Part Two of the Real Serial Rapists of Tulsa and Wagoner County Work for the Government
Gotta pardon the poor shot of Lt. Darin Ehrenrich, this was coming out of the Friday hearing on the Jeff Krigel persecution and the phone was booting up after being turned off so I wasn't able to set the guy up for a good shot but the camera came online just before the elevator doors closed.
Ehrenrich is the detective responsible for the false rape charges against Krigel and in the other case, the Timothy Hankins false rape charges which resulted in the break down of the "victim", one Ashley Nix, and her admission that she had lied about the rape to avoid disciplinary action for banging co workers. Hankins was found innocent by the jury and is now suing Ehrenreich and the City of Tulsa.
Ehrenrich doesn't look like much in person. Reminds me of the dudes in the nineties that would go to clubs with a belt a foot longer than necessary, maybe a roach clip with feathers and beads hanging off his belt. Slight build, not particularly confident, a bit of a lurker that came across as socially inept and awkward. But he has quiet the imagination it seems.
In the Hankins trial there were multiple clear videos of Ashley Nix clearly in control, not drugged in any way, and of her being the aggressor in wanting sex. Like in the Krigel case there as zero evidence and only Nix's word that she had been raped. We are going to run that story soon but for now it is enough to know that this Darin Ehrenrich has a history of false charges despite the lack of evidence or the evidence showing innocence.
No one really knows why Darin Echrenrich falsely accused these two men. Was it to hook up with Ashley Nix? Just doing a favor for a friend? Whatever the reason Echrenich's reputation is in tatters and casts serious doubt upon the Krigel case.
Enough of the rambling today, the point of this article is to go over what we have learned this week on the Krigel false persecution. After reviewing thousands of pages of filings between June and December of 2021 a pattern is clear; the prosecutors and judges are doing all they can to prevent Krigel from receiving a fair trial and they don't seem to care if it turns into a mistrial for the refusal to hand over the evidence so Krigel's lawyers can prepare for trial.
If you read the blogs of the butt kissing type of lawyers in Oklahoma you will be told that the prosecutor only has to give you the evidence ten days before trial but if the lawyer has a good relationship with the prosecutors office...well they can have access to the evidence much sooner. Indeed the statutes do state that in some cases the evidence has to be disclosed no more than 10 days before the preliminary hearing, where a judge decides if there is enough evidence to hold you on the charges. The reality though is that for serious cases there are other rules including what the American Bar Association calls an "open file process" where a judge can allow discovery immediately upon being petitioned by the defendant. This came about from a 1990 Supreme Court case with a defendant named Allen up in Washington County. You can read about the Allen case and the changes in an old bar association journal story at this link.
So basically there are two kinds of lawyers in the criminal defense arena, the butt kissers that brag about their relationship with the D.A. and the real trial attorneys that from day one plan on defending you at trial. If you are guilty, the butt kisser is your best bet. He can cut a deal with the D.A. after stripping you of $10,000 to $50,000 in retriners, probably taking your house as well, and pretty much keep you out of jail somewhat. Perhaps with a deferred or suspended sentence in exchange for pleading guilty.
But the trial lawyer, like Jeff Krigel, is going to fight to prove your innocence. This pisses both judge and prosecutor off big time. Trials cost around $10,000 a day and the docket is packed, they need 95% of the defendants to lay down and plead guilty just to function. Or the prosecutor would have to be selective about taking cases and only charge those that have actual probable cause and evidence that they are actually guilty. Oh my, the unemployed lawyers! The hit to the court budget from a lack of cases and thousands of dollars per case in fees. The supporting businesses like research, technical/IT firms that lose money. And the prosecutor's win rate plummets.
So after reading through the first six months of filings in the Krigel case, we have a large set of pissed off judges, prosecutors, and detectives that absolutely loathe Jeff Krigel. Despite immediate filings asking for the evidence as of the close of 2021 Krigel's attorneys had relative little from the Wagoner County D.A. Jack Thorpe and his subordinate John Bennett. On Friday before the start of the trial, I asked Bennett to identify himself while we were waiting for the judge and bailiffs to appear. I got a gruff "NO!" for my trouble. No doubt Bennett is butt hurt over last week's article or the dozens of articles done over the years on the crooked work he does there in Wagoner County.
The result of the hearing on Friday was that there is a new judge and a new attorney representing Krigel who spent a bit of time calming down the judge and prosecutor and assuring him that a lot of motions that clog this case would be looked at and prioritized and some even dismissed. The judge asked John Bennett to do the same. Bennett was adamant that he refused to discuss a bond hearing for the defendant despite the new attorney making it clear that he needed to spend a lot of time with Krigel and have access to Krigel's files.
But what caused all of these filings that clogged the docket in this case?
Short answer is the previous judges, prosecutors, the Tulsa Police Department, and the uncooperative state witnesses. No doubt that at some point Krigel's attorneys or Krigel himself started trotting out some filings that while accurate, they served to enrage the Court system and the clowns in the prosecutors office. Krigel was posting some truth that wasn't ever allowed in the judicial system.
