A judge on Tuesday confirmed an earlier injunction temporarily banning Moffett Police from patrolling any highways or land not in the town's original township.

During the Tuesday hearing, Associate District Judge A.J. Henshaw heard and later overruled a motion made by Moffett's attorney, Rex Earl Starr of Stilwell, asking the court to reconsider a temporary injunction granted on Sept. 25 that limits Moffett Police's patrol to its original township.

Henshaw also heard arguments from those who are fighting the town's 2001 annexation of various tracts of property. The opposition included the Sequoyah County Commission's attorney, Dan George of Sallisaw, and Frank Sullivan II, Sallisaw attorney who has joined on the annexation debate. Sullivan represents Preston Cloud, owner of Cheyenne Gentlemen's Club which is located on U.S. Highway 64.

Henshaw granted the temporary injunction on Sept. 25 in the civil case that involves questions over the legality of the town's 2001 annexation of U.S. Highway 64, State Highway 64D to Dora, old Highway 64, and other tracts of land.

The annexation issue has been debated over the years, but in January 2006 the town's then attorney asked for a declaratory judgment to confirm the town's annexation was done properly after questions arose in different felony cases about the town's police jurisdiction.

In response to the declaratory judgment request, Sequoyah County Commissioners in April 2006 hired Sallisaw attorneys George and Fourth Scoufos to represent the county in the court case.

George and Scoufos rejected the declaratory judgment request and filed the motion for temporary injunctive relief, leading to Henshaw's Sept. 25 decision.

While original reports suggested police would be banned from parts of state and federal roadways, the order that was filed Oct. 10 in district court limits Moffett Police patrol to only the town's original municipality, which includes a half-mile of old Highway 64 and about seven city blocks long and three and a half blocks wide.

That order prompted Starr to question if it corresponded with the judge's original decision made in open court on Sept. 25. Starr said he was under the impression that Moffett Police could still patrol parts of U.S. Highway 64.

Starr said the initial order he received from George differed from the one that was signed by Henshaw and filed in district court. He said the order he first saw banned police from patrolling three tracts of land, including U.S. Highway 64D. But the one that was ultimately signed by Henshaw banned police patrol of seven tracts of land and limited patrol to the original municipality - details that Starr rejected as the court's original decision.

"The court has issued an order and it's been filed," Henshaw said.

Starr argued that the order was only filed by Sullivan and neither George nor the county commissioners' other attorney, Fourth Scoufos, signed it.

"It's been signed by the court," Henshaw said firmly.

Starr argued that he should have a chance to put on evidence, including testimony from Kathy Luper, the town's board of trustees chairperson, to show that the town's 2001 annexation was done correctly.

Both George and Sullivan opposed Luper testifying, arguing that Starr should have put on evidence at the previous hearing when the injunction was filed by George or should be held until the Dec. 10 trial.

Henshaw said Tuesday's proceeding was not set for an evidentiary hearing, but was set for a motion to reconsider. "Where are you going with this?" Henshaw questioned Starr.

Starr argued that the commissioners should not have standing to participate in this case. Starr said Luper was prepared to testify about the 2001 annexation and that notices were given to landowners.

Starr said Luper was also prepared to testify that the police department has since the Sept. 25 order received requests from the Oklahoma Highway Patrol to assist on accidents and other matters.

Sullivan disagreed with Starr's argument.

"I think this is in essence the second bite of the apple," Sullivan said. "They had their first bite of the apple. I don't believe it's appropriate."

George added that they stated clearly in the injunction what they were seeking. "The town was put on notice," George said. "They did not put on any evidence. I don't think it's right to start all over."

After hearing more arguments from Starr, George and Sullivan, Henshaw asked Luper to step down from the witness box.

Henshaw pointed to the order issued by the court at the previous hearing that restricted Moffett Police patrol to its original municipality. He indicated that the town asked the court to decide if the annexation was done correctly, and that question requires the court to go back to the beginning and look at previous annexations.

Henshaw said it would appear to the court it would be the town exhibiting a "very cavalier attitude" of patrolling portions of a highway that they are unsure were annexed properly. He pointed to the state and federal civil liability and criminal sanctions if police were acting outside their jurisdiction.

"For the town to continue to enforce laws on highways that you're not sure are in the town, it's not good business," Henshaw said.

Henshaw said they will have to back up to "square one" and look at each tract of land.

"It may come that these areas were properly annexed," Henshaw said. But until then, Henshaw pointed out that officers could not make statements under oath about traffic stops if they are unsure about the town's boundaries.

"You may very well, Mr. Starr, be able to prevail on the evidentiary portion," Henshaw said. In the meantime, he said, he couldn't see how it would be in the best interest to patrol on roads that are unsure were properly annexed.

Henshaw emphasized that the next hearing is Dec. 10 and testimony will be heard at that time.

After the hearing, Luper and Starr said that they have documents that back up that the 2001 annexation was done properly.

Sullivan's research into the 2001 annexation led him to attempted annexations by the town that dated back to 1974 - annexations that were rejected by the county commissioners and by landowners at that time. Sullivan also uncovered county meeting minutes from 1975 that show an annex was denied by the county commissioners, which would mean that a later 1998 annexation could be invalid.

Luper noted that the police department has not patrolled outside its original municipality since Sept. 25. But she said she has radio logs detailing requests from other law enforcement officials, including the OHP, asking Moffett for assistance on two auto accidents. She said Moffett Police had to deny those requests.

"OHP requesting their assistance one or two times does not erase the fact they have abused their police powers," Sullivan countered. "They have done a lot of damage in the way they have treated people. It's about time they're off the road."

In the meantime, a Dec. 10 hearing is planned, where all evidence will be presented and the judge will make a decision.

"He's protecting the public and protecting Moffett from potentially being sued," he said of Henshaw.

While Starr and Luper disagree over the judge's ruling, Luper said, "I totally agree this situation needs to be resolved one way or the other."

Sullivan argues that the town has been patrolling roads for over 25 years that were never theirs to patrol in the first place. Sullivan maintains that the earliest the town can make any claim to rights to patrol U.S. Highway 64 is 2001 - the annexation that is currently under debate in court.