Payment Declined: Action Required for Domain Renewal

Payment Declined for Your Wix Account Your domain has been suspended due to an issue with the payment method on file. To restore your domain, please update your payment details as soon as possible and verify your contact information and billing statement. If the upcoming attempt to process the payment fails, your account will be automatically canceled.

Renew now

If you have not made any changes, please let us know by contacting Wix Support. Thanks, The Wix Team

Please do not respond to this email 500 Terry A Francois Blvd San Francisco, CA 94158 www.wix.com See our privacy policy

Judicial/Prosecutorial Rape in Tulsa County And Corruption in the GOP and the Oklahoma District Courts

  Our blog spot with some stories from the missing years

 

 

 

Judicial/Prosecutorial Rape in Tulsa County

 

Wagoner County lead prosecutor John Bennett to the right

 

We first started writing about one of the most horrendous persecutions of an innocent man we have ever seen back in January of this year. The first article about the persecution of Jeff Krigel laid out the ridiculous case of “rape” coming from his then on and off again girlfriend. Actually she never accused him of rape, she claims she doesn't know what happened the night she spent at his house, not taking a SANE exam until five days after she had successfully stalked Krigel after he had refused to accept her phone calls or respond to her text messages. As she had interned as an assistant to rape victims during her law school internship, while living at Krigel's house with him supporting her through law school, she knew that there was a three day maximum to gather evidence if a woman claimed rape.

 

Previously a lawsuit between Krigel and his ex wife in a custody battle led to emails between the “victim” and the ex wife surfacing with the “victim” admitting she had lied about allegations she had made after the ex wife convinced her that Krigel had cheated on her. Another text message from the “victim” asked Krigel how drunk could she get and still have sex, worried that she would drink too much and he would refuse to have sex that night.

 

The original “victim”, one Jessica Hanney, later claimed rape. She and Krigel had been living together, had gone out Saturday night partying, and came home had wild sex as usual. The next morning she testified that Krigel had rolled her over, waking her up from sleep, and they had sex again, something she claimed was not consensual. She didn't complain, didn't fight back, didn't tell anyone, didn't file charges, until years later at the urging of Krigel's ex wife. The original story in the link above contains an email between Hanney and the ex wife Stephanie Duran with Hanney retracting some wild accusations she had made against Krigel, something that never came up in the preliminary hearings. Once again this is ex-culpable information, proving that Duran was digging and Hanney had previously lied in allegations against Krigel.

 

All of this surfaced around June of 2021. The ex wife had remarried and was no longer content with sharing custody of their pre teen daughter. The ex wife had remarried a man from Belgium and wanted to move there to live and take their daughter with her. Krigel rightfully vetoed that idea as he had legal rights and shared custody of the child. So the ex wife started contacting all of Krigel's ex girlfriends and lining up some very shaky cases of sexual assault, being aided by her former position at the Tulsa County D.A. Office.

 

This was bad enough but Krigel had earned the ire of the local police departments, sheriff department, and more than a few judges through his exposure of corruption and his willingness to take on cases that were outrageous persecution of middle class and the poor. Jeff had a big heart and anyone that could pay even a fraction of a retainer got help. Local prosecutors were not happy with this.

 

Things became worse in January of 2023 when prosecutors filed another round of “rape” cases. In May of 2023 several women including the ex girlfriend Jessica Haney testified against Krigel in the second set of cases. Haney testified that she and Krigel had a kinky lifestyle, three way sex, sex in public, all sorts of kinky stuff. Of course she blamed him for dragging her into it but few women would believe this especially from a woman with a law degree.

 

Next was a witness that testified that Krigel had filed a criminal case evidence exhibit that consisted of a blurry photocopy of a screen shot of her hoo haw. Krigel had represented a client accused of spousal rape and had filed a VPO against the husband. Only to start sending him pictures of her hoo haw and other bits and pieces telling him how much she missed him, wanted him back and talking about the “miles” they had put on the screen shot body part. This was ex-culpable evidence, Krigel was duty bound to file the evidence because it instantly shot down the VPO and neutered the spousal rape charge.

 

Another witness told of how Krigel “intimidated” her as one of the “victims”. . What actually happened was that Krigel's LAWYER had filed discovery documents in their child custody lawsuit after the ex wife refused to cooperate with the discovery process. Throughout the testimony the witnesses showed great clarity and memory when questioned by the prosecutor but were hard pressed to answer any of the Defendant's lawyers queries.

The ex wife, one Stephanie Duran, made some fantastic charges about her being raped while their pre teen daughter was in the room, something she had never brought up in the original five year custody battle. When pressed to count the number of times she had been “raped” by Krigel she settled on more than 50 times. And again, this is a licensed lawyer of the same age as her ex husband. Raped by her husband but she never filed charges or complained to anyone that her husband had raped her. Again no telling friends or family and not a single SANE exam to back up anything. Tellingly she couldn't give a time frame for any of the allegations.

 

Now a grand jury actually indicted Krigel and Duran's testimony differed in front of the Grand Jury from her testimony on May 23^rd. Grand Juries tend to indict ham sandwiches, easily being led by a corrupt prosecutor and hearing only one side of the story.

 

And the witnesses were escorted in and out of the court room and retired to a back room with a phalanx of cops, district attorneys, and even multiple private attorneys that were allowed to make filings and statements in court on behalf of their clients. The witnesses admitted to being prepared by the prosecutors prior to their testimony and having the prosecutor “clarify” their statements.

 

Throughout the entire hearings the prosecutor would run wild, questioning witnesses on documents without offering any documents into evidence as an exhibit. When the judge told the prosecutor to meet the Defendant's lawyer at the Court Clerk's office immediately after the hearing to provide copies of the state's documentation and evidence the judge simply told the judge he didn't have the time for doing so. Any normal prosecutor wold find themselves sitting jail for talking back. This went on for multiple hearings, the prosecutor refusing to file basic information instead of sharing the evidence he had as required by criminal law.

 

Here it is August and Krigel has sat in solitary confinement since January 16^th. No bond, delay after delay on the hearings and a complete lack of discovery shared with the Defense. I have lost track of the judges that have been forced to recuse from the case but each one has become worse than the last. Open favoritism to the prosecutor, deference even, while refusing basic evidence that is to be used against Krigel. Krigel is brought to the courtroom shackled and hobbled, in orange jumpsuits with jail jackets blaring “inmate”

 

Then lately a THIRD round of rape charges had been filed against Krigel. On July 26^th we sat through yet another half day long preliminary hearing. What was different was that the Attorney General's office had seemed to take the case over as the prosecutor. Also present at every hearing is a little scrawny detective known for being involved in local scandal and despite his filing of the probable cause affidavit shows up each time, never being called as a witness but clearly fearful that the case might get dismissed.

 

The first witness on May 23^rd was probably the most cheerful “rape” victim I've ever seen. She was smiling and laughing, near giddy at times with glee as she testified. Not an attorney, but at the time she began a casual sexual relationship with Krigel between five and six years ago. She choose him because he was a powerful local attorney and she was considering law school. She hung out with Krigel and smoked weed, long before they legalized weed, they had lots of sex, she left personal belongings at his house. One example was near the end of the relationship she had left a cheap ring but with sentimental value at Krigel's house, went back to get it, wound up having sex and smoking weed, and forgetting to pick up her ring. Late the ring turned up missing, stolen by a housekeeper they thought, and Krigel offered her several hundred dollars to repay the loss. After a previous week's date, with sex of course, the “victim” showed up at Krigel's house once again where he hugged her from behind and helped himself to the naughty parts, felling her up a bit she testified. She testified that she wasn't in the mood, asked Krigel to stop which he did, she walked outside his house, kissed him goodbye, and she left.

 

She never reported any mistreatment to police, never asked for a SANE exam. Her excuse, she thought the police would refuse to do anything. When asked how it was that she came forward and pressed charges she claimed the Tulsa PD posted a Facebook post asking for former “victims” to come forward. Well, make up your mind woman....

 

Throughout her testimony she was polished, well rehearsed, and had zero problems remembering anything she was asked for by the prosecutor while being unable to remember much of anything asked to her by the defense.

 

On cross exam this woman admitted she met Krigel off one of the hook up sites, gave up sex on the first date, had many dates, and again admitted she had kissed Krigel on the way out of his house that day. A different tale had been told to the detective that insists on hanging around for the court hearings. Still the “victim” left the room smiling and smug.

 

The third “victim” that day walks in like an amazon, I swear she is taller and weighs more than Krigel does. Big enough to go bear hunting with a switch kind of tall. Presentable, not a slattern, just one big honking chick. With a full size dog as a “therapy” dog. This one was dragged up from 2010, thirteen years ago, before Krigel had met and married his ex wife. Krigel's crimes were that he was persistent and flattering during their dating which led to a year and a half relationship in which she got pregnant with Krigel's child and had an abortion. They had a rock relationship. They had broken up when she moved to Texas, got back together when she moved back to Tulsa. At this time she complained that Krigel had become “rude” but that they dated, she would sleep over at this house, and that it was common that he would wake her up the next morning, roll her over, and have sex with her. A pretty normal relationship for a dysfunctional couple I think.

 

Until Krigel's ex wife got in touch with her and convinced her to contact the police. On cross examination pages and pages of text messages were revealed but with huge swaths of messages missing, basically cherry picked messages to be taken out of context. By this time the Attorney General prosecutor was fighting hard to exclude the missing text messages which were were told showed massive contact and communication with the ex wife Duran. The witness recounted a tale where the couple was at a public place when she decided that Krigel was a “jerk”, an argument ensued, and the police showed up. Oh dear, a large neurotic woman is upset with her boy friend, by all means call the police. There didn't seem to be any more to that story other than her becoming irate enough that the cops were called on her.

 

She was there because the Bar Association had reached out to her asking her to come testify against Krigel, before criminal charges were filed. Summed up, her complaint was that Krigel was a jerk and rude at the end of their relationship, after she had aborted his baby and moved to another state. Once again, a grown woman who was an attorney, whose worst accusation was that Krigel liked to have sex, some of which she decided over a decade later she wasn't in the mood for. Again, no complaints to police, no reports, no SANE exams, just he said – she said from ten to thirteen years ago.

 

The next “victim” had went to law school with Krigel around 2010 to 2011. Surprise surprise, she was an animal rights activist. They had met and had gone bowling, she went home with Krigel and they had casual sex and spent the night. One week later she came over to his house for the second “date” where she had sat down on the couch. Krigel was said to have gotten down on his knees in front of her, kissed her, made a pass which she rejected, with her pushing him away and “fleeing” the house. Krigel didn't follow or try to stop her. That was it. No police report for Krigel making the pass, no telling friends or family. During all of this the “victim” was smiling and laughing, telling the story of her rejecting Krigel on that second “date” where she showed up at his house.....

 

What made her come forward after over a decade was a news report that Krigel had been arrested and accused of being a “serial rapist”. She was polished, smiling and laughing during her testimony including the cross examination where she admitted that she had continued to date Krigel AFTER she had rejected him on that second date and had fled his house.

 

And yes, a common theme throughout all of the witnesses testimony, she was in therapy prior to meeting Krigel. No allegations of rape or sexual assault, just testimony of the couple dating. Again the woman was a lawyer.

 

In every single case throughout the three hearings, not a single allegation was what most of us consider “rape”. The woman was “dating” Krigel at the time or had met him off a casual sex app, had consensual sex prior to the woman rejecting an advance from Krigel, or was in a long term relationship or had had multiple dates with plenty of sex. But six to thirteen years later the woman decided that Krigel had screwed her without her consent, usually the next morning after a night of consensual sex. Not that she fought to stop him or complained later to police or friends that he forced her to have sex; just that he was in the mood and she wasn't but she complied anyway and they had sex.