Here is a run down of the filings we have read so far:
6-11-21 Amended Order - Judge Tanya Wilson
appointed special master to look through Krigel's seized computers
and documents. This allegedly is to prevent the prosecutor from going on a fishing trip but there are Crime-fraud exceptions if Wilson runs across documents that point to illegal activity. Not the way to handle things, the subpoenas that Krigel filed at least allowed the witnesses to do their own winnowing of evidence.
6-11-21 Entry Shannon M. McMurry
enters as attorney of record. Krigel's first attorney.
6-11-21 INFO This is the charging document for a single count of first
degree rape alleged to have happened on the 29th/30th of April 2021 along with
a list of witnesses, detective, sheriff deputy, one nurse, ex wife, and some friends. We have not laid our hands on the affidavit of probable cause and at the hearing on Friday Krigel's new attorney was concerned about that because it was quite provocative and made some wild claims that wound up being only one charge for the better part of a year and a half.
6-11-21 Order Appoints judge James
Hoover as Special Master, it seems that Judge Wilson was replaced quickly. Not sure why.
6-11-21 Release Released from custody
on bond June 11th. The accounts differ, either $200,000 or $250,000 bond. Very excessive for a rape case which is normally set by bond schedule at $40,000 but they wanted Krigel sitting in jail and unable to defend himself.
6-18-21 MOD Defendant's Motion for Discovery
Filed June 18th, an extensive list of both general and specific evidence that Krigel's attorney needed to defend him. We will see that six months later little if anything has been handed over.
6-25-21 Entry of Appearance Andrew
Casey as attorney of record Foshee and Yafee OKC Now this one puzzles me. This firm is known more for backing the Chamber of Commerce types and in OKC as well. Perhaps Krigel was thinking he needed an out of town attorney?
9-1-21 Motion for return of property - The search warrant is executed on June 11th but a copy is said to never be filed with the court, it doesn't have an affidavit of probable cause attached as required by 22 OS 1237, and no return posted stating what was taken in the search as required by Oklahoma Statute 22 OS 1223. The defendant's motion asks the court to return all the property as the data from the electronics is on an external hard drive in the hands of Judge Wilson as of 7/30/2021. Privileged info for other clients needs returned so that Krigel can make a living and represent the clients that paid him. The filing asks for no more than 10 to 20 days before the court has to hold a hearing, and if the motion is granted the D.A. has to return the evidence within 10 days of being ordered.
9-1-21 Motion #2 - for specific and supplemental discovery not included in the initial request for discovery/disclosures. Interviews of Duran, Haney, Sherman, and Barksdale are requested, most of which appear to be close friends of the "victim" Jessica Haney, Duran is Stephanie Duran, Krigel's ex wife at the time an employee of the D.A. office. All info on calls or interviews, Text messages between Krigel and Haney, between Haney and Duran, SANE interview info including drug screening to find out if there were any drugs in her system (in the Hankin/Nix case there were no drugs other than some amphetamine), info on communications between OBA General Counsel office, Steve Sullins, Ehrenrich, Tulsa PD, and the AG. Facebook communication between Duran and Sherman, 2019 messages and 2016. Margaret Nobel / Duran Face Book messages, Dallas Police Department, Southern Methodist University Police Department, San Antonio PD, and Houston PD notes or reports. The 2005 docs on the Yancy/Baugh SMU allegations which Krigel was cleared on. Oklahoma Bar Association messages to Tulsa D.A., Wagoner County D.A, Wagoner County Sheriff Office, Tulsa County Sheriff Office, Tulsa Police Department for the last 3 years. They want to know if Krigel's I phone is still sharing location with Haney. All of Krigel's electronic devices so they can be dumped and find out what the D.A. found on the devices, and all other discovery that has not been provided.
Imagine going through all of this and investigating in ten days before the preliminary hearing?
9-1-21 Motion 3 Defendant's Motion to compel compliance with Subpoena Duces Tecum Stephanie Duran-Quintana received her subpoena July 23rd, had one week to comply, and was ordered to appear at McMurray law office by August 2nd, she of course failed to do so. Contempt of court is in order, Krigel's lawyers need Duran compelled to act on the subpoena. They would also like to know if other crimes were alleged to have committed, ten days notice for examination and objection before any hearings, and that a visible connection to a crime be required. Duran is accused of contacting other Burkes alleged witnesses ( a Burkes witness is evidence of another crime that has to be closely connected to the crime being tried), some being contacted by Duran for over six years. Duran partially complied with this from Duran's family law custody filings in Tulsa County case # FD 15 2846. Sarah Baugh/Yancy, Megan Barksdale aka Megan Holthouse, Robin Sherman, Stefanie Sinclair, Jessica Haney, and Krigel are all said to be considered Burke witnesses by the D.A. Missing messages from Facebook between Duran and Stefanie Sinclair, pages 12 through 22 of previously produced messages in the civil custody matter. Messeges from Romy Roytman, Alba Gondara, Sara Adibi, Christy Durbin, Laura Wardrip, Margaret Noble, Jordan Harmon, Mary Leavell, Ashley Nix, and Kayleigh Rieux, OBA, and Kennth Elmore. The filing asked the court to compel discovery.
