County District
Attorney?s Office from May 2017 until January 31, 2019. Mr. Muller, a
career law enforcement of?cer with a decorated and honorable record, joined

the Oklahoma County District Attorney?s Of?ce after serving as a decorated
Special Agent for the United States Secret Service.

Upon his employment with the Oklahoma County District Attorney?s Office,
Mr. Muller was one of the highest paid employees, and was highly revered
due to his experiences as both a police officer and a Secret Service Agent

guarding the President of the United States and in leading high-pro?le
White-collar criminal investigations.

During the course of the employment under District Attorney David Prater,
Mr. Muller became concerned about both the management and integrity of
the office in general. He expressed these concerns to another investigator, as
well as to a senior Assistant District Attorney- These concerns, as a matter of
background, are relevant to the underlying claim now brought by Mr. Muller,
include, but are not necessarily limited to the following practices:

1. Surreptitiously Recorded Conversations. Evidence will show that at

the direction of Mr. Prater, Mr. Muller learned (and was directed to do

RO. BOX 2682 OKLAHOMA CITY. OK 73101 - 403.810.5406 877.293.0287 - 2

 

so himself later) to secretly record the conversations of individuals who
would meet with Mr. Prater. Whether it was an attorney, a legislator,
or even an Oklahoma County Judge, the evidence would show that Mr.
Prater has a practice of regularly and secretly record conversations and
retaining them for later use if necessary.

2. Toxic and Hostile Work Environment. Evidence will show that the
of?ce had a very low morale due to Mr. Prater?s explosive temper and
unexpected outbursts, an unreasonably high turnover rate (25-30
personnel left in year-and-a-hali), a high acquittal rate due to a lack of
guidance and supervision, and concerns over a member of the senior
management day drinking, spending time at strip clubs and
relationships with strippers that were highly publicized, and other
inappropriate behavior that included a prior arrest.

 

3. Evidence of Custody Concerns. Evidence will show that
the on the far west end of the District Attorney?s Of?ce (5th Floor), in
the ?Gang Hall? is an ?Evidence Room.? Should any outside agency,
judicial authority, or member of the defense bar, were to review this
area it would create a great concern over any testimony given
regarding the ?chain of evidence? of any cases. This ?evidence room?
has no ?custodian,? no ?manager,? no ?security controls,? and would
shock the conscience of the public as to the lack of security, control and
disorganization. Notably, there was more than one key to this room,
and most signi?cantly there is no evidence log that tracks when
evidence is checked into this room and when it was checked out. With
the disorganization, lack of security controls and evidence logs, there is
no guarantees that there was no commingling of evidence.

Further, evidence was also kept, unof?cially, in the of?ce of the

Investigator who was responsible for the Technology Evidence 
phone downloads, etc.) on the east end of the District Attorney?s Of?ce
(also on the 5th ?oor). This of?ce. also insecure with unknown number
of keys available for access, as well, with no evidence logs, etc.,

contained the evidence for major cases to include homicides and other
high-level violent crime investigations. This office which is used as a

RO- BOX 2682 OKLAHOMA CITY. OK 73101 403.810.5406 877.295.0267 3

 

?make-shift? evidence room is ?lled with stacks of un?led
reports/search warrant returns, as well as other miscellaneous and
otherwise misplaced evidence. If ever reviewed or audited by an
investigatory agency or the originating law enforcement source would

likely result in both public and judicial concerns on the veracity,
credibility, and reliability of the evidence and testimony as it was
presented in court in Oklahoma County.

4. Misuse of Grand Jury Subpoenas. During the Fall of 2017, Oklahoma
County District Attorney David Prater, without an ongoing
investigation, an open ?le, or without any known ?probable cause? (and
with no other independent law enforcement agency), ordered Mr.
Muller to obtain a Multi-County Grand Jury Subpoena ?'om the
Oklahoma Attorney General?s Of?ce2 to obtain the banking and
?nancial records from Paycom for the organization Oklahomans for
Criminal Justice Reform. Mr. Prater, in his own words, felt that any
reform to criminal justice was ?bullshit,? and expressed great anger
toward any discussion with anything that mentioned ?reform.? This
use of the multi-county grand jury was only after the General Counsel
for Paycom stated he would need a court order or subpoena. This
rebu? by the Paycom General Counsel angered Prater, who then
ordered Muller to contact Sheila Tif?n at Attorney General?s Of?ce?s

Multi-County Grand Jury Unit and get subpoenas to be issued to
Paycom for disclosure of the records.

