Jun. 7—A court document filed by the attorney for Pittsburg County Sheriff Chris Morris claims investigators “ommited facts” in probable cause affidavits that led to felony charges and interim suspension for the sheriff.

Morris and his attorney Jeremy Beaver made the claim in an objection to a petition for his removal filed by the Pittsburg County Board of Commissioners.

Beaver in the court document filed Thursday objected to the Board’s removal petition argued the petition is based on “an editorialized version of the facts and evidence that has been collected” and asked the judge to determine the burden of proof needed for such a petition.

Creek County Associate District Judge Laura Farris ordered the interim suspension of Morris Thursday after ruling Oklahoma Title 22 § 1195 does not give the court opportunity to collect additional evidence outside the filing of a petition and accompanying affidavits.

The Board’s petition states habitual or willful neglect of duty, corruption in office, and willful maladministration apply in the accusation against Morris.

“Defendant Christopher Morris’ acts were in contrary to a known duty, were inexcusably reckless in performing/failing to perform official duties; all of which constitute willful maladministration,” the Board’s petition states.

The petition states Morris “has willfully and habitually, with bad or evil purpose, neglected the duties of his office by deliberately acting/failing to act contrary to known duties or acing in an excusably reckless manner” after he signed an odometer disclosure falsifying the miles on a title that transferred ownership of the UTV from Morris to a local dealership when repair documents from showed a different mileage.

Morris and his attorney claim Morris’ signature on the disclosure was forged along with a forged signature from one of the dealership’s employees. Other repair documents obtained by investigators show several repair documents created in a short time frame that all show different mileages.

“The allegations made against the sheriff are rife with factual disputes,” the objection states.

The petition claims Morris neglected the duties of his office by failing to prevent crime after he misrepresented the condition of a Polaris UTV to a local dealership to obtain a higher trade-in value and admitting he removed items that added value, while knowing the sheriff’s office could not purchase a used vehicle.

The objection filed by Morris and his attorney states Morris never admitted to removing any accessories during recorded interviews with investigators. The mechanic who did the work stated he did remove the rear lift kit but kept the front on the side by side with the document stating Morris forgot he had removed one of the kits.

“A perfect memory is not required to be sheriff, but that seems to be the exception of the county/state in its accusation,” the document states.

The document also claims the sheriff does not make the final decision whether or not to purchase certain items for the county, with that job falling on the county clerk’s office.

“Sheriffs and other county officers who make purchase requirements for their office can not be held to the standard of a purchasing agent under Oklahoma law,” the motion states.

On the issue of the claim Morris never brought the Polaris to the dealership to be properly accessed for a trade-in value based on the testimony of the owner of the dealership, Morris and his attorney state investigators spoke with several employees of the dealership who said they did see the vehicle on their lot, court documents state.

“Why would the sheriff misrepresent the condition or the accessories on the vehicle if he clearly left it on the lot for his alleged misrepresentations to be discovered,” the document states.

Morris and his attorney also state that when it comes to the charges of bribery by a public official, the objection states the mechanic never said during an interview with investigators that Morris told him to “upcharge” repairs on county vehicles to receive a discount on a lift kit.

On the claim of Morris received free repair work on his personal vehicle on the promise to bring future business from county vehicles, the mechanic who did the work did say in his interview that he did the work because he believed he would get business, but the document claims the mechanic never communicated that to Morris.

“There is absolutely no evidence that Sheriff Morris knew” that was the purpose of the free repair or that Morris “accepted it for that reason,” court documents state.

Court documents show the investigator’s recordings were filed under seal Thursday through a joint agreement with attorneys from both sides prior to the July 22 trial.

County commissioners are expected to appoint an interim sheriff during their Monday morning meeting at the Pittsburg County Courthouse, according to an agenda filed Friday morning.