9-8-21 Entry Andrew J Hofland
representing Third Party StephanieDuran for motion to compel (Krigel's ex wife)
9-16-21 RESPONSE is a bad file, will not open, working on getting a copy
9-17-21 ORDER
Order for hearing Finally, over three months after the arrest a hearing is scheduled.
9-28-21 MOTION from the defendant asking for compliance with the discovery on the search warrant, the affidavit of probable cause, and the return stating what was seized in the search, along with any other info or report on same. Nearly four months have passed. The defense attorney asked for discovery on June 16th, again on September 21st, and in person August 25th and September 23rd. Oklahoma State statute 22 OS 1224 allows this discovery and Krigel's lawyer asks this be compelled without a hearing or a hearing within two weeks prior to the preliminary hearing set on October 20th.
9-30-21 MOTION
to deem confessed - Defendant attempted to get compliance by requesting for the evidence
from the state on June16th, and Sept 1st,
but to no avail. Duran is accused of false statements, failing to disclose
material facts or law to a third person in order to avoid assisting
in a criminal or fraudulent act, obstructed access to evidence, Attorney
Hofland is cautioned not to assist or counsel to do such an illegal act. Duran is said to be
assisting witness to produce false testimony. In Oklaoma law, criminal procedure
gives no mechanism for a party to obstruct a subpoena. The only
possible reason not to comply is failure to allow sufficient time,
witness travel beyond the limits allowed, or disclosure of privileged information that requires a special master to review, if the production is an undue
burden, or things that fall outside of the scope of discovery. Duran
failing to file a motion to quash has waived all arguments on this issue, there is a 14 day
time limit. In the civil matter Duran has failed to turn over
complete discovery as well. The motion asks the court to order the discovery from Wagoner County D.A. and from Duran.
10-1-21 APPLICATION Defendant's Application to reply to non party Stephanie Duran response opposing Defendant's motion to compel. A lot of missing messages from the limited discovery obtained so far, Durans alleged to be withholding evidence prior to June 8th 2017 and June 8th to December 4 2017. A long list of Sinclair messages not delivered, including facebook messages referenced in the supplied messages. The Haney messages already disclosed admitting to lying and retracting had not been turned over by Duran.
10-8-21 MOTION
One page of the Duran's motion to continuance of hearing, claiming she responded on
Sept 16th.
This is the bad file that will not open, working on getting a good copy
10-8-21 ORDER allowing Krigel's attorney to reply to Duran's response filed on Sept 16th.
10-8-21 OSH Order setting hearing on the defendant's motion to compel
10-14-21 MOTION TO STRIKE bad file won't open
10-14-21 RESPONSE
From Duran's attorney claiming that there is no method of decreeing discovery
deemed confessed under criminal law, claiming on August 2nd
Duran responded stating that it wasn't a subpoena, wasn't properly
issued, not in form required and some technical reasons. Otherwise
Duran admitted that Sept first was the first filing about the subpoena sent
on July 23rd. Duran is splitting hairs saying civil and criminal subpoenas are different.
Duran claiming the only option is for the judge to declare contempt of
court, and claims that failure to set a hearing date is partially to blame for her not responding to the subpoena. Case law, unpublished opinion on the City of Norman vs
Brockman, PR-2018-1282 is used alleging that city governments cannot be forced to answer subpoenas when in fact Brockman states exactly the opposite.
This is covered by Statute §22-716. Disobedience to subpoena. Disobedience to a subpoena, or a refusal to be sworn or to testify, may be punished by the court or magistrate, as for a criminal contempt, in the manner provided in civil procedure. R.L.1910, § 6022.
But Brockman doesn't prohibit an attorney from issuing subpoenas, it prohibits a court clerk from issuing subpoenas as it is a judicial duty reserved to the judges and officers of the court or with supervision, pro se litigants. For this to be prohibited Duran must prove judicial or quasi judicial power that is unauthorized by law, and that there is an injury for which there is no other adequate remedy. But 22 716 clearly lays out that the punishment in civil subpoenas applies to criminal subpoenas.
11-10-21 OSH Order setting hearing on motion to compel discovery, see 12-7-21 Motion pgs 27 – 56 for a transcript of this hearing.
11-17-21 ENTRY
Brendan McHugh and Dana Jim enter appearances for Krigel and this appears to be on the civil matter of the lawsuit recovering damages for ignoring the subpoena.
11-17-21 REQUEST Krigel's attorney requesting an in camera hearing for recusal of the judge.