 

And that folks ought to terrify every man in the country. Being charged with rape six to thirteen years later because a woman decided she hadn't given consent but had just went along with it. Every married man ought to be quaking in fear right now as well as those men that have dated women. Years later it is impossible for most of us to even remember the details of what might have gone down, all that matters is that at one point a woman felt unappreciated or wanted to get revenge for being dumped or her mental state had deteriorated despite the mental health treatment she had received. So she cried rape and a man's life is ruined and he sits in jail in solitary confinement.

 

The second story we wrote covered about a year's worth of court filings and hearings on the first criminal case. We had read every single filing, amounting to boxes and boxes of paper had it been printed out. Not a single allegation of what most of us consider rape but over a year's worth of lawyers and prosecutors battling it out with the prosecutors refusing to release the evidence so that Krigel's lawyers could prepare for trial. In the second article there is a good recount of the motivations of the little skinny detective that continues to show up at every trial and sit at the prosecutor's table, one Darin Ehrenrich. This is troubling, most cops write their report under oath, might be called to testify once at a hearing, but they don't show up and hang out with the prosecutors. If they testify they are excluded from the court room along with the other witnesses.

 

It is clear from the testimony and evidence and the boxes and boxes of court filings in this case that the prosecutor doesn't expect to go to trial and get a conviction. Where that to happen the appeals court has dozens of reasons to overturn the case based upon prosecutorial and judicial misconduct. The delaying tactics make it clear that there is one point to all of this; punish Jeff Krigel. Allow women from as far as a decade back to publicly air their grievances or their regrets for living a hook up lifestyle. Punish Krigel for writing a blog that exposes the underbelly of the judicial system and the raunchy lifestyles of both cops and prosecutors. There is zero evidence that Krigel is a danger to anyone, the spurious charges of witness intimidation are based upon court filings done by OTHER lawyers in civil cases or ex-culpable evidence filed as an officer of the court, something that lawyers do every week of their life.

 

Watching this go down ought to make every man in the U.S. hesitant to date or even work with a woman. Every woman ought to consider the men in her family or her own sons and wonder what is in store for him one day. But court dockets are filled, court fees paid, lawyers earn their fees, those responsible consider this a feature of the system, not a flaw in the system.  As for Krigel, when he got rebuffed, he stopped.  If nothing else we learned that from the testimony.

 

Lying John Bennett

 

 

Corruption in the GOP and the Oklahoma District Courts

 

A lot of people had asked why the Sooner Tea Party newsletter stopped being sent out in late winter of 2021. The newsletter had been sent out for over ten years at that point, a Sunday night delight for the readers and a Sunday night nightmare for the politicians and crooked judges and prosecutors. The reason was simple, we had recruited former State Rep John Bennett to run for GOP chairman starting in August of the previous year. A meeting of the minds had happened between the Tea Party and the tall building crowd earlier in 2019, peace was requested, a deal to align all the guns and point them a the real enemies of freedom and our way of life. A down payment was offered after we had suggested it; passage of the first Constitutional Carry bill. The Chamber of Commerce had a few changes they wanted but they agreed to lay down and not fight passage of that bill so it was signed into law.

 

The House and Senate had also made marked changes in their voting. We were at the point that much of the work we did was on judicial and prosecutorial corruption instead of exposing the ugly underbelly of Oklahoma politics. As part of the plan to get Bennett elected and reform the GOP and begin using the Party to subtly pressure the politicians to follow the Party platform we decided it was time to shut down the weekly newsletter that had reached thousands of people each week directly, generating tens of thousands of page views on the archives from others re-posting our articles or sending it out to their lists of emails.

 

It was time to work within the system and we did. Getting Bennett elected in a landslide in a four way race on the first ballot. Followed by our forces volunteering at the Party headquarters, cleaning, fixing, raising money to do landscaping. We had a blip in the election, Bennett had come under control of a faction of the Party that was a bit extreme but in the first few months we were confident he would remain true to his long time supporters and remained balanced and represent ALL Republicans in the state. One of our conditions for supporting Bennett was that all had a seat at the table and control in relationship to the numbers they represented.

 

Sadly that control by this group created a cancer that ate up Bennett and then ate up the Party itself. It turned out to be the abolitionists that controlled John Bennett, a fringe radical group of christian fascists that fought to over turn decades of the Right to Life legislation, claiming that having existing laws against abortion weakened “Gawd's” support for eliminating abortion in the state. To them abortion included cases were a mother's life was at stake and even birth control pills.

 

We did start pushing back when Bennett started losing his grip over the crazies but published the story in a weekly blog that had been set up by others to archive our weekly newsletters. We just published the newsletter via email and it automatically turned up on this blog. We had been given access to the site years earlier but it pretty much ran on auto pilot for years. Not wanting to break our word to the tall building crowd but also very aware that we had created a monster and it needed brought back under control, we started publishing stories on the blog site. It was seen by hundreds each week, not the thousands or tens of thousands that the newsletter reached, but it was the right tool at that time.

 

You can search the blog site using John Bennett as the keyword or John Bennett to see the stories that mention Bennett and the crazies. The only problem with using the search function on that blog is that the stories don't come back in order as to date they were written. A better way is to scroll down on the right hand side of the page of any article and find the archives. This is the link to the 2021 archive and around July of 2021 is where we first start trying to call attention to this problem. But, you have to scroll all the way down to the bottom and click on “older posts” to go back to the start of 2021. However, once you click that link, look over to the left after clicking three to four pages down and you will find the months of 2021 highlighted, those are links taking your directly to that month. Here is where you should start, July of 2021. The first story was careful, it pointed out the problem without directly attacking Bennett, we wanted him back to the center and in control. Much later we found out that he was either blackmailed or had simply chosen to turn on his old supporters and allies to protect himself or at least delay a horrendous scandal from reaching the mainstream press.

 

If you have the time to read through these old articles from July 201 forward you get the entire story of the controversy including in May of 2022 when we actually learned why John Bennett had turned on his old supporters and went to crazy town. He had been lying about his military past and when a retired Marine Major showed up and got attacked by Bennett simply because he was a threat to Bennett's reputation, Bennett even had this staff members physically attack this wounded combat veteran in a Walmart, Bennett felt he had to dig a fox hole and shoot anyone that wasn't a member of his faith. Things had gotten nasty, allegations of sexual harassment by Bennett's staff, refusal to prosecute embezzlement and recover tens of thousands of dollars, and by this point every single statewide Republican office holder including Bennett's own vice chairman had renounced Bennett. This includes nearly all of the U.S. Congressmen and U.S. Senators from the state. Bennett's choice for his General Counsel had resigned in protest over Bennett's leadership and the direction of the Party, Bennett throwing Party convention delegates out of State Committee meetings using armed Sheriff deputies and closing the meetings to all visitors which had never been done before.

 

After numerous attempts to get Bennett back to the center a lawsuit was eventually filed on Bennett and the other three members of the Central Committee, any one of which had the power to force Bennett to follow the bylaws of the Party. They were warned via two letters and a published article after the lawsuit was filed offering to drop the lawsuit if the bylaws were followed. Over two years later the lawsuit is still being fought with Bennett currently demanding thousands of dollars in lawyer fees even after his attorneys admitted that civil rights and contract rights were violated but that the Court system couldn't be used to protect those rights. That is in direct contradiction to the Oklahoma Constitution that states that All persons have the right to use the Courts to settle all claims. To get to this point the Court resorted to things such as refusing to allow court reporters into a hearing and allegations of illegal collusion had been made by a close associate to one of the lawyers involved.

 

As this is written the Party is in shambles. The current GOP Chairman “won” his post with a very underhanded move and both the House and Senate refuse to work with the guy. Nathan Damn has even been abandoned by some of his closest supporters, earning a score of 51 in the OCPAC index where he was usually the top scorer at 100%. The top scores are now going to abolitionist legislators like Hamilton who earned the top score of 100% in this year's OCPAC index.

 

On August 17^th we have a shot at overturning the corruption in the John Bennett lawsuit. A motion to vacate based upon the allegations of illegal collusion has been filed and a hearing set. Email records proving who sent the emails have been subpoenaed from California, but it remains to be seen if enough legal talent can be found to protect our rights and force the Court to follow the law.

 

 

---

Unsubscribe / Change Profile

Judicial/Prosecutorial Rape in Tulsa County And Corruption in the GOP and the Oklahoma District Courts

John Bennett Wagoner County ADA

 

Judicial/Prosecutorial Rape in Tulsa County

We first started writing about one of the most horrendous persecutions of an innocent man we have ever seen back in January of this year. The first article about the persecution of Jeff Krigel laid out the ridiculous case of “rape” coming from his then on and off again girlfriend. Actually she never accused him of rape, she claims she doesn't know what happened the night she spent at his house, not taking a SANE exam until five days after she had successfully stalked Krigel after he had refused to accept her phone calls or respond to her text messages. As she had interned as an assistant to rape victims during her law school internship, while living at Krigel's house with him supporting her through law school, she knew that there was a three day maximum to gather evidence if a woman claimed rape.

Previously a lawsuit between Krigel and his ex wife in a custody battle led to emails between the “victim” and the ex wife surfacing with the “victim” admitting she had lied about allegations she had made after the ex wife convinced her that Krigel had cheated on her. Another text message from the “victim” asked Krigel how drunk could she get and still have sex, worried that she would drink too much and he would refuse to have sex that night.

Listen to a Prosecutor Admit a Defendant Didn't Deserve Being Charged and Admit his Client is Likely a Child Molester.

Wagoner Cty D.A. Jack Thorpe

Imagine dating a girl, living with her, going into business with her step father, finding out he was embezzling from the partnership, then being railroaded on false gun charges to prevent you from fighting back.' 

 Search this blog spot for the key words James Hanning to read more about this seven year long persecution of a decent young man.

Young Tyler Paulsen caught Wagoner County Commissioner James Hanning sending materials purchased from Lowes to his personal house for a remodel, demands to see the books and the operating agreement of the partnership, and Commissioner Hanning conspires with Wagoner County Prosecutors office to railroad Tyler on fake gun charges. 

 

Tyler had a run in with the law, the original prosecutor Eric Jordan is the man on this audio tape that is representing Commissioner Hanning in the civil embezzlement/settlement case and Jordan was also the prosecutor on the original felony case where Tyler was framed by his ex. Drugged one night, waking up outside on the deck of his house while SWAT stormed his home. Jordan admits the evidence was weak and the witness Vanessa unreliable, so he cuts a plea deal for Tyler and Tyler accepts on the condition that his gun rights are not affected. A deferred judgement, Tyler pays off the supervisor fees to the D.A. office and they tell him not to bother coming back, he is done.

 

 Hanning finds out about a speeding/driving with an expired license ticket, one that Tyler had already paid the fine and the case was closed, but Hanning got his buddies in two County Prosecutors offices to re open the case and charge Tyler three times with being a felon in possession. During all of this the original judge revisited the case and found he had no jurisdiction so he dismissed the original case declaring the case void ab initio, void from the beginning, as never having existed because the charges were out of his jurisdiction. Two of the felon in possession were dismissed in Wagoner County under Judge Shook but the Mayes County charges continued despite the case the felony was predicated upon being void! They forced Tyler into a plea deal, he had custody of his daughter and couldn't risk going to trial. Oklahoma prosecutors, officers of the court and state officials, and County officials conspire to strip this young man of his assets and his freedom. 

