What we will learn in reading this deposition and the next story on Eric Jordan's deposition is that tax payer money paid a sitting Assistant D.A., in charge of Creek County, working under Wagoner County D.A. Jack Thorpe, to protect an accused child molester/County Commissioner James Hanning with Eric Jordan never charging the Commissioner a single cent, while all parties involved were trying to railroad an innocent man on fake gun charges to prevent him from defending his property in the lawsuit aimed at stealing his property and giving it to County Commissioner James Hanning who had been caught embezzling from the partnership.
We have written about the Tyler Paulsen story many times as it was a case in progress the last seven years. A young Paulsen was dating the daughter of a Wagoner County Commissioner, one James Hanning, and wound up investing in real estate with Hanning. Hanning had invested around $40,000 in properties into the partnership and Paulsen had invested around a half million dollars in properties. A few years later Hanning got caught embezzling from the partnership, sending Lowes purchases to his house for his remodel instead of the rental properties. Once caught Hanning demanded $180,000 to be bought out, claiming his sweat equity was responsible for the increase over the $40,000 he had actually invested.
A lawsuit started and Paulsen asked that a receiver be appointed to collect the rent, clean up the financial records or lack of same, and of course to preserve the assets of the partnership during dissolution. Instead a $500 an hour incompetent took over, promptly hiring Hanning, his wife, and daughter to manage the properties and collect the rent, and in the process dragging the entire case out for over seven years. At the end the property was fixed up at Paulsen's expense, sold for pennies on the dollar as a sheriff sale for $400,000, $300,000 given to the incompetent receiver and all out of Paulsen's portion, meaning Paulsen walked away with not a single dime of the half million he had invested originally.
But James Hanning was a County Commissioner and he worked hard and pulled strings to win that lawsuit. First he conspired with Wagoner County D.A. Jack Thorpe's office to file fake felony charges against Paulsen, with Hanning's relatives in the Sheriff's office helping out. Paulsen had some nasty stuff in the past, lots of drinking and a horrible relationship with a crazy woman. It all came to a head one morning when he woke up outside on a deck hearing sirens and bullhorns and being arrested for domestic violence. None of which he remembers, and we had released portions of the taped phone call where the original prosecutor in the case claimed Paulsen was innocent, that the woman was crazy, and that he himself would have to have the SWAT team called on him if he spent more than five minutes around the woman. The prosecutor, one Eric Jordan, working for Wagoner County at the time, admitted that he gave Paulsen a sweet deal because he knew he was innocent but the media had hold of the story and he had to make appearances. The plea deal was a nolo contendra, no contest, not a guilty plea but just saying he wasn't going to plead at all in exchange for a plea deal. One of the reasons Paulsen too the deal was that he wasn't giving up his gun rights as it was a deferred sentence, meaning the case was frozen and no decision of guilt or innocence was announced by the judge. After five years of clean living it would be dropped for good.
And Paulsen turned his life around. To start with he had gotten custody of the daughter he had with the crazy woman, which speaks volumes. And he found religion, quit drinking, and it would have been a complete turnaround other than getting involved with James Hanning's daughter who we would find out struggled with her own mental anguishes. Which came to a head once Paulsen bought her old family home off James Hanning, thinking that the daughter would be thrilled, only to find out she was horrified and wanted to refuse to live in the house for dam good reasons.
But a thieving County Commissioner upset everything and accused of embezzlement he struck first by filing a lawsuit against Paulsen seeking the properties.
Then Paulsen was driving through the small town of Adair one day and got pulled over for speeding slightly. And his license was a couple of days expired, he needed some sort of endorsement stamp that could only be gotten at a DPS center. It was a Sunday, and by Monday he had the stamp and a renewed license. But the local cop of the speed trap town had impounded the car, seized a hand gun in the center console until Paulsen brought proof of ownership, and charged Paulsen with driving without a license. Paulsen paid off the fines, got the car and gun back, but made the mistake of telling a few friends about the fiasco and James Hanning found out about the arrest for driving with an expired license.
James Hanning admits he drove down to talk to the City Clerk in Adair and notified her that Paulsen wasn't supposed to have a gun. Despite the tickets being paid for and dismissed, they re opened the case and sent it to the Mayes County D.A. office where it was turned into a charge of a convicted felon on DOC supervision being in possession of a fire arm. Then Wagoner County, one of Jack Thorpe's four counties that he held as D.A., filed an application to accelerate the suspended sentence, the one that the prosecutor Eric Jordan knew was a bad prosecution. Then they dismissed the application to accelerate, then seven days later they refiled it for no discernible reason. A few months later the judge threw out that application to accelerate along with the original case with the crazy woman based upon the McGirt decision. The crazy woman was also a crazy indian it seems and the Court had no jurisdiction. The judge declared the case Ab Inito, legalese for never having existed.
That however didn't stop Mayes County, who it was clear was doing a favor for Commissioner James Hanning and Jack Thorpe. They continued to push the case, threatening Paulsen and his daughter whom he had custody off, refusing to accept the fact that the original case had been dismissed and declared as never being in existence. Paulsen eventually signed a plea deal rather than risk a trial with a judge that refused to allow exculpatory evidence or testimony.
Paulsen had excellent attorneys though and they filed an abuse of power lawsuit against Jack Thorpe and the rest of the crooks involved and they finally forced Thorpe, Jordan, and James Hanning into a deposition room.