11-18-21 NOTICE November 10th eight page transcript of hearing
11-18-21 TRANSCRIPT Judge Mary Ann Godsby in camera motion to recuse transcript can be found attached as an exhibit to 12-7-21 MOTION pgs 1-26
Even an appearance of bias is grounds for recusal according to McHugh in the transcript. Godsby's admonishment of Krigel over the civil lawsuit was unwarranted, it seems that the civil judge contacted Godsby about the civil case and complained, and remember at that time the preliminary hearing was scheduled for December 8th, six months after Krigel's attorney sent the subpoena. Krigel has a Constitutional right to prepare for the preliminary hearing and needs the evidence. The right to file a civil suit is within the criminal code so the has the absolute right to file the lawsuit. Not allowing this means that Godsby is violating Article 2 section six OK Constitution which protects the right to access the courts. The second point of the admonishment was Krigel emailing the court asking about hearing dates or documents in his case. He has a right to defend himself as a defendant even if he has an attorney on the case. That the admonishment hearing was set quick, the very next day for the hearing, while the motion to compel the discovery has lingered for months is also the basis for the appearance of bias. Bennett takes umbrage at this, saying ex parte communication with the court is being insinuated and claims no ex parte communication has occurred. At page 9 line 20 Godsby admits that she knows nothing about the statute giving the right to file a civil suit on subpoenas being ignored. But Godsby doesn't agree because she hasn't ruled on the motion to compel or on the motion to quash that was filed too late, despite the preliminary hearing happening in less than a month. While Godsby talks about being unfamiliar that the right to file a civil suit exists she brings up what if one judge decides different than the other judge? McMurry states that Duran forfeited the right to object by filing too late and that the opposing counsel in the civil case requested the admonishment. Godsby denies any bias and denies the recusal.
11-19-21 MOTION to recuse, stay proceedings, and evidentiary hearing . Krigel's lawyers ask for Godsby to recuse based upon bias, lack of impartiality, prejudice, appearance of impropriety, demanding an evidentiary hearing be had and the other matters be stayed pending the resolution of the recusal matter. And that a different judge handle the pending motions while the recusal issue is ongoing. The judge emailed McHugh wanting to admonish Krigel for emailing the court and prosecutor and serving the state a copy of a recent email, without a formal entry of appearance, a notice that Krigel had sued a non party state endorsed witness, specifically Stephanie Duran for disobedience of a subpoena under 22 OS 716 and 717/ This formed a bias as to what discovery is allowed contrary to the statutes and violated Krigel's right of access to the court under Article 2 section 6 of the Oklahoma Constitution. Godsby's immediate recusal is requested. McHugh questions if the court can be neutral and detached, that Krigel is an attorney and has the right to do paralegal tasks or run paper associated with his case whether he files and entry of appearance or not. McHugh demands an evidentiary hearing over this motion and demands that this matter be stayed until Rule 15 options are exhausted. McHugh quotes the Clark decision on page 2, that the witness in a criminal trial has not complied and not filed a motion to quash timely and Krigel is entitled to sue the witness in civil court and that communication from the judge regarding the defendant's civil lawsuit is improper.
11-19-21 RECEIPT McMurry picking up the November 10th transcript
12-1-21 CORRECTION Page 7 Line 9 correction for the previous transcript
12-1-21 ENTRY OF APP Janice Steidly for Krigel
12-1-21 MOTION – OAG Defendant's motion to disqualify the AG from representing Judge Guten
Mentions Joy
Thorpe, wife of assigned D.A. Jack Thorpe, and the conflict that raises.
12-1-21 MOTION
to quash subpoena to Judge David Guten by Assistant Attorney General Stefanie Lawson. The motion basically says that judges cannot be questioned about their actions
or their discussions with other judges. Also argues that 4 days
isn't enough notice to attend. But keep reading, the case a few years back on Trump said that everyone is subject to court process and a subpoena.
12-1-21 RESPONSE Krigel's attorney response to Judge Guten's motion to quash
Guten had filed a bar complaint against Krigel and listed six judges as witnesses and agents from the Tulsa D.A. Office. This relates to the motion to recuse pending against Godsby, as it shows bias and extra judicial comments between Godsby and Guten. In a Jan 8th 2020 Judge Guten testified that he ordered Krigel into custody by sheriff deputies. In the bar complaint against Krigel Guten testified that his deputy acted on her own without his authority to handcuff Krigel. Judge Guten listed the judges he spoke to about Krigel at the Tulsa County courthouse about Krigel and listed them as witnesses. It references another bar complaint made by Judge Seibert, Tulsa County special judge and Tulsa County Assistant D. A. s who worked against Krigel including the recently appointed Judge Drummond who set Krigel's bond. Guten's courtroom is next door to where he was to appear to testify under the subpoena. The motion asks that Judge Guten appear and testify.