 

The recorded phone call was released after Tyler's attorney realized that his client was being railroaded and couldn't be helped by the court system. In deposition in May of this year, Wagoner County D.A. Jack Thorpe and Creek County lead prosecutor Eric Jordan refused to admit what was said on this tape despite having a transcript of the tape in evidence. In the end Tyler is about to lose about 1.5 million dollars of property after a seven year court battle fighting Wagoner County Commissioner James Hanning and the various corrupt District Attorneys. 

 

A receiver appointed to preserve the assets of the partnership has eaten up most of the rent deposits the past seven years and ran up a $350,000 bill according to the phone call that was taped. This money has to be paid out when the properties are sold at sheriff auction for pennies on the dollar, leaving Tyler with none of the over half million in cash that he invested years ago.

 

 This is a two hour long audio tape but the first hour is the most important and then starting around 1hour 33 minutes into the audio you get to the part where this sitting Prosecutor states that his client is very likely to be a child molester. But Eric Jordan the prosecutor learns this at a deposition, blindsided by the stepdaughter who was being deposed because she worked for her step dad, with the molestation accusations starting since she was in grade school. The funniest part, in a case about abuse of public office and using the power of the prosecutor against others the prosecutors offers to fix the ticket of the other attorney. Not sure if this was intentional on his part but it shows that there are two systems of justice in America.

Commissioner James Hanning remains in office and while admitting he had put his hands down the panties of a 12 year old girl he remains uncharged.  If this outrages you, phone calls to the AG office are in order.    405-521-3921   Here is his Facebook account 

 

Jack Thorpe Wagoner Cty D.A.

Attorney General Office Fighting Tooth and Nail to Protect Accused Child Molester

  Our blog spot with some stories from the missing years

 

Yes, we are back after several years and refreshed and ready again to expose corruption throughout the state. 

 

Jack Thorpe  Wagoner Cty D.A.

Why did we stop for a bit?   A deal had been struck to get John Bennett elected as GOP Chairman between STP and some of the major players in the tall building crowd.  This started back with Constitutional Carry which regular readers will remember was considered a down payment by the tall building crowd.  John Bennett turned out to be a horrible Chairman and a horrible person once in power, complete with accusations of falsifying his military record.  STP sued to take him down and that started a multi year lawsuit that still continues.

 

But our first story in the newsletter is an update on an old story, the Tyler Paulsen persecution out of Wagoner County.  Right now Commissioner James Hanning and several others are being sued for abuse of authority basically and the most concerning part is the AG office fighting tooth and nail to protect an accused child molester that they have refused to prosecute.  I get it, bodies will be dug up when you take down one of the powerful corrupt public officials.   But refusing to clean house just spatters all public officials especially those that are refusing to do their duty or protecting the corrupt.

 

Why would a representative of the Attorney Generals office attempt to prevent the truth from coming out in a corruption civil case where one of the defendants is a public official and has had credible accusations of child molestation against him? If the alleged acts of the defendants were not part of their official duties, why would the AG office even get involved? Below is a cleaned up version of most of a transcript, with line numbers removed to make it more readable, and the cross exam at the end was omitted again for readability and discussion purposes. We will gladly provide the entire transcript in its original form to anyone that requests it.

 

Our comments in larger text are interspersed where needed to ask questions or explain the significance of the line of questioning. In this case Tyler Paulsen is suing Wagoner County Commissioner James Hanning and his brother Arron Hanning. Jack Thorpe is the Wagoner County D.A. who also covers a total of four counties in is judicial district and Eric Jordan is the lead ADA in Creek County, one of Thorpe's four counties. Last week we ran a story on the transcript of the deposition of Jack Thorpe. Reading that story will explain some of the significance of Jordan's answers. Understand that when Thorpe was being deposed in this case James Hanning was sitting in the room listening along with all of their attorneys and the AG lawyer.

Commissioner James Hanning

 

 

DEPOSITION OF ERIC JORDAN, taken on behalf of

the plaintiff pursuant to the following stipulations,

on the 5th day of May, 2023, at 15 West Sixth Street,

Eric Jordan, witness

 

 

Tulsa, Oklahoma,

 

Present in the room were Wagoner County Commissioner James Hanning and Wagoner County District Attorney Jack Thorpe and a representative from the AG office.

 

Bunson is the AG representative and Starr is James and Arron Hanning's lawyer.

Jon Starr, Hannings attorney

 

 

Q. Sir, you're a licensed attorney; is that correct?

 

A. Yes, sir.

 

Q. And you understand that as an attorney, you are considered an officer of the court and your

statements are under oath; correct?

 

A. Yes.

 

Q: How long have you been an attorney?

 

A. Approximately 26 years.

 

Q. And –

 

A. A little short of 26. It will be 26 in, I guess,September of this year, so 25.

 

Q. Were you in the military?

 

A. No.

 

Q. How long have you been working for District 27?

 

A. My last stint started in June of 2018, and then I

had a stint that began in April -- I think it was April of '15.

 

Q. All right. You heard Mr. Thorp. He was trying – he wasn't sure and he was trying to identify time

periods when you were working for his office. Was his time accurate?

 

A. I mean, you'd have to tell me what time he stated. I mean, I listened to part, but I wasn't listening

to everything.

 

Q. All right. Let me do this then. When did you first start working for District 27?

 

A. I believe, to the best of my recollection, it was April of '16.

 

Q. And did you have a gap at all from April of '16 to today?

 

A. Yes.

 

Q. All right. And what period was your gap?

 

A. That would have been roughly from February of '17 until June of '18 where I went back to private practice.

 

Q. And then you came back in -- when in 2018 did you come back?

 

A. June.

 

Q. So if I understand this correctly, April of 2016 until February of 2017, you were working District 27?

 

A. That's correct.

 

Q. And then there was a gap until June of 2018?

 

A. That's correct.

 

Q. And there was a time period that I don't want to get into a whole lot or really at all, but there's a time period where you had to take some time off of work for a legal situation; is that correct?

 

A. I was in private practice.

 

Q. So you were in private practice when that happened?

 

A. Yes.

 

Q. Okay. When the incident happened or when you had to take time off of work?

 

A. When what incident happened?

 

The “incident” that Mr. Bunson is going to be upset about below this comment was the drunk driving arrest and one of the only statements by Jordon was that this was his first traffic accident. Jordan was “fired” from Wagoner County D.A. Office in February of 2017 and rehired by Jack Thorpe around a year later it seems from his answers below. And sent to another county that Thorpe is the D.A. in. You can't make this kind of stuff up... Jordon of course received special treatment by the judicial system, his case was sent to Muskogee county where the possible felony charges of leaving the scene of an injury accident and injuring someone while driving drunk were downgraded to misdemeanors. Jordan ultimately received one year deferred sentences for two charges and a $1000 fine for both charges plus court costs. Jordan and his buddies in the judicial system quickly sealed the case but you can find online copies of the docket for his case. Mr. Bunson is frantic to prevent the jury in this case of levring of this DUI/leaving the scene of an accident because it shows with glaring certainty that there are two judicial systems in Oklahoma, one for the powerful and connected and another for we the peons.

 

MR. BUNSON: I'm going to object. That's well outside the specific topics of which the judge has

allowed testimony.

 

Q. (By Mr. McHugh) Okay. I'll just ask you when you -- when you took time off of work, you were in

private practice; correct?

 

A. I'm not sure I understand your question. What I did is, I left employment with District 27, went into private practice for a period of time, and then came back in 2018.

 

Q. All right. So the situation I was alluding to, that situation occurred while you were in private

practice; correct?

 

A. What situation?

 

MR. BUNSON: I'm going to advise you not to answer. This is outside the scope.

 

Q. (By Mr. McHugh) I'll just ask it this way; this might be easiest. Mr. Thorp didn't use his office or influence at all to get special treatment for you in your criminal charges that were filed against you; is that correct?

 

MR. BUNSON: I'm going to object and advise him not to answer as that's outside the scope of this.

 

Ouch! I'd say backing over a neighbor, crushing him against his mailbox, then driving off leaving the injured man isn't something that most of us would escape felony charges on. The State Police tracked Jordan down and arrested him swerving around the road and stinking of booze.

 

A. Let's go off the record for a minute, because I want to make something clear.

 

MR. McHUGH: We can go off the record.

(A discussion was held off the record.)

 

Q. (By Mr. McHugh) We're back on the record, sir. We had an off-the-record conversation pertaining to a legal matter; is that correct?

 

A. Yes.

 

Q. And you have been advised not to answer questions pertaining to a certain legal matter; is that

correct?

 

A. That's correct.

 

Q. And it's your understanding that it's under seal by court order; is that correct?

 

MR. BUNSON: I'm advising him not to answer that.

 

The fact that Jordan's felonies were reduced to misdemeanors and then sealed from public view is ample proof that most juries will pay attention to.

 

Q. (By Mr. McHugh) So it is two different matters you've been advised by your attorney not to answer;

is that correct?

A. Yes.

 

Q. I say your attorney. By Mr. Bunson. And you also believe that it's subject to a seal or a confidentiality order; correct?

 

MR. BUNSON: I'm going to advise him not to answer that. I've advised him not to answer. That's enough.

 

Q. (By Mr. McHugh) All right. Sir, we were asking you previously about your time at the Wagoner

County DA's Office. You came back in - I got to look at my dates - February 2018; is that correct? June of 2018?

 

Very convenient, exactly one year after his arrests on DUI and leaving the scene of an injury accident he was rehired by D.A.Jack Thorpe.

 

A. June of '18 I was assigned to Cherokee County District Attorney's Office. That's what I was

hired to do.

 

Q. How long were you at Cherokee County?

 

A. I still have an office there, so I mean, I've been there since June of '18.

 

Q. Okay. And you are now the first assistant of the whole district; is that correct?

 

A. Yes.

 

Q. Did you previously represent Mr. James Hanning?

 

A. I did.

 

Q. Do you know what period of time you represented him?

 

A. It would have been sometime in -- and I can't remember the exact dates, but I believe the representation started sometime in 2017 when there was -- I guess a property dispute between Mr. Hanning and his partner at the time, a series of rental properties that they owned together.

 

So Jordan took on Commissioner Hanning as a client in a civil case after being “fired” as a Wagoner County ADA. In a Hanning deposition, a witness, Hanning's step daughter, swore under oath that Commissioner Hanning had molested her when she was in grade school and the acts continued for some years. While you are reading this keep that deposition in mind because it will be a matter of contention. The taped phone calls between Eric Jordan and another lawyer showed that Jordan finally bailed on Commissioner Hanning when the child molestation charges came out and in the phone call Jordan stated that found them credible. Another point you will learn is that Commissioner James Hanning paid little or nothing for Jordan's legal services. Allegedly, and we have not read that particular transcript, Hanning claims he never paid Jordan a dime. In Jordan's answers here in this transcript we will learn that he had large number of hours that never were billed and for unclear reasons. Keep this in mind, we have a theory that probably explains everything that we will divulge later on in this article.

 

Q. And would that be Tyler Paulsen?

 

A. I believe so, yes.

 

Q. At any point in time when you were representing --well, let me ask you this. When did your

representation with Mr. Hanning end?

 

A. That's what I was trying to remember. It was sometime in 2019, I believe, and that's the best of my recollection. There was a last deposition and then I think there had been a pending motion for summery judgment filed by counsel for Mr. Paulsen, so it was sometime around that time, if that gives you a brief, kind of something to look at to see approximately when that representation ended.

