Mayes
County D.A. And Judge Burying Evidence in Felony Case
Monster
Inc Opens a Branch in Mayes County
The latest in the Wagoner County
Commissioner James Hanning Sexual Molestation case is troubling.
First Commissioner Hanning appears to have filed a motion to seal the
record in a felony case where he isn't even a party to, neither
defendant nor plaintiff, but he is a witness so that would be his
reason to seal the case.
By now everyone is painfully aware of
the case and the vast corruption that emanated out of Wagoner County.
It started with a 2016 domestic violence case that even the original
prosecutor said should have never been filed, a case that was not
only over turned, it was voided by a Wagoner County judge.
Now void in the law has a very specific
meaning. It means never existed. Not expunged. Not dismissed. It
never existed at all. Once that is decided anything connected to
the void case is rewound. Any money taken as fines or fees is
returned. Any issues that came about due to the illegal or
unconstitutional or non jurisdictional case is also void.
Yet a judge in Mayes County is not only
continuing a felony prosecution that came about over a deferred
prosecution decision in the original case, she is also allowing
massive amounts of conclusive evidence to be stripped from the
defense. We are talking about witness impeaching testimony and
depositions, where the officers involved changed their stories in
material ways. Even the fact that the original case was completely
voided months ago and that the original prosecutor was caught on tape
saying that the original charges were bogus and that the “victim”
in the case was so crazy that they would have to call the SWAT team
on him if he had to spend any time with her.
Commissioner
Hanning filed a motion to seal the case at some point, the filing
is not showing up on OSCN records but we do find a hearing ordered on
February 2nd of 2021 on the matter. Hanning is probably
desperate to stop another case being public record where the
allegations of sexual molestation of his step daughter are filed as
evidence and his alleged embezzlement and vendetta against Tyler
Paulsen is presented. The felony case started off with a traffic
stop in a small town in Mayes County which was quickly adjudicated by
the city court system, ending with a plea of guilty and the payment
of the fines and fees by the defendant in cash that very same day.
Paulsen headed to DHS the next day it was open, renewed his license
that had lapsed by three or four days, and he went back and retrieved
his vehicle.
Then Commissioner James Hanning of
neighboring Wagoner County heard about the traffic stop.
Commissioner Hanning went to the small town, informed the court clerk
that Paulsen wasn't allowed to possess the handgun that had been in
the car when the car was impounded for the driver having a drivers
license that was expired by a couple of days, leading the city court
to dismiss the entire case AFTER it had been adjudicated. Why
dismiss a case after it had been adjudicated and the fines and fees
paid? So that Mayes County could file felony charges based upon the
fiction that Paulsen was under DOC supervision and wasn't allowed to
possess a gun.
Now none of this gun rights issue was
in the original supervision filings in the 2016 case. Paulsen agreed
to the plea because his gun rights were left intact. If there was
another law or if the law had changed neither Paulsen nor the
original prosecutor Wagoner County ADA Eric Jordan were aware of it.
Commissioner Hanning almost certainly
colluded with Mayes County prosecutor ADA Tom Sawyer and D.A. Mathew
Ballard to file the felony charges in an effort to accelerate the
original 2016 plea deal and put Paulsen in prison where he cannot
defend himself and continue the lawsuit against Commissioner James
Hanning to recover the money and property that was embezzled.
These fraudulent charges were filled in
April of 2018, nearly three years ago. On December 2nd of
2020 Paulsen's attorney filed a
motion for dismissal quoting solid case history and law telling
the judge that no criminal charge can flow from a voided case where
there was never court jurisdiction. Mayes County D.A. Countered
with their own motion, which had no serious or valid case law, and
Paulsen
filed back listing even more reasons why the case should be dismissed
and objected to Mayes County D.A. attempting to quash evidence that
would prove that there was cronyism involved in filing the charges
and ample motivation for Commissioner Hanning to have Paulsen framed
and railroaded.
Mayes County D.A. Mathew Ballard is
attempting to have the following exculpatory evidence precluded from
the criminal trail:
Emails from and to the Adair Police
Department that proved that the Adair police officers changed their
version of how they learned that Paulsen wasn't supposed to have a
weapon in his possession and how his police report and his testimony
at the preliminary hearing had changed radically. And how the
Wagoner County D.A. Office faxed a six page fax without a cover sheet
or acknowledgment in an attempt to disguise who was sending the fax.