12-1-21 SDT HANEY - Subpoena for documents of Jessica Ryan Haney. Including communications between her and another woman about a threesome with Krigel, including all tinder, facebook, emails, texts, and other types of communication. Also dating website data from Bumbl, Tinder, or the like from June 18th 2017 to Feb 2021, the date range she was dating Krigel. Also asking for calendars for the last five years for menstruation cycle and sex with others including Krigel. It asks about data and messages about an abortion with Krigel and her health and mental records. Also social media history for the last four years. And information about the alleged incident when she was 15 years old with the minister's son that was 25 years old during the Nepal trip. Also asks about a stolen cat named Flower Lilly, on or around Feb 2021.
12-1-21 SDT To Tulsa County Headquarters - Subpoena asking for info on any mention of Krigel by a long list of judges and ADAs.
12-1-21 TRANSCRIPT Only the first page, unknown missing pages of the Nov 18th incamera motion to recuse.
12-2-21 MOTION TO DISMISS Krigel's attorney motion to dismiss for inflammatory statements in violation of due process. Prejudicial and inflammatory statements made by law enforcement and prosecutors. Krigel labeled a serial offender by Lt. Ehrenrich and statements hoping more women would come forward, D.A. JackThorpe made statements that reflect adversely on the administration of justice and the responsibilities of a prosecutor in Rule 3.8 , Thorpe is responsible for ensuring that law enforcement and other state actors not make such statements.
Presumption of innocence requires preventing any publicity that states the defendant's guilt in advance of the trial prejudices the public against the defendant. Dismissals is the only remedy as asking the jurors to ignore prejudicial effects is naive. Oklahoma law allows for dismissal for unconstitutional conduct of state actors.
12-2-21 MOTION
to transfer case- This motion uses Guten's Bar complaint where he admits he
refused to stop the deputy from handcuffing Krigel. Later Krigel was not
allowed to defend his client and the court reporter was not
allowed to transcript the hearing, and Krigel was frustrated. During the hearing for his client Krigel was
handcuffed. Discovery was incomplete but the prosecutor stated they
had turned everything over. Meanwhile the client is sitting over at
the defense table and Krigel is still handcuffed in the Jury box.
Judge Guten admitted that Krigel had asked him to recuse numerous times and
he refused to recuse. Judge Guten discussed the matter with Judge Seibert who had
been involved in bar complaints with Krigel. Judge Seibert decided that
enough time had passed that she as no longer required to recuse from
Krigel's cases so Guten transferred Krigel's cases to Judge Seibert in violation of judicial rules on recussals. The
Bar complaint was a litany of whining that basically came down to
Krigel standing up for his clients instead of rolling over on them to speed prosecutions along.
And there was a lot of hair splitting on what prosecutors had said on continuing cases.
Cases where discovery were incomplete, even on cases only 90 days
old, were ordered to trial by Judge Guten. Guten was quite pleased when
one case that Krigel's client wanted to go to trial was pleaded out
with a guilty plea and six months of probation. Guten admitted that
he had agreed to transfer all of Krigel's cases to Judge Seibert. Other
complaints were statements that Krigel made in his judicial
complaint against Guten and in his filings to recuse Guten. The next
complaint that Guten made was a reference to a jury trial where again
the discovery was lacking due to the prosecutor and Guten agreed to hold the trial anyway and
quashed any mention of the missing evidence. A juror in that trial
asked the court to be removed because she objected to Krigel's
conduct which amounted to representing his client to the best of his
abilities. Again judge Guten complained that all the defendant had
to do was plead guilty and received a deferred sentence of six
months. Guten was obviously incensed that Krigel's clients were
requesting jury trials. The jury found the client guilty and fined
him $2000 and 30 days in jail and Guten was pissed that Krigel didn't
force his client to take the plea deal. The case is being appealed. The
rest of the bar complaint were hearsay, what others told Guten
including Tulsa Municipal Court trying to trespass Krigel from the
courthouse. Then there was gossip about Krigel's custody case where
his ex demanded drug and alcohol testing, with Guten admitting that
such a request doesn't mean there is a problem. Once again Krigel's
ex wife once worked as an ADA in Tulsa County and judges are going to give her a lot of leeway and favoritism. Once again Krigel asked for
this family court judge to recuse for cause and it was denied. All of these perfectly legal moves were added to the complaints against Krigel.
12-2-21 TRANSCRIPT Transcript found attached to 12-7-21 Motion pgs 27 – 56, see below for the details.
12-7-21 MOTION pages 1-26 - Defendant's motion for re hearing, Judge Godsby was showing signs of knowing much more than she should have known about Krigel's civil case and admonished Krigel for filing a civil lawsuit as he was allowed under state law. Godsby had also quashed Krigel's attorney's subpoena on Guten regarding the exparte communication between the judges and that Guten didn't attend the hearing, signifying that he knew in advance that the matter would be quashed. Ruling on motions while a request to recuse was open is illegal under state statutes as it violates due process. Even if a judge believes that they are impartial the law requires them to avoid the appearance of impropriety and recuse. The November 18th Godsby motion to recuse transcript is attached as an exhibit.