Below are some quotes, somewhat simplified with objections removed but in context with the transcript, from the Noel Jackson Thorpe deposition May 5th 2023. The first issue was an affidavit that Jack Thorpe created claiming that there was no special treatment for James Hanning in the Tyler Paulsen case. Allegedly Hanning's second lawyer had asked for the affidavit. Below is the meat of the affidavit:
"At no time did James Hanning receive any preferential treatment from or 'conspire' with any person regarding [sic] the Wagoner County District Attorney's Office regarding any matter, including anything regarding Tyler Paulsen. “
Now keep that in mind as you read the rest of this simplified transcript outtakes where Jack Thorpe claimed to have little to no knowledge of the Paulsen case or much of anything that went on in his Wagoner County prosecutor's office.
When asked about why charges were filed upon Paulsen on the gun charge Jack Thorpe said this:
Q . On those rules and conditions that you have in front of you that's Exhibit No. 4, is there anywhere specifically on there that prohibits possession of a firearm?
A. Condition 2.
“I will not violate any city, state, federal, or tribal jurisdiction law and I will advise the District Attorney's Office within 72 hours of arrest by any law enforcement agency." Page 13 of the transcript
Exhibit 4 was the conditions of supervisions as part of the plea deal Paulsen signed on the no contest plea to the original court case, where there is nothing about Paulsen not having gun rights. And it turned out that Wagoner County was the ONLY District Attorney's office in the state without a gun/weapon warning in their supervisory conditions that Paulsen signed in November of 2016. By December of 2016 Paulsen had paid off all the court costs and fines and was told he was done with the supervision and didn't need to come back to the D.A. Office for any reason.
Q . Let me ask you this way. It doesn't specifically say you are not allowed to possess firearms on those rules; correct?
A. I am not sure. I'm still kind of reading through the --
Q. Take a look.
A. I don't see anything specifically about fire -- I don't see anything specifically about firearms. Page 14 of the transcript
Q. And how does that keep him from having a firearm?
A. If I'm reading this correctly, it appears that he entered into a probated sentence on October 13 of 2016. And I think I kind of get where you're going from it, but on that day, he acknowledged that he would not violate any city, state, federal, or tribal laws. It is against Statute 12 [sic] O.S. 1283C or any individual that is on a probated sentence for a felony to possess a firearm.
Thorpe is inept, it was under Title 21, not Title 12 of the Oklahoma Statutes.
Q And as we sit here today, do you have any knowledge of any other person that has been charged with -- or actually not charged with, had the State of Oklahoma through Wagoner County has filed an application to accelerate based on that person being in possession of a firearm?
A. Not off the top of my head, no, but it is a common criminal charge.
Actually it is not a common criminal charge. Looking through the case law on 1283 we find four cases out of 100 cases for the entire section of that statute where a person on probation was charged with a felon in possession of a fire arm under section C of the entire 1283 statute. More on that later.
Q. When you were conducting the investigation that you described earlier, did you check to see if there has been anyone else charged with being in possession of a firearm while on probation?
A. I did not, no.
Q Did you check when you did your investigation to see how many previous people had allegations against them to accelerate their probation based on their speeding ticket?
A. . No, I've never seen that, but it appears to me to be a violation of number on the rules and condition of probation on Exhibit. I will say that speeding is a lesser criminal offense than, for example, driving under suspension, which is most often an arrestable offense.
Q. So you're jumping up to -- well, first of all, there in bullet point number 3, you said speeding and driving under suspension, which is, you said, an arrestable offense?
A. Driving under suspension is generally an arrestable offense.
Q. And do you know if Mr. Paulsen was arrested in this case for driving under suspension?
A. I do not.
Q. And then the first bullet point refers to Mr. Paulsen having possession of a firearm; is that correct?
A. Yes, sir, I believe.
Q. All right. And your testimony was that you believe that would violate the state statute and, therefore, his rules of probation; correct?
A. Yes, sir, I believe. Page 19 of the transcript
Q. Your position on Mr. Paulsen or any person possessing a firearm while they're on probation would be that it violates a state statute and because it violates a state stature, it also violates the rules and conditions of probation; correct?
A. I would say that if an individual is in possession of a firearm while they are under a probation for a felony, that it is a violation of 12 [sic] O.S. 1283C, according to my understanding of Oklahoma criminal law.
But Jack Thorpe left out a huge part of the law. The first thing you learn about criminal law is to look up the jury instructions on the statute said to be violated and if a single element of the jury instructions isn't present, the judge ought to throw the case out because the jury must acquit the defendant. And we have a small problem, there are no uniform jury instructions on section C of Title 21 section 1283. So we look to the closest thing, a set of jury instructions from the same 1283 statute which is being in possession of a fire arm after a felony conviction:
OUJI-CR 6-39
POSSESSING A FIREARM AFTER
A
FELONY CONVICTION - ELEMENTS
No person may be convicted of possessing a firearm after conviction of a felony unless the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the crime. These elements are:
First, knowingly and willfully;
Second, possessing/(having under one's immediate control)/(having in any vehicle one operates)/(having in any vehicle in which one is riding as a passenger)/(having at the place where the defendant resides);
Third, any pistol/(imitation/homemade pistol)/(machine gun)/(sawed-off shotgun/rifle)/(dangerous/deadly firearm);
Fourth, the defendant was convicted of a felony by the [Name of Court] Court of [Name of Jurisdiction] on [Date].