 

Around October 21^st of 2019 The Sooner Tea Party broke the story of Jordan learning of the child molestation accusations while representing Commissioner Hanning in that deposition and here we see Jordan confirming basically that this was the likely breaking point.

 

Q. So was there a time period where you were representing Mr. Hanning and working for District 27?

 

A. Yes.

 

Q. When you were working for District 27 and representing Mr. Hanning, were you a part-time DA

25 or full time?

 

A. No, I was full time.

 

Q. Were you full time in Cherokee County?

 

A. Yes, sir.

 

Q. You heard Mr. Thorp testify about what some of the restrictions are. Was there ever a limitation on

the amount of money you can receive in private practice?

 

A. There probably is, but I did not bill Mr. Hanning for any money. Once I started back to the DA's

office I never sent him another bill, to avoid, you know, any kind of concern.

 

Q. So you say you didn't bill him once you started at the DA's office. Did he pay you once you started

working at the DA's office?

 

A. No.

 

Q. So you were representing him for free?

 

A. I intended to bill him, I kept track of my time, but I never submitted a bill because circumstances of a deposition, some things -- allegations that, you know, I didn't think had much merit, but still caused what I felt was a conflict I had to withdraw. I kind of felt bad because I had to withdraw and he had to seek other counsel, so I just ate the hours, if you will.

 

Q. And you are talking about the allegations that were made by someone with the initials of CC in a

deposition; is that correct?

 

A. That's correct.

 

 

Bingo.... CC is Commissioner Hanning's stepdaughter. But re read Jordan's answers and ask yourself if he EVER billed Commissioner Hanning for any of the legal representation? Jordan says Commissioner Hanning never paid him after he started working at the D.A. Office again, leading us to believe that Hanning never paid a dime which corresponds to what Commissioner Hanning allegedly stated in his deposition.

 

It is not a stretch to consider and believe that Jordan's ticket back into good graces with Wagoner D.A. Jack Thorpe was to protect Commissioner Hanning at no cost. Perhaps that might be the reason his potential felony charges of DUI and leaving the scene of an injury accident were reduced to misdemeanors?

 

Q. And that individual is Mr. Hanning's stepdaughter?

 

A. I don't think I'm going to answer that question.

 

Q. Are you refusing to answer that?

 

A. There's laws that prevent me from answering that question.

 

Q. What law prevents --

 

MR. BUNSON: Can we go off the record for a moment?

 

MR. McHUGH: Yes.

(A discussion was held off the record.)

 

Q. (By Mr. McHugh) Sir, before we left, I was asking you about when you withdrew from representing

Mr. Hanning. There was information that came to light in a deposition with Mr. Hanning's stepdaughter; is that correct?

 

MR. BUNSON: And I'm advising him not to answer any questions regarding any specifics regarding that case.

 

Q. (By Mr. McHugh) All right. So I'm going to ask a series of questions. Your attorney is probably

going to instruct you not to answer. I just want a record over that. Did Mr. Hanning's stepdaughter make an accusation of sexual misconduct against Mr. Hanning in a deposition that you attended with Chris Camp?

 

MR. BUNSON: And I'm advising you not to answer that question.

 

MR. STARR: And show my objection. This is way far afield and if we're going there, I'm going to ask we adjourn the deposition and I'm going to seek a protective order right now. This has nothing to do with this case. If we need to call -- take a break and call Judge Hake I'm prepared to do that, because this has nothing to do with the pending case.

 

MR. BUNSON: And for the record, I am in agreement with Counsel, that this is far outside the bounds of what we are allowed to be discussing today and the relevance to it alone.

 

MR. McHUGH: And for the record, I think it would pertain to paragraph number 11, especially if the allegation is that Mr. Hanning received cronyism and special -- special treatment as a result of his relationship with Wagoner County.

 

Not only Commissioner Hanning received cronyism, it seems that Eric Jordan also received consideration and Jordan's statement that he “never billed Hanning for money..” seems to be a carefully crafted statement that leaves open the door for Jordan receiving other compensation. Now only only are Starr and Bunson (AG office) desperate to keep this out of the record and away from the jurors, they are also claiming part of the refusal to answer is about attorney client privilege, keeping Jordan's discussions of Commissioner Hanning's case confidential. The problem we will see is that Jordan already spilled the beans to the opposing attorney in a series of taped phone calls.

 

Q. (By Mr. McHugh) Sir, during the course of the deposition I've described, did you ask CC a series of questions based on disclosure that she made when she was being questioned by Mr. Camp?

 

MR. BUNSON: And I'm advising you not to answer that question.

 

Q. (By Mr. McHugh) Did you or anyone from your office make a mandatory report based on information that was learned during that deposition?

 

MR. BUNSON: I'm advising you not to answer.

 

Q. (By Mr. McHugh) Did Mr. Thorp refer a criminal investigation regarding Mr. Hanning to the AG's

office for reassignment pertaining to information that came out in the deposition of CC?

 

MR. BUNSON: I'm advising you not to answer that.

 

The answer is that Wagoner County D.A. Jack Thorpe refused to file charges and booted the case to the Attorney Generals office claiming a conflict, effectively washing his hands of the dirty work of arresting Commissioner Hanning on child molestation charges. Keep in mind that Joy Thorpe, Jack Thorpe's wife, worked for the AG office during this entire mess and was in a position to ensure that the “right” prosecutor got the case to safeguard her husband and Jordan and Commissioner Hanning. Thorpe did write a letter to the OSBI asking for them to investigate. We know this because Joy Thorpe texted the Sooner Tea Party asking us to file an open records request on the OSBI letter which sailed through their process in hours and we received the letter the next day. The OSBI interviewed the victim, several of her friends that she had confided in on the allegations, and that was the end of things for Commissioner James Hanning's child molestation charges. CC, the victim, expressed gratitude on Facebook that the truth had finally come out and prayed that she would get justice on Commissioner Hanning and to an extent her own mom that allegedly knew of the allegations when the molestation occurred.

 

Q. (By Mr. McHugh) As you sit here today, do you know what has happened into the investigation against Mr. Hanning?

 

MR. BUNSON: I'm advising you not to answer that.

 

Q. (By Mr. McHugh) Sir, do you recall after the deposition that we've been talking about, how long after that deposition did you withdraw from the case or end your relationship with Mr. Hanning?

 

A. I couldn't tell you. If I filed a motion for withdrawal, that might give you -- I assume I did. I don't have a recollection, but if you look at the docket sheet, I presume there would be a motion to

withdraw on file, so that would give you a good time frame.

 

Q. And when you withdrew, did you assist Mr. Hanning at all in finding another attorney?

 

A. I don't believe so. I think he had already -- at some period of time he obtained counsel on his own

and then that counsel contacted me and I gave him some files and so on and so forth.

 

Q. Were you an employee of District 27 when the application to accelerate, the first one, was filed

against Mr. Paulsen?

 

A. No.

 

These application to accelerate where filings from Wagoner County Jack Thorpe's office to revoke Tyler Paulsen's deferred judgement from 2016 which you will learn more about later in this transcript. The short story is that Paulsen was told his gun rights were retained as he was never found guilty of anything, that decision was deferred for five years. This isn't like exactly like Eric Jordan's deferred sentences for DUI and leaving the scene of an injury accident where he was found guilty but the sentence was suspended for one year. Paulsen's conditions of supervision didn't mention guns or gun rights so he had no idea he couldn't possess a firearm during his five year deferred judgement. So when Commissioner James Hanning finds out that Paulsen had been stopped, Hanning drives to the town of Adair over in Mayes County, introduces himself as a County Commissioner, and informs Mayes County that Paulsen was a felon under DOC supervision. Then Wagoner County filed the application to accelerate to send Paulsen to prison so that he was unable to fund his defense of the lawsuit over around 1.5 million dollars of property that Paulsen says Commissioner Hanning embezzled or wasted away. To be fair, the receiver wound up screwing both men, ,that is another taped phone call and another story. The first app to accelerate was dismissed and six days later a second app was filed. That will be discussed in this transcript.

 

Q. Were you an employee of District 27 when the second application to accelerate was filed?

 

A. When was that filed?

 

Q. I believe it was July 23rd. Let me look at the date. It was the one he testified early this morning was signed on July 18th. I have it right here, sir; it's Exhibit No. 25. Appears to be filed stamped July 23rd of 2018. Do you see that?

 

A. Yes. Yes, I was.

Q. So you came there in June of 2018. That was your testimony; correct?

 

A. I came to Cherokee County in June of 2018.

 

Q. And you were an employee not of Cherokee County, but of District 27; is that correct?

 

A. Yes.

 

Q. And that includes Cherokee, Wagoner, Adair and Sequoyah?

 

A. That's correct.

 

Q. Okay. When the application was dismissed in July, you were also an employee of District 27; is that

correct?

 

A. Yes.

 

Q. Do you know why the second application was filed?

 

A. No.

 

Q. Did you have any discussions with anyone in Wagoner County DA's Office about having an application filed against Mr. Paulsen?

 

A. No.

 

Q. Did you represent to anyone that Mr. Hanning used the legal system and his job as a commissioner to get leverage over Mr. Paulsen?

 

A. No.

 

The transcript of the taped phone call between Eric Jordan and Paulsen's attorney at the time says otherwise. You can read the many stories of the Paulsen persecution at our blog site starting in early 2019, start all the way at the bottom of this link and read the stories in order they were posted. One story does have a discussion of the taped phone calls and details of the OSBI “investigation” where Commissioner James Hanning was alleged to admitting to waking up on Christmas Eve in bed with his 12 year old stepdaughter with his hand down her pants, claiming it was a family tradition for all of them to sleep in one bed on Christmas eve.

 

Q. Have you seen the articles that have appeared in the Sooner Tea Party?

 

A. No.

 

Q. Attributed, quote, the Natzinos (phonetic)?

 

A. No.

 

Q. Have you had any conversations with Mr. Kendall Johnson about statements attributed to you in the Sooner Tea Party?

 

MR. STARR: Let me object and instruct you not to answer if those were during the times you were

still representing Mr. Hanning. That would be communications between co-counsel for Mr. Hanning.

 

MR. McHUGH: You can't instruct him not to answer.

 

In depositions the rules are far looser than in a trial. Generally witnesses cannot refuse to answer or claim Fifth Amendment protection in civil cases. The depositions are to get at the facts in the case and information CAN be withheld from the jury but being combative or refusing to answer isn't usually allowed.

 

MR. STARR: Well, I can instruct him not to violate the attorney-client privilege. I mean, he can choose on his own if he wants to, but –

 

MR. BUNSON: I was just going to say, I will advise him not to violate attorney-client privilege if that is what the question is asking. I do not know who this is or what relationship this is.

 

Q. (By Mr. McHugh) Do you know who Kendall Johnson is?

 

A. Yes.

 

Kendal Johnson tried to pry the taped phone call out of our hands (scroll down to the third story) but a retained attorney showed the judge that we were journalists and protected, and that there was an easier source to get the taped phone calls from so Johnson was rebuffed by the judge. Those phone calls were kryptonite to Thorpe, Hanning, and Jordan, they pretty much prove everything was cronyism and that Hanning did nearly everything he was alleged to do. The embezzlement, the favors called in using his position and influence to railroad Paulsen, even that the child molestation allegations were found to be credible by Commissioner Hanning's own lawyer who basically quit over the exposure of the allegations.