12-7-21 Motion pages 27 – 56- It starts off with the November 10th transcript where Godsby admonishes Krigel. for the civil suit. Admonished for contacting judge's office or prosecutors office for information. Continues to scold McMurry for suggesting that the civil suit was filed by McHugh who is an attorney, not filed by Krigel. Next attached transcript is from 12-2-21 which covers Krigel's motion to recuse, followed by Godsby dismissing Krigel's subpoena for Judge Guten without a hearing. McHugh objects because the motion to quash was improperly filed and the AG cannot represent Judge Guten in a civil matter, also the matter of Jack Thorpe and his wife Joy previously working for the Tulsa County prosecutor's office. Godsby denies the request. McHugh tries to offer proof as to what Judge Guten's testimony would cover but is denied. McHugh tries again and Godsby asks the prosecutor if they object, they do not, then Godsby asks attorney Ray who is representing Guten who objects saying the subpoena had already been quashed. Godsby agrees and again denies the information to be permitted. McHugh insists to get the information on the record for the appeal and Godsby admits him to offer the proof. McHugh talks about Krigel doing a bar complaint against Judge Guten, then Judge Guten doing a retaliatory bar complaint against Krigel. Judge Guten's bar complaint brings up Judge April Seibert, Judge Holmes, Kunzweiler and the ADAs that have worked against Krigel in this case. The transcript talks about the handcuff incident. With the information on the record the recusal hearing begins. McHugh starts off with the admonishment for the civil suit as allowed under the criminal statutes. The admonishment was improper because Godsby doesn't have jurisdiction, then he questions how Judge Godsby found out about the civil suit, implying that there were back channel discussions. McHugh objected that his client was admonished without his civil attorney present and that his client told Godsby several times that he had a civil attorney in that matter that was not present in the room and that he was not allowed to answer except in a yes or no manner. He was badgered into saying yes or no on understanding the admonishment. Second is the violation of Krigel's Constitutional right of access to the Court for discovery indicates the appearance of bias. The reason to file the lawsuit was because his motion to compel and discovery requests had not been responded too. His request for discovery had never been set for a hearing, his motion to compel was not set for hearing, so he filed the lawsuit. Any problem with the filing of the civil lawsuit is up to the civil judge. Then we have information about Judge Guten making a bar complaint against Krigel and other judges listed as witnesses but the bar complaint was never disclosed. There is the appearance of bias in this case. Then judge Seibert had a standing order to recuse until Judge Guten was recused then the case as passed back to Judge Seiber. This creates the appearance of bias. McHugh states that his client has a right to a fair trial, he may lose his liberty, his livelhood and no effort has been done to protect his rights but the government and the witnesses has been protected. Attorny Hall for the AG office claims that the subpoenas were improperly filed in that the statute only allows for books and documents or that the subpoena is supposed to direct the witness to appear at a hearing, not the counsel's office. She must be referring to the original subpoena to Duran. Of course she ought to be saying that the proper venue for these complaints is the civil case, not the criminal court. Ray continues claiming that their only remedy is to collect $50 for the state named witness refusing to obey the subpoena. Attorney Ray brings up the family court custody fight as well despite this not being under the jurisdiction of Judge Godsby. Ray asks that the motion to recuse be denied. McHugh makes the point that every judge and attorney knows that if you want to talk to a litigant in a case it is important that the litigant's attorney is present so not having the litigant's attorney present in the admonishment in camera hearing was improper and showed bias on the part of the Godsby court. In regards to the civil suit over the refusal to obey the subpoena, McHugh testifies that D.A. Jack Thorpe told him that the case would be dismissed and McHugh has no idea how he would know such a thing and how the criminal judge, the criminal attorney, and Duran's civil attorney all knowing that the case would be dismissed and he as the civil attorney was not present when this was discussed. It is obvious, and as Judge Guten's bar complaint admitted, that the judges, D.A., ADA, and opposing counsel may well have been communicating ex parte, excluding Krigel and his attorneys. Judge Drummond was at the D.A. office during part of all of this and later it was he that held Krigel over for trial and set the $250,000 bond on a rape case with zero evidence. With that McHugh asks the court to grant the recusal and to re assign the case to another judge.
Godsby's reply claims she had no discussions on whether the civil lawsuit to force compliance with the subpoena will be dismissed. Next she states that the bar complaint from Judge Guten and Judge Seibert was not brought up at the in camera hearing so it is improper to bring up at this time, failing to admit that McHugh was not allowed to be present in the in camera hearing while he was sitting outside in the courtroom. Next Godsby refuses to consider the Judge Guten and Judge Siebert bar complaints, claiming that the bar complaints were not brought up in the in camera hearing. But the bar complaints were in various briefs and motions starting at least on December 1st, the judge had ample notice not to mention the gossip grapevine that spreads information like wildfire in the courthouse. Godsby denies the motion to recuse because the bar complaints were not brought up in the November 19th motion to recuse. She continues on to the admonishment, stating that it is her right to admonish either party, that she has not ruled on the motion to compel despite the December 8th hearing being days away. Godsby denies that there is any perception of bias or evidence of bias of the court and denies the motion to recuse. AG attorney Hall clarifies that there are to be no further subpoenas as there is no future court date due to the case being stayed until the appeal on the failure to recuse is taken care of. McHugh continues to fight for justice, stating that once the motion to recuse was filed the judge should have stopped the hearing on the motion to quash the Judge Guten subpoena and dealt with the motion to recuse and stay the case pending appeal on the recusal denial.