The aim of Mr. Prater?s personal inquiry, as stated directly by Mr.
Prater to Muller, was to find incriminating or compromising
information pertaining to Former Speaker of the Oklahoma House of
Representatives Kris Steele, one of the most visible leaders of the
criminal justice reform movement in Oklahoma?J The scope of the

 

2 Notably, and tellingly of the Oklahoma County District Attorney?s knowledge
of a probable cause requirement before issuing a grand jury subpoena, David
Prater once served as an Assistant Attorney General in the grand jury unit.

3 Kris Steele served in the Oklahoma state legislature for 12 years, including

two years as speaker of the House. He is chairman of Oklahomans for Criminal

RO. BOX 2682 OKLAHOMA CITY. OK 73101 . 405.810.5406 - 877.295.0287 . 4

 

investigation also included efforts to review donations from national
of?ce of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) based in New York
City and represented by their af?liate in Oklahoma by the ACLU of
Oklahoma to the criminal justice reform movement in Oklahoma. No
other investigative agency was involved, there was no case file assigned
to the investigation, no court ?lings, and it was not until later that Mr.
Muller realized that the Oklahoma County District Attorney
apparently did not have the lawfully required ?probable cause? to

obtain grand jury subpoenas from the Attorney General and have them
issued to Paycom.

As a matter of reference, to even initiate an investigation against any
private citizen, a law enforcement investigator would need at a
minimum a ?reasonable suspicion.? See Whren v. United States, 517
US. 806, 809-10 (1996). To request a multi-county Grand Jury
Subpoenas from the Oklahoma Attorney General is a higher standard.
A District Attorney must have at least ?probable cause? before ever
issuing grand jury subpoenas to obtain private documents.

As the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals has stated, because
without probable cause has a standard, ?a DA. could abuse the rights
of any citizen by circumventing a citizen?s constitutional rights by
seeking the evidence through a grand jury subpoena. In effect, district
attorneys would be provided with a license to obtain evidence without
being required to meet constitutional standards.? Woolverton 12. Multi-
County Grand Jury Okla. Cty., 1993 OK CR 42, 859 P.2d 1112. In this
matter, Mr. Prater (an attorney and not an investigator) had no
?reasonable suspicion,? much less the legally required ?probable cause?
to seek from the Attorney General multi-county grand jury as his
personal weapon against his ?political enemies.? This action by Mr.

Prater represents an extraordinary departure from the appropriate use
of the immense power and discretion that rests with District Attorneys.

 

Justice Reform, which led the campaign to pass State Questions 780 and 781
and serves as executive director of The Education and Employment Ministry.

P.O. Box 2682 OKLAHOMA CITY. OK 73101 - 405.810.5406 - 877.293.0287 5

 

The Review of the Grand Records. During his ordered review of the
grand jury documents, Mr. Muller could not ?nd any wrongdoing by the
ACLU, Oklahomans for Criminal Justice Reform, House Speaker Kris Steele,
or any other party for that matter. Upon ?nding no evidence of criminality,
Mr. Muller advised the Oklahoma County District Attorney David Prater of
his ?ndings. Mr. Prater immediately became irrational and angry upon
learning about the outcomes of Mr. Muller?s investigation. Mr. Prater then
took the Grand Jury documents into his office, not secured, and later
questioned Muller again about his ?ndings, in which Muller again explained
expenditures and defended them. It was at that point, Mr. Muller?s position
within the eyes of the District Attorney drastically changed.

With Mr. Muller?s investigation resulting in no evidence of criminal conduct
by leaders and organization in the criminal justice reform movement,
including the ACLU, Oklahomans for Criminal Justice Reform, Kris Steele,
Mr. Muller went from being a highly respected member of the of?ce to
becoming the target of Mr. Prater?s hostility and outrage. Mr. Muller was
then excluded from meetings he was routinely invited into, no longer spoken
with, and appeared to be forced on the outside of things of the office. Mr.
Muller shared these concerns with other investigators and with at least one
senior Assistant District Attorney.

On or about January 29, 2019, Mr. Muller briefed the District Attorney about
an ongoing political corruption case with the conclusion with the evidence
supporting moving forward against the target of the investigation. After
which, Prater called two Oklahoma County Sheriff?s Deputies into the of?ce
Where then Prater lost control of himself and began to yell and curse
uncontrollably. Prater then order the search of Muller?s own bag, took his
personal ?rearm, and kept demanding and cursing at Muller demanding
where his other ?rearms were. Muller asked what was going on and what

brought was about, but Prater refused to answer and would only personally
berate Muller in front of the First Assistant and others. Mr. Muller was then
escorted from the of?ce in front of all of the personnel.