The first element, one must knowingly and willingly break the law. Thorpe and his corrupt cronies would parrot “ignorance of the law is no excuse.” but Wagoner County was the only county in Oklahoma that we could find that didn't have a firearms clause in their supervision agreement that the defendants sign. And the Supreme Court overrules Oklahoma law and they changed the rules in the mid eighties and required that a felon in possession of a fire arm must know that he is breaking a law against gun possession in certain circumstances. Now a felon would know he was a felon for the most part, at least at some point in his life, but he might not know that his gun rights were not restored.
In a case called Rehaif v. United States, the Supreme Court narrowed the felon in possession statute. The court held that the government has to prove the defendant knew he was still a felon at the time of his new offense in order to convict him. In that published opinion they discussed a case where a judge repeatedly told a defendant that he would walk out of the courtroom on a plea and NOT be a felon despite the judge being wrong about that. The legal theory in play is called scienter, that a way has to be available to distinguish between evil intent to break a law and an innocent mistake. Which is why the first element of the jury instructions for a felon in possession of a firearm is that the felon knows he is breaking a law.
Below are a couple of quotes from Rehaif v. U.S.:
Applying the word “knowingly” to the defendant’s status in §922(g) helps advance the purpose of scienter, for it helps to separate wrongful from innocent acts. Assuming compliance with ordinary licensing requirements, the possession of a gun can be entirely innocent. See Staples, 511 U. S., at 611. It is therefore the defendant’s status, and not his conduct alone, that makes the difference. Without knowledge of that status, the defendant may well lack the intent needed to make his behavior wrongful. His behavior may instead be an innocent mistake to which criminal sanctions normally do not attach. Cf. O. Holmes, The Common Law 3 (1881) (“even a dog distinguishes between being stumbled over and being kicked”)
We conclude that in a prosecution under 18 U. S. C. §922(g) and §924(a)(2), the Government must prove both that the defendant knew he possessed a firearm and that he knew he belonged to the relevant category of persons barred from possessing a firearm.
Now
key to understanding the difference between being ignorant of a law
and being ignorant of one's status is crucial. Paulsen knew he had a
gun but he had zero knowledge that being on a deferred sentence made
him lose his gun rights. He was no aware of his status in a group that didn't have gun rights.
Now the handful of cases where a person on parole or supervision are entirely different than the Paulsen case. Lets go through them.
Ruth was under supervision by the Department of Corrections, the DOC, as part of an interstate supervision agreement as his murder conviction was in the state of Texas. He got caught with a shotgun and he knew without a doubt that he was a convicted felon and his supervision agreement with the DOC would have listed firearms. His sole reason for the appeal was if the conviction could be used both as an element of the crime and as a sentence enhancer. Paulsen, expired license requiring a special trip down to the DPS office versus a convicted murderer.
Brink v state Brink was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon, doing a drive by shooting, and possession a firearm while on a felony probation. Once again, a convicted felon who would have known of his status and had been notified of his gun rights loss who was caught doing serious felonies versus an expired license charge of a man who had no clue that his gun rights had been suspended.
watts v state Watts committed serious crimes while on probation for felony crimes, he was a meth distributor. His prior offenses were drug offenses that earned him 118 years of prison time but a liberal judge whittled it down to five years which means two years before he was back out on the street on probation. Again a hardened criminal who knew he was on probation and had signed the probation agreement which mentions firearms versus a man stopped for speeding and arrested for an expired license in a speed trap town.
PLATT v. STATE Platt had pled guilty to selling meth and received a deferred sentence of five years, about one year before he was in an accident where paramedics found a gun in his vest. He was on supervision after a guilty plea on a serious felony, had notice of the loss of gun rights, and got caught with a gun. Compared to Paulsen who had NOT pled guilty but had pled Nolo Contendre, not a guilty plea but agreeing not to contest the case at all. For a case that the prosecutor knew was weak due to the drug dealing “victim” and was prosecuted only because the media had ran a story on the arrest. And Paulsen had paid off the supervision fees and had been told he was done with the D.A. Supervision process which never mentioned a firearm prohibition. And factor in that the case eventually was found outside the jurisdiction of the Court and declared dismissed and ab inito, as never having existed.
Bottom line, there was zero justification for accelerating Paulsen's case which was a deferment of guilt case, not just suspended but never found guilty at all. To say this was done for justice is insane, a fool would realize this was political and meant to destroy his ability to fight back in court to safeguard his half million dollar investment that a County Commissioner wanted to steal.
Back to the transcript.
Q. How about bullet point number two, "The defendant failed to report that he had been arrested on October 2, 2017." Do you see that?
A. I do.
Q. Is that also a violation of probation, to not report if you've been arrested?
A. It appears to me that under the same paragraph number, or sentence two, that you are required if you are arrested to notify your probation officer within 72 hours.
Q. The same question. Prior to signing your affidavit, when you did your investigation, did you determine if there had been any other individual that had been accused of a probation violation for failing to report an arrest?
A. I'm not aware of other cases, so no.
Q. All right. But as far as the prohibition on possessing firearms if you are on probation, has that changed?
A. It has not.
Q. And do you know if the Supreme Court has changed whether or not that is or is not valid?
A. . I don't believe it has.
Q. Does your office -- let me ask you this. Do you receive updates any time there is significant legal decisions from the Attorney General's Office?
A. So you're talking about an Attorney General advisory opinion or --
Q. I'm sorry. That was a bad question. How do you get notified -- if there's an important Supreme Court case that changes precedent or is somehow significant, how does your office get notified about that?