12-8-21 MOTION TO STRIKE - Krigel's attorneys states that the state has filed to quash subpoenas already issued and the subpoena is aimed at third parties, not at the state, so the state lacks standing to ask a judge to quash a subpoena. The state has no right or privilege to get involved.
12-8-21 RESPONSE - Defendant Krigel's attorneys replying to Wagoner County D.A. Jack Thorpe's motion to quash Duran subpoena. State witness Stephanie Duran has coordinated testimony with the sole alleged victim in this case, Jessica Haney, since at least August of 2019 and that Haney told police that she only came to find Krigel on April 29th 2021 because Duran told her the Bar association would be contacting Haney and that Krigel cheated on Haney. But we know from an email chain listed below that this actually happened in 2019, not 2021. Duran failed to mention any danger to herself, to her child she shared with Krigel, or to any of the other nine witnesses mentioned including their divorce therapists or the child psychiatrist hired by Duran to psychoanalyze Krigel in February of 2019. There is a foot note that states that Haney broke up with Krigel after a three year live in relationship in February of 2021 but continued to sleep over at Krigel's house a majority of the nights between February and April with five night sleep overs in April and seven day visits in April. Including her birthday on April 9th 2021 until Krigel had to pick up his daughter at 4 pm. Duran had failed to mention any danger from Krigel to a laundry list of mental health providers that she admitted in Exhibit 2 seeking therapeutic services in the past ten years. It is believed that the Idaho Department of Health and welfare, Duran's insurer, and Dr. Curtis Grundy at the University of Idaho Medical Center have relevant information on Duran's mental issues that are relevant to filing rape charges. All of these entities have provided aid or treated Duran and Duran failed to report any harm to their minor child or any danger to herself from Krigel. Likewise subpoenas to the DAC witness compensation fund, the Ok AG, and the Tulsa Police Department are all open record requests that have not been complied with in months. The Wagoner County D.A. is attempting to quash subpoenas but have no statutory authority to do so, but has an affirmative duty to produce the documents requested. The defendant has the right to every man's evidence and there is no authority in the criminal code to quash or modify a subpoena or to prevent a witness subject to a subpoena from bringing bringing papers or material that are material to the defense.
In the argument section of the brief Krigel's attorneys lay out a massive list of precedent cases that prohibit the State from quashing subpoenas especially in criminal cases, that Due Process is so important that it isn't to be interfered with and that timely compliance is crucial. Even otherwise considered privileged information such as judges gossiping about an attorney they fear and despise is not outside the grasp of a defendant in a criminal trial. One of the cases stated that a rape accusation is easy to make, hard to prove, and harder to defend against. That case goes on to state that the severest sanctions may be appropriate against those who do not comply with the discovery code when that means the accused being denied the right to present witnesses in his own defense. They close with the statement that the proposition that the State can allow named State witness to disobey a subpoena is found nowhere in the statutes, that the court has no authority to quash or modify a criminal subpoena, that all witnesses are required to produce the documents by the deadline given, and that the state interfering with discovery in an issue is worthy of dismissal of the entire case.
An exhibit attached to this motion is from the American Bar Association, Rule 3.8 d, the model rules of professional conduct for prosecutors. Now usually the Bar Association rules are admitted into statute in nearly all states without question, perhaps adding additional requirements, but rarely does a legislature weaken the model rules. There are pages and pages of examples showing why a Prosecutor cannot interfere in discovery, all to Krigel's attorneys favor.
Next up is a brief from the family court case of Krigel and his ex wife. This is from the March 28th 2019 filing on the 2015 divorce proceeding instituted by Stephanie Duran, Krigel's now ex wife. Duran provides the contact information for her mental health providers while complaining that the information is HIPPA protected. Not so in a divorce case where the mental health of a spouse is being questioned. After all, Krigel submitted himself to examination from Duran's shrink. The rest of the Duran response to discovery either denies everything, claims it is impossible to obtain or know, but when asked about witnesses to corroborate or contradict the abuse allegations Duran had recently made suddenly Duran is a fountain of information, disclosing lawyers and therapists and friends knowledgeable about her case and details of the horrible Jeff Krigel abusing women. Now this answer is to our knowledge the first time that Duran ever brought up any mention of abuse or marital rape, filed one month before Jessica Haney stalked Krigel, convinced him to go to dinner and drinks, and five days later claimed rape and got a SANE exam despite the window for finding evidence being days past.