PO. Box 2682 OKLAHOMA CITY. OK 73101 405-810.3406 - 877.295.0287 6

 

Shortly thereafter, Prater sent an email to the entire Oklahoma County

District Attorney?s Office stating that Muller was no longer employed and
that he was ?prohibited from entry to any of our of?ces or buildings. Any
contact from Muller to you should be reported to me immediately. Do not

print or forward this message to anyone.? (emphasis added).

Shortly thereafter, Oklahoma County D.A. David Prater, without cause,
personally and maliciously sent an email on a statewide listserv (group
email) to the Oklahoma Chiefs of Police Association notifying every single
police agency that Mr. Muller, many of whom knew Mr. Muller personally as
a police officer and Secret Service Agent, had been terminated from his
position as an Investigator from the Oklahoma County District Attorney?s
Office. It is believed that Mr. Prater may have done similar through other
law enforcement group emails listservs. The evidence will show that this was
not only unprecedented but done only to maliciously interfere with Mr.
Muller?s ability to obtain future employment.

Mr. Muller was never noti?ed of the reasons for his termination. When given

an opportunity for Prater to contest any unemployment compensation for
misconduct, he did not.

State Agency Involxed: The Oklahoma County District Attorney?s Of?ce
and the District Attorney David Leonard Prater}. While Oklahoma is a
prime example of conservative-led de-incarceration efforts, with voters
overwhelmingly supporting a ballot initiative (Oklahoma State Question 780)
to change several drug and property felonies into misdemeanors in 2016,
Oklahoma County District Attorney David Prater has publicly resisted
criminal justice reform at every turn. Mr. Prater has referred to leaders in
the criminal justice reform movement as liars and exercises a powerful voice
in the District Attorney?s Council and the District Attorneys Association. He

 

4 This Claim is, at this time, against Mr. Prater is made in his of?cial
capacity, but his egregious acts exceed the scope of his duties under the law,
and the professional responsibility obligations as accorded to attorneys by the
Oklahoma Supreme Court, thus there may be a potential claim against Mr.
Prater in his personal capacity as well.

[10. Box 2682 OKLAHOMA CITY. OK 73101 405.810.5406 877.293.0287 7

 

supports mandatory minimums for drugs and stated his belief that any
reduction in Oklahoma?s drug offender prison population will lead to more
burglary and theft. Prater supports mandatory minimums for drugs and
stated his belief that any reduction in Oklahoma?s drug offender prison
population will lead to more burglary and theft. He also opposed State
Question 780. Prater also continues to actively seek the death penalty (often
unsuccessfully, with jurors rejecting it), in a county with a particularly sordid
capital punishment history under scandalized former District Attorney who

used a fraudulent forensic analyst he called ?Black Magic? to construct a
?courtroom of death.?

Nature of Injury: Mr. Muller seeks compensation and damages from the
hostile work environment as created by the Oklahoma County District
Attorney David L. Prater, the unlawful termination of his employment as an
investigator for the Oklahoma County District Attorney?s Of?ce, and David

L. Prater?s malicious and intentional interference in Mr. Muller?s future
employment opportunities. This termination arose due to Mr. Muller?s lawful
and moral refusal to pursue a blatantly unlawful investigations of private
citizens and ?political enemies? after D.A. Prater?s gross grand jury abuse and
for the tortious interference of Mr. Muller?s future employment opportunities

in law enforcement with Mr. Prater?s malicious and intentional contacting all
Oklahoma law enforcement leaders and made.

Compensation Demanded: The claimant seeks the statutory limit
pursuant to the Government Tort Claims Act $125,000.00. Due to the
intentional and malicious acts, punitive damages are also authorized
pursuant to 23 0.8. 9.1. See also Lierly v. Tidewater Petroleum Corp, 2006
OK 47, 139 P-3d 897. Please note that an insurer (for either the county or
state) may not indemnify the insured for punitive damages awarded against
the insured unless awarded for the acts of one for Whom the insured is legally

responsible under the doctrine of respondeat superior. Dayton?Hudson Corp-

v. American Mutual Liab. Ins. 00., 1980 OK 193, 621 P.2d 1155.
Attorney ?thorized to Settle Claim: Robert D. Gifford, GIFFORD
LAW, P.L.L.C., P.O. Box 2682, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73101;
(405) 810-5406.

PO. Box 2682 OKLAHOMA CITY. OK 73101 - 405.810.5406 - 877.295.0287 - 8

 

mm

It is requested that this matter be resolved in a fair and equitable matter on

behalf of Mr. Muller, in the interests of justice, and in the interests of the
Oklahoma taxpayer.

GIFFORD LAW, P. .L.C.

ROBERT D.
Attorney and Founder

 

9.0. Box 2682 OKLAHOMA CITY. OK 73101 - 405.810.5406 877.293.0287