A. Well, we generally are not receiving -- let me ask for clarification on this, because I want to make sure we're clear. Are you talking about the United States Supreme Court or are you talking about the Oklahoma Supreme Court?
Q. Well, in this particular case I'm talking about the United States Supreme Court. Like, for example, the McGirt issues. I mean that was obviously hot in the news and everybody was waiting with bated breath for that decision. And then we had a series of Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals cases attempting to interpret McGirt; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And when those decisions came out, how were you -- did you just have somebody watching, somebody notify you, or did you receive an alert? How did you know that there was those decisions?
A. What I would say is, is I am generally abreast of published case law, because I receive a hands-down notice on every Tuesday, and when I receive that notice I review that notice. My first thing I do is determine whether or not it's one of my four counties' cases. And then on Thursday afternoon we generally receive the published cases and I read the published cases.
Q. Okay.
A. I also attend CLE regularly and I am also either -- if I'm not providing a legislative update, I generally am involved in some way in providing the legislative update to the areas within my four counties. So I generally stay abreast as to Oklahoma law.
Q. And is there any -- for example, every Monday get -- there's a newsletter that -- I don't know if you know James Hankins, but he's got this criminal law -- he provides a newsletter every Monday and it's got the new cases in it. I read that. Is there anything you get on a fairly regular basis emailed to you that describes changes in existing law?
A. Besides the way I receive it as I described earlier, I'm generally involved also in the legislative process now as part of my job; and I'm also a member -- or have been a member in the past of the Oklahoma 2nd Amendment Association.
Q. Okay. So you don't know if any of the gun laws have changed since Mr. Paulsen was initially on probation in 2016?
A. I don't recall if there's any changes to 12 -- or 21 O.S. 1283. I did review O.S. 1283 lately and I see that -- I recall the language of that and know that that would have been a statute that is in place and is currently active. Page 26 of the transcript
Paulsen's attorney likely knows of the Rehaif case which was delivered in June of 2019 and Jack Thorpe is saying he is aware of the changes in gun laws and would have known about the landmark Rehaif decision and would have known that the elements of the crime were not met in Paulsen's case.
Q. Going to hand you what's marked 24. What is that document, sir?
A. Appears to be a minute order.
Q. And what is the date of that minute order?
A. July 11, 2018.
Q. And what is that minute order? Is it pertaining to Tyler Paulsen's application to accelerate?
A. If this is the minute order for case CF-2016-359.
Q. All right. Is it resolving the application to accelerate that was filed in January of 2018?
A. The minute order says per rec, slash, app, which I would take to mean application to accelerate, withdrawn, cost to State. Defendant to pay a $55 bond fee.
Q. All right. And it says defendant -- or it says d-e-f, which obviously you agree that that means defendant, correct, at the very top?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. W, which means with, attorney R. Stubblefield state by -- it looks like that's Mike Fisher; is that correct?
A. Yes. That does look like Mike Fisher.
Q. You don't know whose handwriting this is, do you?
A. I don't.
Q. It appears to be signed by assistant district attorney. Do you see that?
A. I do. In this signature it looks a little bit more like "M," so that could be Mike Fisher.
Q. Okay. He was employed with your office at that time; correct?
A. I believe so.
Q. All right. And tell me when something is withdrawn, what does that mean?
A. I would say that it means that in this case, there was a decision not to proceed forward with an application to accelerate.
Q. And is that something that is normally within the discretion of the assistant district attorney that you have assigned to a case?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. Let me now hand you what has been marked as 25. What is Exhibit No. 25?
A. It's an application to accelerate a deferred judgment in Case No. CF-2016-359 against Tyler Scott Paulsen and it is different from the original application to accelerate deferred judgment.
Q. Okay. And how are they different?
A. It appears in this case that there was a filed felony case mentioned for Mayes County, CF-2018-141, and it lists specifically criminal offenses of possession of firearm while under -- on supervision by DOC, driving with a license canceled or suspended, revoked, and speeding 11 to 15 over, as shown in -- what it says is Mayes County case CF-2018-141.
Q. Okay. And what is the date that that application was filed?
A. Appears to be July 23, 2018.
Q. And what was the date the first app was dismissed in the court minute that you just looked at?
A. July 11, 2018, it appears.
Q. So that would be less than two weeks later after the first app was withdrawn, another app is filed. Would you agree with that?
A. I would agree with that.
Q. And which is the district attorney that signed this second application to accelerate?
A. That would be Douglas Dry.
Q. Do you know where Mr. Dry is currently working?
A. He is currently in private practice.
Q. How long -- well, let me ask you this. How long did he stay employed with your office during this time period?
A. During this time period, because he has been with our office and left our office three times. So I believe he left this last time last summer.
Q. Okay. And I ran across him in Adair -- in Stilwell, Adair County. Is Adair County within your district?
A. Yes.
Q. And that would have been in the summertime, so from the time you did this application, the second application to accelerate, until sometime in the summer, he was employed with your office continuously, correct, or was there a gap in employment?
A. May I ask you to rephrase that question? There was -- there's been two gaps in his employment. He worked for us, retired, came back to work for us, retired again, came back to work with us, and then retired a third time.
Q. Okay. What's the date of that second application to accelerate that was filed against Mr. Paulsen?
A. July 23, 2018, but it shows a date of 17th day of 2 July, 2018.
Q. What do you mean "it shows a date"?
A. So there's a date signed that says 17th day of July, 2018, but the file mark stamp is 2018, July 23rd.
Q. Okay. So what does that indicate to you?
A. That the application was likely presented for signature and then filed at a later date.
Q. So signed and approved, the date it's signed is the date that an assistant district attorney approves of it; correct? Puts their name on it?