 

Q. He succeeded you in representing Mr. Hanning; is that correct?

 

A. I believe so.

 

Q. Have you had any conversations with Kendall Johnson about statements that were attributed to you that appeared in the Sooner Tea Party?

 

A. I'm not going to answer that.

 

Q. How is that attorney-client privilege, that statement?

 

MR. BUNSON: He's declining to answer because basically if this is a conversation between prior

counsel and current counsel, it could have included sensitive privileged communication and information in which they were discussing the case. It's a transfer of a case. It happens all the time.

 

MR. McHUGH: And Mr. Johnson did make representations in court that he spoke with Mr. Jordan and he confirmed that he made those statements.

 

MR. BUNSON: And --

 

THE WITNESS: Made what statement?

 

MR. McHUGH: So --

 

MR. BUNSON: We haven't actually even discussed what statements we're discussing at this point.

 

MR. McHUGH: I would say there's no privilege to communications between two attorneys. That's my

position.

 

MR. BUNSON: And my position is that that's actually incorrect if there are two attorneys that are discussing the representation of a common client.

 

Q. (By Mr. McHugh) Sir, I'm going to hand you what I've marked Exhibit No. 5.

 

A. So what are you asking me about this?

 

Q. Have you seen this article before?

 

A. No. I heard about it.

 

Q. You had previously been subpoenaed to testify by myself in a criminal case involving Tyler Paulsen; is that correct?

 

A. I don't think it was in a criminal case, it was a motion to dismiss, wasn't it?

 

Q. I believe it was actually a post-conviction motion.

 

A. That's what I was saying -- that's what I mean.

 

Q. It was a motion to dismiss, slash, post-conviction notice to clear his criminal case.

 

A. Yes.

 

Q. And when you were subpoenaed in that case, did you look through this article -- well, let me ask you

this. Were you aware of this article when I sent you the subpoena?

 

A. I believe I was aware that in -- I believe I was aware that Tyler Paulsen's previous counsel in negotiating a settlement of the case had taped me, which I thought was kind of the lowest kind of thing that a scumbag lawyer would do. I remember that. And so to put it -- to put it mildly, I was aware that then he turned it over to some crazy person on the internet. So yeah, I was kind of aware.

 

This exhibit 5 is the article about the taped phone call, Exhibit 5, a Sooner Tea Party article. You can read the story online at this link, Prosecutor admits charges were bogus and really Eric Jordan, calling someone a scumbag and another person an idiot seems a bit odd considering you were representing an accused child molester and an accused embezzler and found the charges credible. And what kind of idiot breaks client attorney privilege on a phone call and gets caught? You could and should lose your license over that.

 

Q. Do you deny making the statements that's attributable in Exhibit No. 5 to --

 

A. You'd have to play me the whole recording.

 

MR. BUNSON: And, again, I'm going to object, because I think this is, again, far outside of 6, 7, and No comments attributed to ADA Jordan reference or have any relevant information regarding whether or not Mr. Hanning received any preferential treatment with any person in the Wagoner County District Attorney's Office regarding Tyler Paulsen. None of these unattributed facts that is in a document that has not been authenticated or verified has been provided any information that would be relevant to his limited testimony under the Court's ruling.

 

MR. STARR: And show my objection to the form; it's compound.

 

Q. (By Mr. McHugh) All right, sir. So you don't recall whether or not you made the statement that's

attributed to you in document number Exhibit 5; is that correct?

 

MR. BUNSON: Object to form.

 

A. Without listening to the entire recording -- surreptitious recording made by presumably Chris Camp, I don't know if I made these exact statements verbatim. I can tell you that on the second [sic] page where it says, "There Eric Jordan is admitting that after the second meeting with the woman that had accused Paulsen of molesting their kid, choking her, and kidnapping, he realized she was completely unreliable," that's completely false. There was physical evidence of the choking and beating by Tyler Paulsen in the original case.

 

Q. (By Mr. McHugh) You said the "second page." Where are you talking on the second page?

 

A. It's the fourth page, the paragraph at the bottom. This is why I don't look at dumb, stupid --

 

Q. Okay. You're talking about -- when you said "second page," you're actually talking about the fourth page, second paragraph from the bottom; correct?

A. Yes.

 

MR. STARR: And, for the record, let me put my objection here that this is beyond the scope of the judge's order related to the motion at stake in the course of the original subpoena. So I'm going to object to your question.

 

MR. BUNSON: As am I. I join the objection.

 

Q. (By Mr. McHugh) Sir, if you learned as a prosecutor that somebody gave you false information and they've already pled, do you have any obligation to correct, vacate, modify the sentence at all?

 

A. I mean, I think certainly, but there was physical evidence that Tyler Paulsen committed the assault that he committed. Her hair was ripped out, it was placed into evidence, et cetera. So if you're suggesting that I thought that she completely lied, no. I'm referring to her allegation that Tyler Paulsen molested his own child, which I did not believe her on.

 

Not only did he believe Paulsen was innocent, Jordan called the “victim” completely unreliable, and that the original charges were bogus. I don't think that the Commissioner Hanning lawyers have laid hands on the transcripts or the audio recording yet so they are terriified on what is on those tapes. But make no doubt, the tapes are clear and there is no mistaking that Eric Jordan is lying his ass off in the deposition. And Jordan did repeatedly pledge to go behind closed doors to make sure that Paulsen didn't get sent to prison on what Jordan called technical charges.

 

Q. All right. So the statement attributed to you where it says, quote, "And I'll tell you why because I was a [sic] prosecutor, right, as you know, entirely original case. And I met with Vanessa twice and by the second meeting it became apparent that this woman not psychologically stable." Do you admit or deny making that statement?

 

MR. STARR: For the record, let me object. This is beyond the scope of the Court's order allowing some partial examination in light of the State's motion to quash the subpoena.

 

MR. BUNSON: And I join the objection and am advising you not to answer these questions.

 

Q. (By Mr. McHugh) All right. So you won't admit or deny whether or not you made that statement?

 

MR. BUNSON: Again, I'm advising you not to answer that question. Outside the scope of the Court's order.

 

Q. (By Mr. McHugh) All right. Now, sir, I'm going to hand you what's been marked as Exhibit No. 6. Sir, have you seen this article before?

 

A. No.

 

This is February 9^th 2020 update on the Commissioner James Hanning scandal which can be read at this link. The quotes referred to below from Eric Jordan are accurate, copied and pasted out of the transcript of the audio tape

 

Q. And this article is entitled, "Okay, Bub, Who do You Think You Are, a Wagoner County County Commissioner?" Do you see that?

 

A. I see that.

 

Q. All right. And in this article there are some quotes that are attributed to you. Do you see those quotes?

 

A. I see them.

 

Q. Do you admit or deny that you made the statementsattributed to you in here?

 

MR. BUNSON: And I am going to object and advise you not to answer this, because, again, we are outside the scope of what the original Court's ruling was, and there is no relevance as to

paragraphs 6, 7, or 11, which is the limitation of he scope of any questions here today.

 

MR. McHUGH: And I would say it pertains to paragraph number 11, specifically this quote.

 

Q. (By Mr. McHugh) Sir, do you admit or deny saying this, "...So that's how the 'Ap to Accelerate" got started in the first place. They didn't know about it until James gave him that. Yeah, that's4 it." Do you see that?

 

MR. BUNSON: I'm going to advise you not to answer that question.

 

Q. (By Mr. McHugh) And do you admit or deny that you made that statement?

 

MR. BUNSON: I'm advising him not to answer that question.

 

Q. (By Mr. McHugh) Sir, do you see the next statement that's attributed to you that reads, "Yeah. And so, anyway, moving forward. He doesn't have any authority over any prostitution of Tyler at all.  He may think he does. He has none. And that shit's going to that, that shit is dead." "We're fine. I think Tyler's going to be fine. There's no f*cking way he's going to prison for this cockamamie bull [sic]. It is [sic] a technical violation? Yes. It's not a prison offense."Do you see that?

 

Note, prostitution must have been a mistake by the court reporter, it was persecution in the original article. And that Mayes county case on Paulsen? It was NOT stopped, he had to risk trial or take a plea deal and he has a young daughter so it was a risk he couldn't take. That case will be overturned eventually once the truth comes out. The judge in that case refused to allow most of the exculpatory evidence or even consider that the original judge in that 2016 case had not only dismissed the original case that the gun charge was predicated on, the judge found that the case was void ab inito, as having never existed.

 

MR. STARR: Object to form.

 

MR. BUNSON: Object to form. And I'm advising you not to respond to any questions regarding statements in an unverified document that is unauthenticated and is not relevant to the three paragraphs that the Court has ordered regarding the State's original motion.

 

Q. (By Mr. McHugh) Sir, do you admit or deny making that statement?

 

MR. BUNSON: I'm advising you not to answer the question.

 

Q. (By Mr. McHugh) Sir, the statement that you made or that's attributed to you where you state "He doesn't have any authority over any prosecution of Tyler at all. He may think he does," what were you referring to when you made that statement?

 

MR. BUNSON: Again, advising you not to answer that question.

 

Q. (By Mr. McHugh) All right, sir. And later on in there you see where it says (as read), "And Eric Jordan later agreed on audio tape," a little more than halfway down. Do you see that? Sir, I'm going to read you what it says attributing to you. Quote, "It's a bullshit move. I mean, what's he trying to do? Get a f*cking advantage to...litigation," close quote.Do you see that, sir?

 

MR. BUNSON: Object to form. And I'm advising you not to respond to it.

 

Q. (By Mr. McHugh) Do you admit or deny making that statement?

 

MR. BUNSON: Advising you not to respond.

 

Once again, this is deposition, not trial, Eric Jordan has to answer these questions and a fair judge will order him to answer these questions in a follow up deposition.

 

Q. (By Mr. McHugh) Sir, I'm going to hand you what's been marked Exhibit No. 28. Have you seen this article before?

 

A. Nope.

 

Exhibit 28 was the first story we did on the Paulsen/Commissioner James Hanning story. You can read it at this link.

 

Q. Do you know who Bruce Sewell is?

 

A. Yeah.

 

Q. Who is Bruce Sewell?

 

A. He's a former direct judge in Wagoner County and then I think was in private practice after that.

 

Q. Was he the attorney before you in the case?

 

A. For who?

 

Q. For Mr. Hanning before you took over?

 

A. I don't know that. He might have been. I don't recollect.

 

Q. All right, sir. Now, I'm going to hand you what's been marked Exhibit No. 22. All right, sir. Have you seen that article before?

 

A. No.

 

Exhibit 22 is the first article that included transcript quotes from the deposition where Commissioner James Hanning's step daughter accused him of child molestation. Eric Jordan is lying in this deposition below and the AG lawyer and his own lawyer are desperately trying to prevent him from answering questions because they do have the transcript of that deposition and know exactly what Eric Jordan did and said and the STP article is 100% accurate as to what the transcript said.

 

Q. And this article is entitled: Child Molester Uncharged Because Assistant District Attorney

Represents Him. Do you see that title of the article?

 

A. I see the article, I don't know who the idiot is that wrote it.

 

Q. So you're disputing that Mr. Hanning was not charged with a crime because of his relationship with Wagoner County District Attorney's Office?

 

MR. BUNSON: I'm advising you not to answer that question.

 

Q. (By Mr. McHugh) Sir, there's transcripts of deposition notes in this article. Did you see that?

 

A. I saw pages of purported copies of what appears to be a transcript, yes.

 

Q. Is that transcript accurate or do you believe they've been altered in some way?

 

A. The full transcript is not attached to this article, so I don't know what it is.

 

Q. Did CC admit in her deposition that Mr. Hanning touched her in an inappropriate sexual manner?

 

MR. BUNSON: And I'm advising you not to answer.

