Oxford Mayor Restraining Order Scandal: Police Reports Expose Lies & Judicial Corruption

OXFORD, MS– A 2017 restraining order issued against journalist Matthew Reardon is now under intense scrutiny, as newly obtained police reports contradict the claims made by Rhea and Robyn Tannehill on their petition to justify the order. The evidence not only debunks allegations that Reardon was a threat, but it also reveals that Rhea Tannehill himself made a documented threat of extreme physical violence against Reardon in the courthouse on May 30, 2017—an allegation that was conveniently omitted from the Tannehills’ legal filings.

With no police evidence supporting the restraining order, and multiple proven falsehoods in the petition, the case raises serious legal and constitutional concerns about the misuse of judicial power to silence a political critic.

Police Reports Contradict the Restraining Order’s Claims

A public records request confirmed that only three police reports exist involving Reardon in May 2017, the same month the restraining order was issued. None of them provide any evidence that Reardon was dangerous, nor do they support the Tannehills’ claims of threats or harassment.

1. May 5, 2017 – Reardon Was the One Threatened

• Reardon filed a police report stating that a woman named Nicki Preuitt posted on Facebook that she would punch him in the mouth.

• There was no report of Reardon threatening anyone.

2. May 13, 2017 – No Evidence of Threatening Texts to Terry Warren

• The restraining order falsely claims that Reardon sent threatening texts to Terry Warren.

• However, the the police report classifies the incident as “harassing text messages”, not threats.

• This is a critical contradiction, proving that the restraining order contained a falsehood to justify its issuance.

3. May 25, 2017 – Reardon Lawfully Exercising His Rights

• Reardon was observed walking near the Lafayette County Courthouse carrying a flag and firearms.

• The police report explicitly states that Reardon was not acting as a threat.

• This directly contradicts #18 in the petition for the restraining order, which states that numerous people contacted the Oxford Police Department to report that Reardon was dangerous.

• In reality, no police report from May 2017 describes Reardon as dangerous.

Rhea Tannehill’s Documented Threat Against Reardon

Perhaps the most damning revelation from these reports is that Rhea Tannehill himself threatened extreme physical violence against Reardon on May 30, 2017, in the hallway outside the courtroom.

According to the Lafayette County Sheriff’s Office report, after the restraining order hearing, Reardon and Rhea Tannehill encountered each other in the hallway. Reardon called out Tannehill for lying, to which Tannehill attempted to rush at Reardon while holding a water bottle, yelling that he would “bash [Reardon’s] head in.”

“I then stepped in front of Rhea and told him to leave,” the reporting officer stated.

Despite clear documentation of Tannehill threatening violence, no restraining order was issued against him. Meanwhile, Reardon was portrayed as a threat in the court filing—despite no police report supporting that claim.

A Restraining Order Used as a Prior Restraint on Speech

The police report from May 30, 2017, also proves that the restraining order was used to silence Reardon from speaking at Oxford City Hall.

• Judge Glenn Alderson extended the restraining order after Rhea Tannehill informed him that Reardon was scheduled to speak at a City Hall meeting on June 6, 2017—the same day Robyn Tannehill was elected mayor.

• Alderson specifically instructed law enforcement that if Reardon showed up to speak, he was to be arrested.

• This is a textbook example of unconstitutional prior restraint, where the government uses legal means to prevent someone from speaking publicly.

“The timing and intent behind this restraining order are now clear,” Reardon stated. “It was never about protecting anyone. It was about silencing me at a critical political moment.”

Proven Falsehoods in the Restraining Order

These police reports completely discredit multiple claims in the restraining order petition:

• Claim: Reardon sent “threatening texts” to Terry Warren.

• Fact: The police report classifies the incident as “harassing text messages,” not threats.

• Claim: “Numerous people” contacted Oxford Police to report that Reardon was dangerous.

• Fact: Only three reports exist for May 2017, and not one describes Reardon as dangerous.

• Claim: The restraining order was necessary for protection.

• Fact: Rhea Tannehill, not Reardon, made a documented violent threat, yet no action was taken against him.

The Legal and Political Implications

This new evidence raises serious legal and constitutional concerns:

• Did the Tannehills knowingly submit false information to obtain a restraining order?

• Did Judge Alderson violate Reardon’s First Amendment rights by extending the order under political pressure?

• Was the restraining order used as a tool of political retaliation rather than a legitimate legal safeguard?

The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that prior restraints on speech are unconstitutional unless an extreme threat exists. The police reports show that no such threat ever existed. (New York Times Co. v. United States (1971))

A Case of Judicial Corruption?

With documented falsehoods in the restraining order petition, evidence of a physical threat made against Reardon, and a clear violation of First Amendment rights, this case raises the possibility of judicial corruption in Lafayette County.

As Reardon continues to investigate, this case could become a landmark example of how judicial power can be abused for political and personal agendas.

For now, the question remains:

Was this restraining order a legal safeguard, or was it a blatant act of judicial corruption designed to silence a political critic?