A. Generally I would believe so. I don't know that Doug Dry signed -- put in the date of signing, I just know that that's his signature.
Q. Okay. And district attorneys are subject to Rule 11. You would agree with that; correct?
A. What's a --
Q. Rule 11.
A. Which Rule 11?
Q. Well, when an attorney signs their name to a document, are they certifying that they have a good faith belief that it's true and correct?
A. I believe so, yes.
Q. And what happened between the date the first application was withdrawn - if you look at that court minute - compared to July 18? Did anything significant happen between those two dates?
A. Okay.
Q. Didn't you say that that was signed by Mr. -- did you say the date that was signed, the second application, was July 18?
Q. 17th, I'm sorry. What is the date of the dismissal of the first application?
A. It looks to be July 11, 2018.
Q. Okay. So what happened between July 11 and July 17 to cause a second app to be filed against Mr. Paulsen, if you know?
A. I don't know.
Bull crap....The City Court of Adair is not a reporting agency, meaning their records do not upload to OSCN.net and the likelihood of anyone finding out that Paulsen was stopped on a speeding charge, car impounded due to his license being a couple of days out of date, the case pled guilty to, fines paid, and dismissed, only to be re opened with a new affidavit of probable cause that contradicted the original affidavit of probable cause from the arresting officer, is highly unlikely. Of course Commissioner Hanning has admitted he showed up at the Clerk's office in Adair. Jack Thorpe is flat out lying if he says he doesn't know why the first application to accelerate was dismissed and a second app filed six days later.
Q. If an app to accelerate is withdrawn, is it unusual to refile an app to accelerate after it's been withdrawn?
A. Not at all, no.
Q. ) Would you agree with me that if it is refiled, it's usually based on a new violation or a defendant not doing what he bargained for?
A. There's a myriad of reasons why an application could be withdrawn and then refiled. I don't know what specifics.
Q. And as you sit here today, you don't know what Mr. Dry's logic was in refiling the second application against Mr. Paulsen; is that correct?
A. I don't, other than there is a noticeable change on the face of this application to accelerate, which would indicate to me that a felony information was filed that includes the three allegations of crime in Mayes County that would be different than how it was listed in the previous app.
Q. And you're noticing that based on your review of it; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. But you have not talked to Mr. Dry or done any type of investigation to determine what caused your office to file a second application against Mr. Paulsen?
A. I don't recall any reasoning about that other than my experience would be I'm seeing that there is a filed felony case. That's just my experience. So I don't recall ever speaking to Doug Dry about this app.
Now, this is a good place to stop and remember that affidavit that Jack Thorpe voluntarily signed claiming there was no special consideration shown to James Hanning in the Paulsen case. Now he is saying that he don't no nuffin.....
Q. But you would agree with me that one of the bases of the first application was Mr. Paulsen's possession of a firearm. Would you agree with that?
A. Yes.
Q. And that was also the basis of the filing in Mayes County; is that correct?
A. I don't think I understand what you're saying there.
Q. Well, let me ask you. How would the filing of a new criminal case be significant if the underlying act was already a basis of the first application to accelerate?
A. Because there's no appearance on the original app or notice to the Court that -- and then another -- there's actually no notice of any filed criminal offense on the first app; and the second app contains with it a case filing of CF-2018-141 that to a prosecutor would indicate that while these allegations, maybe rules -- violations of rules and conditions of probation, which is generally the sentence two, in this app, the Court is on notice that there is a pending filed felony case - which one of these crimes is a felony, the other two are misdemeanors - and that there is an actual another criminal filing.
Q. Okay. And, again, though, the possession of a firearm was an allegation in the first application; correct?
A. That is correct, but you have to understand that this is -- this is an application based on a filed criminal matter in another jurisdiction. This is an application, what appears to me, to be a -- based on allegations of violations of the law, but it doesn't relate to a specific criminal case. And in there it says -- it says the defendant had in his possession a firearm in which he was not supposed to have as a rule and condition of probation, and I think that's one of the questions you were talking about earlier. In this specific case, he is now formally charged in CF -- The original is this Exhibit 18, the original application filing against Tyler Paulsen, in which it does not list specific criminal charges as in that formal charges based on information. This application does list an actual filed criminal charge in CF-2018-141 out of Mayes County.
Q. Do you know what information your office provided to Mayes County prior to a criminal case being filed in Mayes County against Tyler Paulsen?
A. I don't recall.
Opps! And he signed an affidavit purporting to have all knowledge of the case?
Q. Do you recall what information your office received from Mayes County prior to the second application to accelerate being filed?
A. I can only speculate, but I don't -- no, I don't know how we knew that there was not a criminal charge at this point and there was a criminal charge at this point.
Q. Do you know whether any employees of your office had any communication with the Town of Adair regarding Tyler Paulsen?
A. I don't.
Q. Do you know who -- was there a Skye that worked at your office?
A. Yes.
Q. What is her last name?
A. It was Skye Morris.
Q. Does she still work there?
A. She does not.
Q. What was her job title?
A. She was either support staff, in that she was a legal secretary, or she was a probation officer at one point.
Q. And as a probation officer, did they have any role in investigating applications to accelerate, whether they should be filed?
