Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Public Comment Legal Notice topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Two public commenters tell Claremore council they are giving notice of alleged constitutional violations in Oklahoma prosecutions

5322741 · July 7, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Two civil-rights litigators delivered long public comments alleging that Oklahoma prosecutions violate the U.S. Constitution and asked the council to take notice; city staff clarified the council may listen but not respond during call to public.

Two out-of-town civil-rights advocates spoke during the public-comment portion of the Claremore City Council meeting to deliver a formal notice alleging widespread constitutional violations in Oklahoma criminal prosecutions.

Jessica Saxton, who identified herself as a civil-rights advocate and litigator from Washington, D.C., told the council that state charging practices permitting information filings instead of grand-jury indictments are unlawful and framed the issue as a constitutional violation under the U.S. Constitution. Saxton cited the Fifth Amendment and other constitutional provisions and said her remarks were provided as notice to the body.

Tana (Tanaqua) Downey, who said she was litigating on behalf of affected people in Oklahoma, expanded on the claim and described a large number of affidavits she said she has collected on alleged constitutional violations, including the allegation that convictions are void where state procedures conflicted with constitutional requirements. Downey urged the council to take action, saying that once the council has notice there is a statutory obligation to respond by reviewing the allegation or stopping the payment of public officials who are allegedly violating the constitution.

Mayor and staff advisory At the start of the public-comment period, the city attorney advised speakers that under the Open Meetings Act the council may listen but may not engage in a back-and-forth response during the call-to-public segment and that each speaker had a three-minute time limit.

Why it matters The speakers asked an elected local body to acknowledge and act on allegations about statewide criminal-processing practices. The council did not debate or take action on the legal claims during the meeting; the items appeared as public comment only.

Quotes “I’m the city’s attorney, and I give an advisory at the beginning of the evening… anything you say, the council can listen, but it can’t respond to,” a city attorney said to speakers at the start of call to public.

“We continue to pay public officials to break the law,” Jessica Saxton said, urging council members to consider constitutional provisions she cited.

Ending Speakers left written material with the clerk for the record. The council did not respond to the legal claims during the meeting; any formal investigation or action would require a separate agenda item or staff follow-up.