This document finishes up with an exhibit of a 2012 case where a judge ordered the City of Tulsa to comply with a subpoena after the City tried to quash.
12-10-21 RESPONSE This is Krigel's attorneys response to Duran's third party motion to quash the subpoena. The response also mentions that Duran is aiding other named State witnesses in quashing six of their subpoenas as well despite not having any legal interest in doing so. This is one of the more important filings to read. It lays out that Krigel was kicking butt in their custody battle with Krigel winning the fight to have a Guardian Ad Litem (GAL) appointed to represent his daughter's interests in the custody battle, winning a more consistent schedule of custody, and winning a re calculation of child support, all of this since November 2018. Duran was losing and losing bad, so she pulled the nuclear option six years after the divorce and accused her ex husband of rape during the marriage, something never mentioned in over 50 court dates spanning a half of a decade. Prior to this Duran failed to mention any danger to herself or to the child to her attorney, judges, or mental health professionals with the latest chance to do so being in February of 2019, a month before her discovery reply claiming that she had discussed abuse with a laundry list of people.
For two to six years Duran had messaged many of Krigel's ex girlfriends, since the day she left Krigel in October of 2015. Duran is said to have lied to them, manipulated them, claiming her child was in danger, doubts she never reported to authorities until AFTER charges were filed against Krigel in 2021. The plot to falsely accuse Krigel of rape and abuse is said to have occurred after Krigel had denied Duran's request to move their child to Europe to live with her new husband whom she married in July of 2019. The sole alleged victim, Jessica Haney, was told of this plan in August of 2019 and in turn she warned Krigel shortly after. Even in the police interview on her claim of rape Haney disclosed this desire of Duran to gain custody and move to Europe but the Tulsa police officer refused to mention this in his report. The argument section of this answer covers the same ground as the answer to Wagoner County's quash motion. One interesting part was a mention of President Trump in 2020 having to obey a subpoena as even a sitting President isn't immune from subpoena. Bottom line, discovery requests in criminal trials where the remote chance of evidence that might change the outcome of the trial are absolutely required no matter who the witness is.
12-13-21 UofT MOTION This is the University of Tulsa's motion to quash the subpoena and demanding sanctions for having to respond to the subpoena. Their complaints are quibbling over the legal name of the medical clinic that has the discovery material, what the legal service address is for the medical center and objecting to the doctor named by Duran in what little discovery she did provide, and a laundry list of reasons why they are above the law including the lack of HIPPA waivers from the patients. Well this is a subpoena, they don't need waivers. The start off denying that subpoenas are not allowed in criminal cases, something that we know is untrue but widely believed even by sitting judges. And in some bizzaro world reasoning, they claim that the subpoena has not been served yet they obviously have a copy and are disgorging a lot of information from the request if they wish to claim to not been served. The majority of the arguments given are the same as what Jack Thorpe of Wagoner County claimed.
12-15-21 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE This next entry of appearance is also a motion to quash the subpoena sent to the Tulsa Police Department. The defense subpoena requests the usual police information on an arrest, videos, police reports, statements of witnesses, and the like, all items that any criminal defendant s entitled to and the police and prosecutor is responsible for providing upon a simple request. Their main complaint is a lack of a physical address to reply to despite phone, fax, and mailing address are included on the subpoena and that this should be requested through the D.A. in the case. They make much about one section of the discovery code that speaks about limiting evidence prior to the preliminary hearing but the actual part that is limited is allowing the defense to present unlimited witnesses at a preliminary hearing. Some of the info they are seeking to quash is public record requests that are available to anyone requesting them but that is not being provided to him through open record requests.. The end result is that they are claiming that the defendant has no choice but to ask the D.A. for the information and reports despite the D.A. refusing to comply with discovery as required by law. The cases quoted and language used suggests that all of these multiple agencies and parties are sharing information to provide a solid wall against discovery in a criminal trial.
12-15-21 Entry pages 31-55 is a continuation of the exhibits of the above entry, a long list of open record requests.
12-15-21 Entry pages 56-69 is a continuation of the exhibit list above. Open records requests and one case law example on the Norman appellate case.
2019—10.27-haney-krigel-forwarding-duran-10-27-email-after-telling-her10-27-response-re-witness-to-10-21-sd-email
This is the long email from Duran warning Haney that their emails will be released, Haney's reply that retracted everything she had claimed earlier stating that she was irrational and emotional. Duran's response insinuating that Krigel put her up to the retraction, then Haney's forwarding the email chain to Krigel. October 27th 2019
Notice that after six months of filings and expense, Krigel's attorney still have little discovery. Only endless obstruction. From other sources we believe that this will continue on through 2022 but next week we begin reviewing the filings for 2022.
So you want to know why there have been so many attorneys come and go? Why the filings are enormous in this case? Because the obstruction of justice is enormous from both the D.A., the police, and the judges. Stay tuned for more about this mess next week.