A. They would. Generally in the past we don't have active probation officers or -- because we don't have -- we have DA probation, but it's not the same as it was back then. So their job was to monitor the probation -- the individuals that were under probation, run searches through OSCN and ODCR, make specific queries, and determine whether or not an individual was following the rules and conditions of their probation.
The next few questions attempt to uncover the source of a fax sent to Mayes County from Wagoner County but without a cover sheet identifying who sent the fax.
Q. In Wagoner County, do you happen to know what the fax number is of Wagoner County District Attorney's Office?
A. I do not.
Q. Does the Wagoner County District Attorney's Office use fax cover sheets when they fax documents?
A. At some point maybe we did. I don't know. I actually don't recall faxing anything in years. I usually -- if I do something, I generally scan it. But, I mean, it's been a while, so maybe we did fax back then. I don't know.
Q. And I'm kind of with you. I don't do that much faxing anymore. Do you know if your fax machine is an old school one that kind of makes the annoying peep and you send a document and receive a document, or if it changed?
A. We have a copier machine that I think -- and that's what I use to scan, and I believe it's also a fax.
Q. And that's kind of what --
A. One big thick copier.
Q. And that's kind of what I have. I scan a document and then I can either email it or I can fax it, but I no longer have the old school fax machine, and it sounds like you guys don't either. Do you know when you changed?
A. No.
Q. In 2018, do you know what type of fax machine you had?
A. No.
Q. Were you aware of whether or not Mr. Hanning had any communication with the Town of Adair regarding Tyler Paulsen?
A. I'm not aware of anything like that.
Q. And Mr. Hanning is a county commissioner you said; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Where does Mr. Hanning work at?
A. He has a county office on Kenosha, and generally whenever I've encountered Mr. Hanning it's been in the county commissioner room where he is part of the board of county commissioners.
Q. And is that -- the room that you were just describing, is that at the Wagoner County Courthouse?
A. That is.
Q. Did Mr. Hanning ask you to refile criminal charges against Vanessa Edwards?
A. No. I don't even know who Vanessa Edwards is.
Vanessa Edwards was the drug dealing (according to Eric Jordan at the time he prosecuted Paulsen) crazy woman that was the mother of Paulsen's child and the “victim” in the original case that was later declared dismissed and non existent. She was also communicating with James Hanning and sending thousands of vile text messages to Paulsen filled with threats of what she and Hanning were going to do to him.
Q. Has Mr. Hanning ever asked you to file criminal charges against anybody?
A. No.
Q. How long had Mr. Jordan been employed with your office?
A. I don't know. He's had two stints at the DA's office and he's currently the first assistant DA. He's been the first assistant DA since the fall of 2022.
Q. When you say "first assistant," are you talking about Wagoner County?
A. No, I'm talking about District 27.
Q. Is he assigned to any one county?
A. He is not now. Prior to this he was an assistant DA -- supervising assistant DA in Cherokee County. When I say "prior to this," prior to his appointment as first assistant DA, he was the supervising ADA in Cherokee County.
Q. Okay. So as a first assistant in District 27, is he the next in command after you?
A. That is correct.
Q. So he would be a supervisor; correct?
A. He is a supervisor.
What was unsaid, and remember that Eric Jordan and James Hanning were sitting in the room during this deposition, was that Eric Jordan had been arrested for drunk driving after back over a neighbor and being ran down by the police. Jack Thorpe “fired” Jordan then re hired him in one of his other districts that were part of the four counties he is the D.A. in. Jordan immediately got the court records sealed by the court while the rest of us rarely get such help from the justice system.
Q. Are you aware of whether or not Mr. Jordan previously represented James Hanning in a private capacity?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. And during the time that Mr. Jordan represented James Hanning, was he also employed as an assistant district attorney?
A. Toward the end of Mr. Jordan's representation of Mr. Hanning he had been hired to work in Cherokee County, but I believe when he started representing Mr. Hanning, and I'm not -- I'm pretty sure about this, that he had not represented James Hanning.
Q. Do you know if there's any restrictions on whether or not a part-time assistant district attorney can represent somebody in a private capacity?
A. My understanding of the law regarding the representation of a private client would be upon taking the appointment as an assistant district attorney, you cannot do criminal cases and you'd have to exit your criminal cases if he was a criminal defense attorney, but you can complete any cases that you had retained on your private capacity. I believe there's a statute that outlines that.
Q. So if you're representing somebody in a private capacity that's not a criminal matter, you can continue to represent them?
A. You can continue and close out the case. And there is a provision about how much they make salary-wise regarding whether or not an assistant DA could continue on and accept private clients. There's some DAs that make 40,000. It had something to do with if you make at least half of what the district attorney makes then you can no longer receive private cases, but the statute about the appointment of assistant DA or DAs does recognize that those individuals can continue their representation of clients retained prior to employment.
Q. Was it your position that Mr. Jordan representing County Commissioner Hanning in a private capacity was a conflict of interest?
A. Actually, I didn't really even think about whether or not it was a conflict of interest or any of those issues. I recall -- what I thought about was whether or not he could continue his representation upon his rehire, but I hadn't done any of the analysis on conflict of interest.
Q. Do you know when the rehire was?
A. I don't.
Q. Are you aware of whether or not Mr. Jordan was representing James Hanning still when the applications to accelerate were filed and refiled?