 

MR. STARR: Objection. And if we're going down this road, we're done. We're going to adjourn and I'm going to seek a protective order.

 

THE WITNESS: I would ask that you do that, because it's clear that he's going to continue going down it.

 

MR. McHUGH: Well, I've got to make my record, so I've got to ask the questions. I mean --

 

MR. STARR: No, I don't think you do. I think if you want to continue down this road -- you've made it clear what you want to ask about. You've established enough. If you want to file a motion with the Court whether you can get into this --

 

MR. McHUGH: I don't need to file a motion, it's a deposition. It's related to paragraph number 11.

 

MR. BUNSON: And I'm going to advise him not to answer. I do not agree that this is withi2 paragraph 11. So your choice is to continue down this line of questioning, in which case Counsel has already said we will adjourn and seek a protective order and then we can reconvene after the judge makes a decision, or we can move on.

 

Q. (By Mr. McHugh) Sir, did you make a law enforcement referral based on what you learned in this deposition?

 

MR. BUNSON: Advise him not to answer that question.

 

Q. (By Mr. McHugh) Are you refusing to answer that, sir?

 

MR. BUNSON: He's been advised not to answer, he's not refusing to answer it.

 

Q (By Mr. McHugh) Sir, are you a mandatory reporter if you learn information that child abuse or neglect has occurred or may have occurred? Are you a mandatory report?

 

A. Do I report to law enforcement if I become aware of something, yes.

 

Q. Okay. And you are obligated by law to report to law enforcement; correct?

 

A. I'm obligated by law to report to my boss who reports to law enforcement.

 

Q. Is that the extent of your obligation? I mean, do you have an independent duty to report it to law enforcement or is just reporting it to your boss enough?

 

MR. BUNSON: Object to form. You can answer if you can, but I don't know whether you can.

 

A. The discussion is turned over. I personally represented a client. If I become aware of something during the course of a deposition, I report it to someone else because I am acting in a private capacity.

 

Q. (By Mr. McHugh) Okay. And as you sit here today, did you make a mandatory report regarding the deposition of CC?

 

MR. BUNSON: And I am advising you not to answer that question.

 

Q. (By Mr. McHugh) Are you not answering it?

 

MR. BUNSON: He is not answering it under advice of counsel.

 

Q. (By Mr. McHugh) Sir, do you dispute -- you're disputing that you made those comments attributed to you in these articles; is that correct?

 

MR. BUNSON: I'm going to object. He did not answer. So he did not dispute, he did not testify, he was advised by counsel not to answer those questions.

Q. (By Mr. McHugh) Hand you what's been marked Exhibit 30.

 

THE WITNESS: I've had enough of this shit.

 

This is the October 2^nd taped phone call between Eric Jordan who is the witness in this deposition and a former lawyer for Paulsen. I believe that Jordan has had enough of “this shit” because his own words prove everything and he has no way out once the jury reads this transcript and listens to the audio tape of the consversation. This tape is the biggest train wreck I have ever seen in a legal case. It is in PDF format so no copy and paste is possible but we will find a way to post it some how so everyone can read for themselves.

 

A. Is there a question?

 

Q. (By Mr. McHugh) Yes. Have you seen those documents before?

 

A. No.

 

Q. All right. Do you dispute that you spoke with Mr. Camp on October 2nd of 2019?

 

A. I'm sure I spoke with him.

 

Q. And on page 4, top of page 4 beginning at the bottom of page 3 at the 7:57 mark, do you deny making that statement?

 

MR. BUNSON: I advise you not to answer that question on a document that is unauthenticated, unidentified as to who the author is, and is well outside the scope of paragraphs 6, 7, and 11 per the judge's ruling.

 

Q. (By Mr. McHugh) Sir, on page 5 at the time stamp 14:26, do you see that? Do you admit or deny that you made that statement? not to answer.

 

Q. (By Mr. McHugh) Sir, without going through the remainder of these statements, is your answer --are you refusing to answer questions pertaining to what I've handed you as Exhibit 30?

 

MR. BUNSON: He is in no way refusing to answer, he is choosing to answer upon advice of counsel -- choosing not to -- sorry. He is not refusing, he is choosing not to answer upon advice of counsel.

 

Q. (By Mr. McHugh) All right. Sir, I've handed you what's been marked Exhibit No. 31. Have you seen this document before?

 

A. No.

 

Exhibit 31 is a second phone call that was recorded where Jordan pretty much confirms what he said in the first phone call and to tell you the truth, he was pretty honest on calling out the receiver who was wasting all the assets of the property and doing very little if anything to unravel the accounting of the partnership which is what he was hired to do at hundreds of dollars per hour.

 

Q. And, sir, are you refusing to answer questions pertaining to this document?

 

MR. BUNSON: He is not refusing to answer, he is advised not to answer and will not be responding to questions on an unauthenticated document with an author that is unknown, information that is  unverified, and information and questions that are outside the scope of paragraphs 6, 7, and 11 as required -- as the required limitation by the judge in this particular matter.

 

Q. (By Mr. McHugh) Sir, did you have any conversation with any assistant district attorneys in th2 Wagoner County DA's office pertaining to the applications to accelerate that were filed against Tyler Paulsen?

 

A. No.

 

Q. Were you aware that Mr. Hanning had driven to the town of Adair to discuss Mr. Paulsen's traffic stop and arrest in Adair?

 

MR. STARR: Object -- well, let me object that that has anything to do with the Court's -- attorney-client discussions is privileged; if he knows it from outside of that, I have no objection and he can answer that.

 

MR. BUNSON: I join that objection.

 

Q. (By Mr. McHugh) You probably know this. I don't want you to answer as to anything that Mr. Hanning and you discussed, okay, because that would be attorney-client privilege, unless there's a waiver and we'd need a Court order to get a waiver. So anything that you and him discussed I don't want you to repeat, but were you aware that Mr. Hanning had driven down to Adair to talk with the Town of Adair?

 

A. I'm not going to discuss anything that pertains to any attorney-client privileged communications.

 

Q. Did you learn of Mr. Hanning driving down to Adair from any other source other than Mr. Hanning? Let me ask you this --

 

A. You're asking me about -- you're making an insinuation and, again, I am not answering anything that pertains to any attorney-client privileged communications.

 

Q. Did you, yourself, have any communications with anyone from the Town of Adair?

 

A. No.

 

Q. The statements that Mr. Gerhart attributed to you making, were you being factual when you were talking to Mr. Camp?

 

MR. BUNSON: I'm advising you not to answer.

 

Q. (By Mr. McHugh) Were you truthful when you were talking with Mr. Camp?

 

MR. BUNSON: I'm advising you not to answer the questions as, again, all questions about statements

Mr. Camp may or may not have made are unverified, you can ask Mr. Camp, but these are outside the paragraphs 6, 7, and 11 scope.

 

MR. STARR: And show my objection to form because I have no idea what he's talking about. This is the first time Mr. Gerhart's name has been referenced in this deposition, to my knowledge.

 

MR. McHUGH: I think the article in the Sooner Tea Party.

 

Q. (By Mr. McHugh) Is that Mr. Gerhart; Sooner Tea Party?

 

MR. STARR: Do you know who Mr. Gerhart is? I didn't see any names in any of these articles.

 

MR. BUNSON: There's no author on any article that has been presented nor publication date nor any identifying information other than a URL website at the bottom left of two of the documents.

 

Q. (By Mr. McHugh) Sir, do you know why Wagoner County District Attorney's Office recused from prosecuting Tyler Paulsen?

 

A. No.

 

Q. I believe there's an Exhibit 8 and 9, and I asked Mr. Thorp, May 20th is a date a request was made by Kim Hall to reassign the matter. Have you seen that document? It's Exhibit No. 8.

 

A. No. I heard you talking about it in the previous deposition, but I didn't actually see the document.

 

Q. And you would admit that the lawsuit between Mr. Paulsen and Mr. Hanning was ongoing prior to

May of 2019; is that correct?

 

A. Yes.

 

Q. And when the applications to accelerate were filed, the lawsuit was ongoing; correct?

 

A. I believe so. I can't remember when the first one was filed.

 

Q. Do you know why the Wagoner County District Attorney's Office waited until May 20th of 2019 to seek another district attorney's office?

 

MR. BUNSON: Object to form.You can answer if you can.

 

A. I don't know. That wouldn't have been me making those decisions.

 

Q. (By Mr. McHugh) In Exhibit 31, you reference Kim Hall as making the decision and it being the absolute right decision to recuse. Do you see that? It's in Exhibit 30.

 

MR. BUNSON: I'm advising him not to answer questions regarding Exhibits 30 or 31 as, again, both documents are unverified, do not know who the author is, and we have gone far outside the scope of paragraphs 6, 7, and 11.

 

Bunson knows that the taped phone calls sink Jordan, Hanning, and Thorpe, they aren't even discussing the two transcripts but here is the AG lawyer frantically reminding Jordan not to answer questions about those taped phone calls.

 

Q. (By Mr. McHugh) Did Kim Hall meet with Aaron Hanning in May of 2019?

 

MR. BUNSON: Object to form.

 

Q. (By Mr. McHugh) Do you know, yes or no?

 

A. I have no idea.

 

Q. Did Kim Hall make the decision that the Wagoner County DA's office had to recuse after receiving information from Aaron Hanning?

 

MR. BUNSON: Object to form.

 

A. I would have no idea.

 

Q. (By Mr. McHugh) Do you know whether or not Aaron Hanning was subpoenaed to produce any documents?

 

MR. BUNSON: Object to form.

 

A. I have no idea.

 

Q. (By Mr. McHugh) Do you know if Aaron Hanning called to have Tyler Paulsen arrested in Eufaula?

 

MR. BUNSON: Object to form.

 

A. I have no idea.

 

Actually Jordan does know, I am pretty sure he talked about this incident where Commissioner Hanning's brother Arron and I believe it was Jack Thorpe's daughter conspired to have Paulsen arrested after someone saw him on an online broadcast of a live church service down in Eufaula. There are phone records, text messages, and internal LEO documents that prove all of this including a couple of deputies talking about how helping on this case benefits his own custody case. But yeah, these turds actually coordinated with another sheriff office to have a man arrested at church over this fabricated gun charge predicated upon a case that was dismissed by a judge and declared as void ab initio, void from the start, as having never existed because of the Constitutional violations and lack of jurisdiction.

 

Q. (By Mr. McHugh) You don't know one way or the other if Aaron Hanning called?

 

A. I have no idea.

 

Q. Do you know who Delaney Thorp is?

 

A. Yeah.

 

Q. Do you know why she would be talking to Aaron Hanning the night Tyler Paulsen was arrested at 10-something at night?

 

MR. BUNSON: Object to form.

 

A. No idea.

 

Q. (By Mr. McHugh) Do you know whether or not Mr. Hanning had a phone conversation with Aaron

Hanning on the night Tyler was arrested?

 

MR. STARR: Let me object. I don't know what you're asking.

 

MR. BUNSON: I was going to say, I'm confused as to which Hanning you're referring to.

 

MR. STARR: There's two Mr. Hannings, so please clarify that question.

 

Q. (By Mr. McHugh) On July 15th of 2018, the night Delaney Thorp contacted Aaron Hanning and Tyler was arrested in Eufaula, do you know if James Hanning spoke with Aaron Hanning?

