Judicial Oversight Questioned in 2017 Restraining Order Case Involving Oxford’s First Family

OXFORD, Miss. – A recorded conversation between journalist and self-represented litigant Matthew Reardon and Judge Little’s law clerk, Tara, has reignited concerns over the handling of a 2017 restraining order issued against Reardon. The case, involving Oxford Mayor Robyn Tannehill and her husband, Rhea Tannehill, raises serious questions about judicial discretion, procedural compliance, and potential conflicts of interest within Lafayette County’s legal system.

At the heart of the controversy is the apparent absence of a security deposit or bond, a requirement under Rule 65 of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure when a restraining order is issued. Reardon, in his call to Judge Little’s office, sought to determine whether any record existed of a bond being posted. Tara, the judge’s law clerk, asserted that the matter was handled by a previous judge and was no longer open to appeal.

The Legal Dispute Over Bond Requirement

Rule 65 states that a security deposit or bond is required to protect the enjoined party if the injunction is later found to be wrongful. However, the court may determine an appropriate sum at its discretion. Reardon contends that while discretion exists, it must be documented in the record. His search of Mississippi Electronic Courts (MEC) revealed no such documentation.

“The rule actually says ‘in such sum as the court deems proper,’ so that means it’s discretionary to the court,” Tara stated.

Reardon, however, rebutted this interpretation:

“The court is allowed discretion to a certain extent, but there must be something in writing to that effect. To just give somebody a free pass and it not be documented or written would be fundamentally unfair.”

The lack of documentation raises further concerns given that the petitioner, Robyn Tannehill, is a prominent public official. Reardon questioned whether political influence played a role in the handling of the case.

Allegations of Fraud and Misrepresentation

Reardon’s skepticism about the restraining order’s legitimacy extends beyond procedural errors. According to him, the allegations contained in the 2017 petition were based on falsehoods, misrepresentations, and constitutionally protected activity.

The restraining order petition, now reviewed as part of this investigation, cites alleged threats and harassment from Reardon. However, Reardon claims that subsequent law enforcement records prove that he was not the aggressor and, in fact, was the one threatened.

“I have obtained law enforcement reports showing that the petitioner (Rhea) actually threatened harm on me,” Reardon stated. “Yet I was the one who was restrained—without a bond, without due process, and based on lies.”

Further, Reardon pointed out that some claims in the restraining order involve speech that should have been protected under the First Amendment. The vague and broad language used in the petition raises concerns about whether the order was improperly granted based on constitutionally protected expression.

Judicial Bias and Lafayette County’s Handling of the Case

Beyond the specifics of the restraining order, Reardon believes his case highlights a broader pattern of judicial bias in Lafayette County, where he alleges officials have repeatedly disregarded due process when he is involved.

“Is this a common practice—that whenever it comes to anything against me, Lafayette County officials immediately get complacent and deflect? … Anything illegal can happen to me, and things are allowed to go by unchecked and unchallenged, no matter how wrong or illegal they are?” Reardon asked during the call.

Tara denied any impropriety and suggested that if Reardon believed he had grounds for relief, he should pursue them through formal legal motions rather than a phone call.

“There is a proper way to present matters to the court, and a telephone call is not that way,” she said.

Reardon, however, argued that previous efforts to seek relief through official channels had been ignored or dismissed without proper review, reinforcing his belief that local officials were more interested in covering up past mistakes than ensuring justice.

A Case That Demands Scrutiny

The 2017 restraining order against Reardon was signed by Judge Alderson, who later retired. The timing of the case, coupled with the absence of a documented bond and the involvement of high-profile local figures, raises significant questions about transparency and fairness in Lafayette County’s judicial process.

While the restraining order remains in place, Reardon’s investigation and continued pursuit of legal accountability suggest that this case is far from over. Whether through legal action or public exposure, he appears determined to bring attention to what he sees as a serious miscarriage of justice.

For now, the question remains:

Was this restraining order a legitimate legal action, or was it a case of judicial favoritism for Oxford’s first family? I believe the facts and evidence now make this an obsolete question