The fact that Wagoner County Commissioner James Hanning traveled to
Adair and falsely told the court clerk that Paulsen wasn't supposed
to have a weapon would also be suppressed.
The fact that the original 2016 case
and the Wagoner County motion to accelerate have been dismissed and
declared void.
The fact of litigation between Paulsen
and the Wagoner County D.A. over embezzlement of property and money.
The Sooner Tea Party articles talking
about the taped conversation between the original prosecutor in the
Wagoner County 2016 charges admitting that the Mayes County charges
were retaliation and cronyism. This is where Eric Jordan admitted
that the original charges in 2016 were bogus and politically
motivated and how cronyism was responsible for the Mayes County
charges being filed.
If all of this evidence is precluded
from the trial Paulsen goes in with the deck stacked against justice.
What is a slam dunk case of cronyism leading to retaliation and the
forces of the state criminal justice system used to interfere in a
civil embezzlement case because the defendant happens to be a County
Commissioner is turned into a rail road job on an innocent man.
To understand criminal convictions you
first go to the Uniform Jury Instructions and learn what elements of
the case must be met before a conviction is allowed to occur. In
OS 21-1283 which is the
jury instructions for conviction of possession of a weapon after a
felony conviction or while under probation one of the elements is the
knowledge that a weapon is nearby. The law requires mens rea, or a
guilty mind, meaning the defendant has to know there is a gun in his
vicinity. By the same token he has to know that he isn't supposed to
have a gun. After a felony conviction the defendant gets a set of
instructions that tells him about the loss of gun rights; Paulsen
never had his gun rights restricted so the D.A. never included that
restriction on Paulsen's paperwork. In fact, there never was a
conviction, it was a deferred conviction which never happened.
To understand what knowingly
and willingly mean we have to go to OUJI-CR-6-16. Knowingly
means being aware of the existence of facts that cause the act or
omission to be criminal. You do not have to know the exact law that
makes an act a criminal act but you do have to know it is a criminal
act. Willingly means purposefully. So you would have to know
what you are doing is criminal and do it on purpose.
Another element that must be proven is
that there was a felony conviction which is impossible at this point
as there never was a conviction as it was a deferred conviction,
never happened, could have happened in the future, then voiding the
entire 2016 case meant there is no longer anything left. Void, gone
forever, never was there to begin with kind of void.
Void legally means having zero legal
effect, ab initio which is Latin for “from their inception” which
means they cannot have ever created legal consequences. An example
would be a fine on a voided contract, if the contract was void there
could never be a fine for non compliance with the contract. There is
a voidable contract or right, where the court determines that a
contract is void as of a certain date set by the court, usually at
the decision.
And how can we be certain of this?
Because the court order voiding the 2016 conviction not only said the
conviction was ab initio, it said that the deferred sentence and
probation/supervision order was ab initio. That is void from the
filing of the 2016 criminal case, not from the order voiding the case
in 2020.
Mathew Ballard wants to argue that the
Wagoner County Judge over stepped his power but were that the case
Ballard would be appealing the ruling, which of course is impossible
as he lacks standing in the case.
One has to wonder what Commissioner
James Hanning has on D.A. Mathew Ballard that he is trying so hard
and breaking the law and committing an injustice to railroad this
young man.
Another interesting thing about this
case. At the hearing on the motions to dismiss the judge went beyond
what the filings argued and quoted four cases that she claimed held
her to not dismissing the felony possession gun charge. That is
unusual in district court hearing, this isn't an appeal where the
judges might spend months digging around case law, nearly all judges
are going to read the filings and rule based upon what both sides
give them.
The judge also confused herself on the
difference between a voidable conviction and a conviction ab initio.
She belabored the point that Paulsen could have filed for post
conviction relief and had his conviction over turned back when it
happened but waiting till after he was charged as a felon in
possession of a weapon was too late. This goes back to the very
nature of the 2016 case; there was no jurisdiction, the court had
zero power to take the case, therefore everything that came after was
not just voidable, it was void from the very beginning. An example
is a case where a minor has signed a contract. Doesn't matter when
the minor or former minor objects, what matters is that the law
states that no minor can be held responsible to a contract. This is
not a case where ineffective counsel caused a conviction or didn't
give the defendant a fighting chance; it is a case that never had a
legal basis to be heard due to a lack of jurisdiction.