 

MR. BUNSON: Object to form. You can answer if you know.

 

MR. STARR: And, again, let me object to the extent it calls for any communications you've had with James Hanning, his attorney-client, but from other knowledge, go ahead.

 

MR. BUNSON: And just so that we can avoid that going forward, I'm advising you not to answer any questions you had regarding conversations you had with Mr. Hanning, James Hanning, in your capacity as an attorney for Mr. Hanning.

 

Q. (By Mr. McHugh) Did James Hanning admit to you that he contacted his brother to have Tyler Paulsen arrested on July 25th of 2018 ?

 

MR. BUNSON: Same objection.

 

A. I'm not going to talk about any attorney-client privileged communications. I'm not saying there were on that subject, but I'm -- because you're asking me in that fashion, that clearly would apply to attorney-client privileged communications.

 

Q. (By Mr. McHugh) Did James Hanning admit to you that he used the Wagoner County District Attorney's Office to have Tyler Paulsen arrested and charged with two separate applications?

 

MR. BUNSON: Advising you not to answer. Same objection regarding privilege.

 

A. I'm not going to answer that question.

 

Q. (By Mr. McHugh) Did James Hanning admit to you that he was upset that the first application to accelerate was dismissed?

 

MR. BUNSON: I'm advising you not to answer. Same objection regarding privilege.

 

Q. (By Mr. McHugh) Did James Hanning admit to you that he spoke to Mr. Dry to have the second application to accelerate filed?

 

MR. BUNSON: I'm going to advise you not to answer that. Same objection regarding privilege.

 

Q. (By Mr. McHugh) Did James Hanning talk to you about him having the Wagoner County District

Attorney's Office fax information to the Town of Adair?

 

MR. BUNSON: Advising you not to answer. Same objection regarding privilege.

 

A. You're asking about -- everything you're asking is attorney-client privileged communications. Whether not they existed or didn't, you continuing to ask those is becoming abusive because you know what the answer is. I am not going to testify about any attorney-client privileged communications, and I feel like I'm getting harassed here and I'm kind of sick of it, sir. If you have some questions that you could ask that are relevant, I'll be happy to answer them.

 

But Jordan had already spilled the beans by telling the opposing counsel, Tyler Paulsen's attorney. That should cost him his law license and the other lawyer was ethically bound to release the exculpable information to his client.

 

Q. (By Mr. McHugh) Did Mr. Hanning tell you that he got information from the Town of Adair pertaining to Tyler Paulsen?

 

MR. BUNSON: Same objection. Don't answer.

 

Q. (By Mr. McHugh) Sir, you would admit that it would be wrong for a public official to use their position of power for special treatment?

 

MR. BUNSON: Object to form. But you can answer if you can.

 

Q. (By Mr. McHugh) And, sir, the statement attributed at you that you accused Mr. Hanning of making a chicken shit move, what was that in reference to?

 

MR. BUNSON: Objection. Do not answer that as, again, it's attributed to a conversation that is in a document that is unauthorized, we do not know who authored it, and it is outside the scope of 6, 7, and 11.

 

Q. (By Mr. McHugh) Sir, did either you or Mr. Thorp run some interference to make sure Mr. Hanning was not charged with a criminal charge as a result of the information that came out in the deposition of CC?

 

A. Absolutely not and that's offensive.

 

I am thinking that answer might be partially true and mostly false. Jack Thorpe would have had his wife make sure those child molestation charges were sent to a friendly district attorney, maybe the AG actually was involved. But given the accusations and how they came out under sworn testimony along with Hanning allegedly admitting he woke up one Christmas morning or Christmas Eve with his hands down the underwear of his stepdaughter, it begs credibility to believe that 100% of normal defendants accused of such a crime wouldn't be prosecuted or at least sent to a grand jury.

 

Q. Sir, I'm just asking you questions. Do you know if you and Mr. Camp -- when did you find out your conversations with him were recorded?

 

A. Through the grapevine like everything else. I'm assuming they're recorded.

 

Q. And I believe you referred to that as a scumbag attorney. Is that your quote that you said to that?

 

A. I think you can look back in the transcript and see what I think about Mr. Camp.

 

Q. When you were -- if I understand your testimony correctly, while you were employed at the Wagoner County DA's office -- sorry, District 27, you were representing the Hannings, James and Vicky, in a private lawsuit against Tyler Paulsen; is that correct?

 

A. It was a property dispute. Yes.

 

Q. And we've been talking a lot about James, but you also represented James' wife; is that correct?

 

A. Yes.

 

Q. And that was a business, slash, property dispute; correct?

 

A. Yes.

 

Q. And is that what -- CVI lawsuit, is that what that case was about?

 

A. I believe that was the name of it.

 

CVI was the name of the partnership that Paulsen and Commissioner Hanning used to run the rental properties.

 

Q. And your testimony was once you became the DA, Mr. Hanning didn't pay you any money; is that

correct?

 

A. That's correct.

 

Again, Jordan says nothing about being paid for previous work for Commissioner Hanning. This might have well be part of a deal where Jordan escapes felony charges on DUI and leaving the scene of an injury accident and gets his old job back with Jack Thorpe, even promoted to running Creek County D.A. Office. That is the only possible explanation as Jordan claims he doesn't socialize with Commissioner Hanning and his wife or even know them well. Why work for free for the better part of two years?

 

Q. Were you representing him in his capacity as a county commissioner or a private capacity?

 

A. No. I didn't represent him as a county commissioner. I was assigned to Cherokee County.

 

Q. And you are allowed to take time that you're supposed to be working as a district attorney for the public and represent somebody in a private capacity without being paid? Are you allowed to do that?

 

A. I don't understand what you're asking.

 

Q. You work for the public; correct?

A.  . Yes.

 

Q. And during the day when you're working, you're supposed to be working for the public?

 

A. Which I was.

 

Q. And in defending Mr. Hanning -- or actually do you know who filed the lawsuit, him or Tyler Paulsen?

 

A. Gosh, I don't remember who originally filed it.

 

Hanning filed the original lawsuit trying to steal the rest of the property in the partnership. After he got caught embezzling by sending shipments of building material to his own personal home and claiming it was for the eight rental properties.

 

Q. But you would agree that it was a private dispute between the Hannings and Tyler Paulsen?

 

A. Sure.'

 

Q. And it's your testimony that it's appropriate for you to be representing him in a private capacity?

 

A. The representation preceded my employment with the DA's office; okay? So in order to try to wrap it up, which is what I was doing is trying to settle the case because it was a property dispute, all conversations with Mr. Camp were for the purposes of settlement -- attempted settlement. So, I mean, I continued that representation when I took the position at the DA's office, because I couldn't just cut him loose, because I started. It was ongoing litigation that I was trying to get wrapped up.

 

Q. But you were spending your time -- you were spending time on the private lawsuit while you were employed as a district attorney; correct?

 

A. I was spending my off time on the private lawsuit.When I worked at the office, unless there was a hearing I had to attend, I was working on State matters. I did all this stuff for the lawsuit on my own time except for when I had a hearing or deposition, and there weren't that many.

 

Q. Did Mr. Hanning hire Judge Sewell and maybe you because he was trying to get special treatment in Wagoner County?

 

MR. BUNSON: Object to form. You can answer if you can.

 

A. I don't know why he hired Bruce Sewell and then me, but I was glad that he hired me because at the time I was in private practice.

 

Q. (By Mr. McHugh) You think it's a coincidence that he hires first a retired judge and then a district attorney to represent him?

 

MR. BUNSON: Object to form.

 

A. A coincidence? I don't know. I think I'm a good lawyer.

 

Q. (By Mr. McHugh) Well, I know that, but you also happen to be assistant district attorney.

 

A. I wasn't at the time.

 

Q. But you were previously; correct?

 

A. Yeah.

 

And Jordan might have needed a way back to the gravy train and he needed any felony charges for DUI or leaving the scene of an injury accident to disappear or be downgraded to misdemeanors and then sealed away from public view, something that most of us will not be able to do without massive expenditures on lawyers.

 

Q. Were you aware of any law enforcement reports that Mr. Hanning made against Tyler Paulsen?

 

MR. STARR: Let me --

 

A. I don't know what you mean.

 

Q. (By Mr. McHugh) Are you aware of any times during the course of your representation when James Hanning called law enforcement against Tyler Paulsen?

 

MR. STARR: And show my objection to any attorney-client privileged information

 

MR. BUNSON: Same as well.

 

A. I can't answer that. Again, you're asking for potential attorney-client privileged communications.

 

Q. (By Mr. McHugh) Were you in court when Mr. James Hanning made the statement to the judge that he never called the law on Tyler Paulsen?

 

A. I don't know what you're referring to.

 

Q. Well, the transcripts bear out that you were in court -- let me ask you this. Were you at a hearing where there was a discussion as to the water at the property being turned off?

 

A. I might have been, but you'd have to give me -- when was this hearing?

 

Q. Were you aware of whether or not Mr. Hanning called the Broken Arrow police?

 

MR. BUNSON: Object to form.

 

A. Again, I can't -- I'm not going to talk about any attorney-client privileged communications. I don't

recall, but I'm not going to talk about any attorney-client privileged communications, which I have said repeatedly.

 

Q. (By Mr. McHugh) Have you ever heard Mr. Hanning say in court to the judge that he never called the law on Mr. Paulsen?

 

A. I would have no recollection of statements that Mr. Hanning might have made in open court. Now, let's see. This would be, what, five, six years ago. So I can't answer that and I'm sorry. I really can't, because I don't have a recollection of statements made in open court.

 

Q. Did you know that Aaron Hanning worked for Wagoner County 911?

 

A. I didn't. I learned it at the first deposition.

 

Q. What do you mean "first deposition"?

 

A. When you deposed Mr. Thorp. I heard that discussed.

 

Q. Do you think it's a coincidence that Aaron Hanning is the one who called Eufaula to have Tyler Paulsen arrested?

 

MR. BUNSON: Object to form.

 

A. I don't know -- I don't know if it's a coincidence or not. I mean, generally if someone has a warrant

and someone knows where they are, anybody could call.

 

Q. (By Mr. McHugh) And was there, in fact, a warrant for Mr. Paulsen's arrest?

 

A. Well, I'm making that assumption.

 

Q. To your knowledge, has an actual warrant ever been produced in the litigation?

 

A. How would I know?

 

This warrant that the Eufala arrest was predicated upon was part of the plan to prevent Tyler Paulsen from showing up at court the next day to defend himself from Commissioner Hanning's lawsuit to take the rest of his rent houses in the partnership and take all the money and assets the partnership had earned.

 

Q. Has it ever been produced in any of the Open Records Requests that were made?

 

A. How would I know?

 

Q. Well, I'm just asking you. Did you make the statement that there was a warrant or you alluded to a warrant?

 

A. And I said I'm making that assumption.

 

Q. If Mr. Hanning -- the Hanning brothers talked on the day Tyler Paulsen was arrested in July of 2018,

is that a coincidence?

 

MR. BUNSON: Object to form.

 

A. I don't know how often two brothers might talk.

 

MR. McHUGH: Let's take a break. I'm going tolook through my stuff. I think I'm just about done.

(A short break was taken.)

 

Q. (By Mr. McHugh) Sir, we're on the home stretch, I promise. I'm going to hand you what has been marked as Exhibit 29. And, sir, I know you haven't seen these. I just want to know at the 5:16 time stamp where it says "You're the biggest most piece of shit I've ever met in life. James deserves to win. Watch," do you know at all what that is in reference to?