A. I have no idea.
Rehire, LOL. After firing him for a felony drunk driving conviction in Wagoner County. And the answer was yes, Eric Jordan was still repenting Commissioner James Hanning while the applications to accelerate were filed. Eric Jordan, the original prosecutor who had persecuted Tyler Paulsen despite knowing that the “victim” Vanessa Edwards was a drug dealing crazy woman (in his own words in the recorded phone call), giving him a sweet deal of a plea bargain despite the innocence and unreliability of Vanessa Edwards, then representing Commissioner Hanning after he was caught embezzling from Paulsen, and watching while his own District Attorney attempted to railroad Paulsen on charges he knew to be false, again in his own words according to the recorded phone call.
Q. Do you know how much money Mr. Hanning has paid Mr. Jordan, if any?
A. I do not.
Q. Hand you what's been marked Exhibit 26. Do you recognize that document?
A. I do not.
Q. All right. Take a moment to look at it and let me know when you are done.
A. I've read the document.
Q. All right. Does that appear to be a court minute disposing the second application to accelerate that was filed by your office?
A. I don't see anything about a second -- okay. Second application. It does have the Case No. CF-16-359. It does mention the assistant district attorney Zach Cabbell, who is an ADA for a different jurisdiction, and that the case was dismissed.
Q. All right. And what is the date that that court minute is filed?
A. I can't tell the year. It looks like it may be a December and it's either a '16, '15, or '18.
Q. Okay. Does it indicate a date that it was signed?
A. It mentioned the date December 11, 2019. It doesn't say in a signature block on that, but it is a date mentioned in the caption.
Q. Does it give a reason why the case is being dismissed or why the application is being dismissed?
A. It says previous arguments and briefs regarding motion to dismiss. Looks like they kind of popped that up in there. "Ruling is made to dismiss the 2nd application to accelerate." It does not give a reason.
Q. Okay. So the second application to accelerate was dismissed. You would agree with that; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. To your knowledge, has a third application been filed?
A. Not to my knowledge, no.
Q. And what's the status of Mr. Paulsen's case CF-2016-359?
A. I don't know.
Q. Do you know whether or not it has been dismissed?
A. I've not -- I don't know.
Q. And we'll go through some documents later over that. Mr. Cabbell you said is in another jurisdiction; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. I believe he's in my county; Rogers County. Is hat your understanding?
A. District 12, yes.
Q. Okay. How did he get assigned to this matter?
A. The District 12 office was appointed by the Attorney General after our office moved to recuse our office.
Q. Okay. And you submitted a request for your office to recuse; is that correct?
A. I did not submit the request, I don't believe.
Q. It was Kim Hall?
A. I believe Kim Hall may have made the request.
Q. Is she still employed with your office?
A. She is not.
Q. But she was at some point in time; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Did you make the decision to recuse? Was it her decision? How does that process work?
A. Generally, I don't know. Every process is completely different. There was a discussion with Kim Hall and then a letter was written.
Q. To the Attorney General's Office?
A. That's correct.
Q. So explain to me how the process works. Your office sends a letter to the AG saying that there is a conflict or requesting reassignment; is that correct?
A. Generally, yes.
Q. Does the AG assign another office on their own or does the office that's requesting the reassignment, do they find another district that's willing to take the case?
A. The AG assigns another DA's office on their own. We're not to have any -- we don't participate in that aspect.
Q. So in this particular case, you sent a letter to the AG's office and they picked District 12 on their own?
A. That's correct -- I don't how they did it. Why they decided to do it like that.
Q. But you didn't have any decision -- you didn't have any input on who it got assigned to; is that correct?
A. No.
Q. And District 12, is that Matt Ballard's district?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. Was he the one in charge of District 12 during this time period as well?
A. I believe so.
Q. Just to make this clear on the record. Your wife is currently employed at District 12; correct?
A. She is employed at District 12 at this time.
Q. Okay. But she was not at that time?
A. She was not at that time.
Q. Mr. Thorpe, I've got a couple of letters that I want to ask you about. That's Exhibit No. 8. Have you seen that document before?
A. I don't recall actually seeing this document, no.
Q. And is that a letter -- well, tell me what the purpose of that letter is, why don't you?
A. This would be a letter that was authored by Kim Hall, First Assistant, to at that time First Assistant Attorney General Dawn Cash asking for a conflict prosecutor to be appointed by the Attorney General's Office.
Q. Okay. And what is the date of that letter?
A. May 20, 2019.
Q. Then let me hand you what has been marked Exhibit 9. I'd ask you to take a look at that letter.
A. Okay.
Q. Is that a letter assigning Mr. Ballard's office?
A. It appears to be a letter assigning Ballard's office, District 12, to prosecution regarding CF-16-35.
Q. 359?
A. No. It says 35, so it looks like it's a typographical error, in Wagoner County. This would be what we generally refer to as an appointment letter.
Q. And is there any doubt that they're talking about Tyler Paulsen's CF-2016-359 case?
A. I don't know if there's no doubt.
Q. Okay. And giving you what I've marked as Exhibit No. 27. Ask you to take a look at that document.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. All right. That is an order dismissing Tyler Paulsen's case; is that correct?
A. It appears to be so.
Q. What date is that filed?
A. 2021, January 29th.
Q. Do you know the circumstances of why it was dismissed?
A. No, not really, other than what I'm reading in here. It appears to have been dismissed based on the Court lacking jurisdiction, and I'm not for sure whether or not Mr. Paulsen is a member of a federally-recognized tribe. But that's the way I read it. The case was dismissed based on -- it doesn't mention in regard, though.