 

MR. BUNSON: Objection. Advise you not to answer. Again, outside the scope of paragraphs 6, 7, and; and also from an unauthenticated, unauthorized document that we do not know who authored.

 

Q. (By Mr. McHugh) Sir, do you know who Vanessa Edwards is?

 

A. Yeah.

 

Q. Do you know why Vanessa Edwards would be texting Tyler telling him that he's the biggest most pieceof shit I've ever met in life. James deserves to win. Watch"? Do you have any idea what she is talking about?

 

MR. BUNSON: Object to form.

 

A. I have no idea.

 

These text messages were part of several thousand text messages that the original “victim” in the 2016 bogus arrest that was later dismissed. Vanessa Edward, the mother of Paulsen's child, who Paulsen was given custody off due to her drug habit and her own criminal record, was working with Commissioner Hanning to strip Paulsen of everything. Once in jail on bogus gun technical gun charges ( Jordan's own words I believe) she could get custody of her daughter and probably stop paying child support and get child support herself once Paulsen got out of prison.

 

Q. (By Mr. McHugh) How about 1583-1584. "I'm sorry you pushed me to the point where I was left with no option other than to rely on James to help me to not lose my daughter. I told you I spoke to him. I didn't deny it. I told you the day I talked. Stop the games [sic] and your life could be real simple." Do you have any idea what that is in reference to?

 

MrR BUNSON: Objection; speculation -- or I'm sorry. Not relevant to paragraphs 6, 7, and 11; and through an unverified document, unauthenticated, and unknown author. Advising you not to respond unless you choose.

 

A. I have no idea what this is, it's just a piece of paper with a bunch of writing on it. How could I possibly know what any of this is?

 

Q. (By Mr. McHugh) Sir, do you know -- okay. Look at time stamp 5:19. "I'll laugh as you are on your way to prison you're truly a piece of shit and James said I can stay in this home." Do you have any idea what that is in reference to?

 

MR. BUNSON: Same objection.

 

A. I have no idea what any of this is.

 

Q. (By Mr. McHugh) And on 5:17 where it says "You got away with murder once but now James isn't your fuck buddy and wants you destroyed," do you see that?

 

MR. BUNSON: You can answer whether you see it.

 

A. I can see it.

Q. (By Mr. McHugh) Do you know what Vanessa Edwards is referring to at all?

 

MR. BUNSON: Same objection.

 

A. Again, you're making an assumption that she's the -- I don't know what this is. It's just two pieces of paper with writing on it. But, no, I don't know what any of this is. There's no possible way to answer that.

 

Q. (By Mr. McHugh) Have you spoken to Vanessa Edwards about Tyler Paulsen at all -- have you talked toVanessa Edwards at all after -- well, let me askyou this. Were you the DA who did the initial prosecution of Tyler Paulsen?

 

A. The initial plea of Tyler Paulsen --

 

Q. Yes.

 

A. -- in 2016, yes.

 

Q. After that plea was entered, did you have any conversations with Vanessa Edwards about Tyler Paulsen?

 

A. Not that I recall.

 

Q. Did you have any conversations with Vanessa Edwards about James Hanning?

 

A. No.

 

Q. I believe you said previously you're not aware of whether or not Aaron Hanning called to have Tyler Paulsen arrested?

 

A. No. What I said is I'm not going to testify about anything related to the attorney-client privilege.

 

Q. Okay. So any information you have would be based on communications you've had with James Hanning; is that correct?

A. You can't make an assumption that I have any information. I am not testifying about anything regarding the attorney-client privilege, anything I may have discussed with James at the time.

 

Q. Have you ever talked with Aaron Hanning?

 

A. No, or at least not that I recall.

 

Q. And why would a person from Wagoner County dispatch give his cell phone as a callback number if they're working on duty; do you have any idea?

 

MR. BUNSON: Object to form.

 

MR. STARR: Objection.

 

A. I mean, I have no idea. I can tell you in small counties that dispatchers and law enforcement officers and first responders routinely exchange cellular telephone numbers in small counties.

 

Q. (By Mr. McHugh) Do they do that even if they are physically located in a public facility?

 

A. Sure.

 

Q. And is that done so that they can avoid having a record of official business?

 

MR. BUNSON: Object to form.

 

A. No. It's -- no. That's not the reason.

 

Q. (By Mr. McHugh) Are public officials trained inOpen Records Act?

 

A. I don't know.

 

Q. Do you know what the Open Records Act is?

 

A. Sure do.

Q.  And you are aware that generally public documents are available to the public upon request; correct?

 

A. That's an oversimplification.

 

Q. Let me ask you this. Would dispatch records ordinarily be available on request?

 

A. That depends.

 

Q. Somebody calling 911, would that be something that's open to the public under the Open Records Request?

 

A. It could be. It could also require redaction depending what information was on the call, et cetera. There are obvious law enforcement reasons why certain things must be redacted.

 

Q. And the dispatch calls are recorded; is that correct?

 

A. I don't know. I've never worked for a dispatch.

 

Q. To your knowledge, does Mr. Hanning -- Mr. Aaron Hanning, does he have a recording device on his private cell phone?

 

A. How would I know?

 

Q,Do you think Mr. Hanning was calling from his private cell phone because he didn't want to have a record of calling Eufaula police?

 

MR. BUNSON: Object to form

 

MR. STARR: Object to form; vague.

 

A. First of all, I can't assume that he called because I don't know; and second, other than you telling me, I have no idea why he called if he called.

 

Q. (By Mr. McHugh) Let me hand you what's marked as Exhibit 12 and ask you to take a look at that.

 

A. Okay.

 

Q. Have you seen that document before?

 

A. No.

 

Q. And on that document do you see the phone number that Aaron Hanning gives on the -- I believe the second page when he calls Eufaula?

 

A. Yes, I see a phone number on here.

 

Q. Does that appear to be his cell phone number?

 

A. I would have no way of knowing.

 

Q. Do you know what Wagoner County's phone number is, the 911?

 

A. I thought it was 911.

Q. The nonemergency?

A. The nonemergency?

 

Q. Yes.

 

A. No, I don't know it.

 

Q. You don't have any knowledge as to whether or not Aaron Hanning was trying to hide the fact that he was having Tyler Paulsen arrested from the public by giving his private cell phone number? Do you have any knowledge of that?

 

MR. BUNSON: Object to form.

 

A. I can't assume any of those things, but no, I certainly don't have any knowledge.

 

Q. (By Mr. McHugh) Would the Wagoner County 911 not produce the record of a phone call because they were trying to cover up for James Hanning?

 

MR. BUNSON: Object to form.

 

A. I can't imagine that.

 

Q. (By Mr. McHugh) And you would agree that making a request for the phone call to have Tyler Paulsen arrested from Wagoner County 911 ordinarily would be a public report subject to the Open Records Act; correct?

 

MR. BUNSON: Object to form.

 

A. I don't know anything about Wagoner 911. I honestly don't know. I've never worked for them, so I don't know. I assume it would be.

 

Q. (By Mr. McHugh) All right. The reason I ask you that is because we didn't get that document from

Wagoner County, we got the recording from Eufaula after Wagoner County denied they had anything. So my question to you is, did Wagoner County 911 deny having that phone call because they were trying to protect James Hanning?

 

MR. BUNSON: Object to form.

 

A. I would have no way of knowing. I didn't know anything about this request.

 

Q. (By Mr. McHugh) Did Wagoner County 911 conspire with James Hanning?

 

MR. BUNSON: Object to form.

 

A. I can't imagine that.

 

Q. (By Mr. McHugh) Did the Wagoner County District Attorney's Office conspire with James Hanning?

 

A. No.

 

Q. Who runs the Wagoner County 911?

 

A. I don't know.

 

Q. Do you know who Judy Elliott is?

 

A. I know who she is.

 

Q. Who is she?

 

A. She's the wife of the sheriff.

 

Eric Jordan would have been aware of who ran the 911 center where both Thorpe's daughter and Commissioner Hanning's brother worked according to the evidence in this case. He would have been aware that she called sheriff deputies out to harass a process server that was well known when the man was attempting to serve a subpoena on Commissioner Hanning. There is story on this harassment in the blot, use the search function and keywords Judy Elliot and process server.

 

Q. And who's the sheriff?

 

A. Chris Elliott.

 

Q. Is Judy Elliott in charge of 911?

 

A. I don't know. Like I said, my office is in Cherokee.

 

Q. Did you have any communications with any law enforcement from the town of Adair regarding Mr. Paulsen or Mr. Hanning?

 

A You already asked me that once and I said no.

 

Q. Did you have any communication with Mayes County District Attorney's Office regarding either Mr. Paulsen or Mr. Hanning?

 

A. I think -- who was the guy that took over?

 

Q. Zach Cabbell?

 

A. Cabbell called me or emailed me once or twice after you subpoenaed or before you subpoenaed me for the post conviction thing.

 

Q. Okay. And that would have been after the Mayes County case was filed; correct?

 

A. Yes. Probably. Yeah, I think it was -- well, I know it was.

 

Q, So what I was getting at, so you didn't -- so then I could -- based on your answer, you did not have any communications with Mayes County District Attorney's Office pursuant to the criminal case that they filed against Mr. Paulsen?

 

A. That's correct.

 

But Jordan promised to call Mayes County and work in back channels to stop the illegal persecution of Tyler Paulsen on bogus charges for a technical gun charge on the case that was eventually dismissed and found void from the beginning. Is he lying now during this deposition or was he lying on the recorded phone calls?

 

Q. Do you know if Mr. Hanning knows any people at the Mayes County District Attorney's Office?

 

MR. BUNSON: Object to form.

 

A. I have no idea.

 

Q. (By Mr. McHugh) Do you know who Tom Sawyer is?

 

A. Yeah.

 

Q. Who's Tom Sawyer?

 

A. He's a lawyer. I worked with him when I was in Tulsa homicide division of the District Attorney's Office; he was an ADA there. And then I think he went to work for District 12 at some point. I'm not sure what he's doing now.

 

Q. Was he neighbors with Mr. Thorp?

 

A. I have no idea.

 

Q. At some point in time he was prosecuting Mr. Paulsen's case in Mayes County; is that correct?

 

A. I don't know. If you say it is.

 

 

MR. McHUGH: That's all the question I have --I'm sorry. Subject to the pending questions that he did not answer, subject to those questions, I pass the witness.

 

 

The evidence is thick in this case and in our opinion it is an open and shut case of persecution, the use of authority to prevent a young man from recovering his embezzled property. There is no doubt in our opinion that Eric Jordan needed a way to make the felony charges go away and to get back to work at District Attorney Jack Thorpe's little four county kingdom. And he was caught red handed on audio recordings admitting to nearly all of the allegations. Paulsen has had some amazing attorneys that preserved evidence and rooted out the documents that prove so much of the allegations. Paulsen had one amazing judge, Judge Shook, who recognized the corruption and lack of jurisdiction and purposely dismissed the case as void ab initio which ought to have ended the Mayes County fake gun charges instantly.

 

What is amazing is that the Oklahoma Attorney Generals office is aware of the vast amount of proof in this case but instead of arresting Commissioner Hanning, Jack Thorpe, and the rest of them for judicial corruption they are fighting tooth and nail to prevent justice to a molested child and to protect a County Commissioner that they have to know is a complete dirt bag.

 

Next week we will try to get the transcripts and audio recordings online somehow along with the exhibits in this case.

---

Unsubscribe / Change Profile