Jack Thorpe's wife has ran interference for Jack and protected him for years, first while working for the Attorney Generals Office and once she left that job under strange circumstances she went to work for Claremore.
Q. All right. Were you aware -- well, let me ask you this. Do you know who Aaron Hanning is?
A. I -- yes. I believe he's James Hanning's brother.
Q. And is he employed or was he employed at any point in time with Wagoner County?
A. You know, I'm not a hundred percent sure, but I think maybe.
Q. Were you aware that he was the individual that called to have Mr. Paulsen arrested?
A. Do what?
Q. Were you aware that Mr. Aaron Hanning was the individual who called to have Tyler Paulsen arrested in Eufaula?
A. I'm not aware of Mr. Paulsen being arrested in Eufaula or I don't know what you're talking about.
Q. All right. Did Mr. Aaron Hanning work with your daughter?
A. Basically you're saying that Aaron Hanning worked at 911. Is that what you're asking?
Q. ) Yes.
A. So I've heard that. I never saw him up there. I never talked to my daughter about Aaron Hanning. I know I've met Aaron Hanning, but I haven't had very many dealings with Aaron Hanning.
Q. Without telling me on the record, do you know what your daughter's cell phone number is?
A. I do know.
Q. You do know?
A. Yes.
Q. If I give you a document, would be able to tell me if her cell phone is on it?
A. Yes.
Q. And you don't have to actually tell me her number, I don't want you to tell me her number on the record, I just want you to look through that Exhibit No. 13 –
A. Okay. I'm going to -- I may be getting it confused, I think.
MR. BUNSON: And before I have him answer that, Counselor, could you just do me a favor and let me know what the relevance of this is in accordance with 6, 7, or 11 paragraphs?
MR. McHUGH: Yeah. I'm just wanting him to confirm that his daughter spoke with Aaron Hanning the night Tyler was arrested and whether or not he was aware of that.
A. Is it on this first sheet?
Q. It should be on -- if it makes it easier --
A. I may not know my daughter's cell phone then. I thought I did.
Q. If it makes it easier, I can give you that. That's a copy that I have with some handwriting on it.
A. Okay. I do see my daughter's cell phone on that one.
Q. That's my only copy. I can get you guys each a copy of that.
A. I don't see it on this one unless I'm missing something. I don't see it on here.
Q. Do you recognize where specifically you indicated you saw your daughter's number?
A. So there's some green highlighting and I see my daughter's cell phone number on the green highlighting.
Q. Okay. And on the -- July 25th of 2018; is that correct?
A. The date, I didn't see it.
Q. Sir, we've handed you a portion of a phone bill from Hanning Investigations. Do you see that?
A. I don't know anything -- A, yes.
Q. Do you know anything about Hanning Investigations, who that is?
A. I do not.
Q. And do you recognize your daughter's cell phone number on this document?
A. I recognize my daughter's cell phone number on this document, yes.
Q. You would agree with me that the last two digits are 07; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know why she was communicating with Aaron Hanning on July 25th at the times indicated on 24 here?
A. I do not.
Q. Have you talked with your daughter at all about Tyler Paulsen?
A. The only thing I talked to my daughter about, she called me or told me something about somebody trying to serve her a subpoena or something along those lines, and I haven't talked to her before or since. I don't even know of she knows who -- I don't know what her relationship is with Aaron Hanning and I don't know that she even knows James Hanning.
Q. And your daughter at some point in time worked for Wagoner County 911?
A. That's correct.
Q. Does she still work for Wagoner County 911?
A. No, she does not.
Q. And Wagoner County 911, what do they do?
A. She was a 911 dispatcher at the 911 -- Wagoner County 911.
Q. And what does a dispatcher do?
A. An individual that receives 911 calls and dispatches law enforcement or fire or ambulance response to emergency calls.
Q. Okay. And I believe you testified earlier that you don't -- you are not aware of any conversations that Mr. Hanning may have had with any assistant district attorney regarding Tyler Paulsen; is that correct?
A. Which Mr. --
Q. James Hanning.
A. The only thing I would recall is I don't generally do civil work and that I will go and try to handle some civil things. But I don't know Mr. Hanning's -- Mr. Hanning generally deals with our assigned civil attorney.
Q. If Mr. Hanning went to somebody at the DA's office and asked them to file charges on Tyler Paulsen, you would only know that if somebody brought it to your attention; correct?
A. Unless somebody brought that to my attention, sure. I don't think it would work like that.
So Jack Thorpe doesn't know nuffin according to his testimony, despite his affidavit saying otherwise, despite his daughter calling Commissioner James Hanning's brother the night that they seem to have arranged to have Paulsen arrested while at Church. Arrested on fake gun charges based upon a felony that was ab inito and dismissed based upon the Court not having jurisdiction, despite no instructions to Paulsen in his supervision papers about gun rights. All the players tied together by kin and phone calls and texts out the wahzoo and Jack Thorpe doesn't know nuffin.... Jack Thorpe who although he had recused from the case and knows nuffin it seems, signs an affidavit for Commissioner Hanning's new attorney stating that he has knowledge of no special treatment for Hanning....
And why does Hanning have a new lawyer? Because the one good thing that Eric Jordan did was to fire Commissioner Hanning as a client, in his own words after realizing that Hanning had molested his own step daughter and for persecuting Paulsen using the power of his office and Jack Thorpe's office.
Get ready for the Eric Jordan deposition transcript, it is the worst train wreck I have ever seen. Coming in a few days.
