Home Contact Register Subscribe to the Beacon Login

Saturday, April 09, 2011

HEARING OF DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST JUDGE CYNTHIA FELAND - SCHEDULED!

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST CYNTHIA M. FELAND, A MEMBER OF THE BAR OF THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

NOTICE OF HEARING

File No. 5007-W-1002

TREASURE ISLAND - COINS AND PRECIOUS METALS

 

 

Notice is Hereby given that the above-entitled matter will come on for hearing…….

Hearing Panel of the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota, on Wednesday, the 29th day of June, and Thursday, the 30th day of June, 2011, at 9 a.m., in the Brynhild Haugland Room, at the State Capitol, 600 East Boulevard Avenue, Bismarck, ND.

 

THE NO BIG DEAL NUMBERS UPDATE: April 9, 2011 5:40 p.m.

 

From Joe Paduda (July 26, 2010), "Feland or Blunt: Who's the criminal?":

This isn't a routine, 'happens all the time' thing. Far from it. although to hear Feland tell it, this is no big deal - according to the Bismarck Tribute, Feland "said it is not uncommon for people to file complaints against prosecutors."

Well, Cynthia, let's look at the numbers, shall we?

Last year there were 349 cases that went thru the Disciplinary Board program.

192 were dismissed or the attorney was referred to an assistance program and 123 are still pending. That leaves 34 cases where there was some kind of final ruling. 17 went to a Panel Hearing. That's where Feland is headed. And the odds aren't good.

Only 2 cases were dismissed. Of the remaining cases, the Panel reprimanded the attorney in 6, the Supreme Court suspended the attorney in seven, and disbarred the offender in 2.

So Feland has a much better chance of being disciplined, or having her license to practice suspended, than she does of acquittal.

Click here to email your elected representatives.

Comments

On October 19, 2007, during a hearing to obtain a search warrant for Mr. Mark Armstrong’s personal journal that was in his office at WSI, Ms. Feland makes it absolutely clear that she has full knowledge that that concealment of a document was a crime (see below).

Lines 6-11 on Page 7.

6 MS. FELAND: Your Honor, tampering with

7 public records which talks about concealing, destroying

8 or removing records. That would be under 12.1-11-05.

9 It’s a Class C Felony for a public servant to be

10 involved in either destruction, concealment, or removal

11 of documents.

Steve Cates on April 9, 2011 at 07:10 pm

Tribune and Forum ignore Feland Ethics Hearing. Who would have thought? One would think that when a newly elected judge has the potential to reprimanded in a manner that could vacate that elected position that that would be news. Not in Bismarck. Why do you suppose that is?

Steve Cates on April 11, 2011 at 01:23 pm

They are just as corrupt. Do I win?  Why would anybody support these papers?  If you are a person of honorable character cancel any subscriptions you have.  These papers have no use at all not even as skid wipe, they just kill trees.

Madknuk on April 12, 2011 at 09:00 am

Starts tomorrow, I hope Julie Lawyer is there.  Maybe we can go for coffee and discuss her unethical behavior while she was at the BCSAoffice.  Good Luck Sandy, hope you don’t need it.

Madknuk on June 28, 2011 at 09:21 am
Avatar for Sue

Well Madknuk, he is going to need lots of luck after today’s SC opinion.  If it weren’t for bad luck, Sandy wouldn’t have any luck.  A man makes his own luck.

Sue on June 28, 2011 at 08:18 pm

Sue; What opinion are you talking about?  Did I miss something?

Madknuk on June 29, 2011 at 10:31 am

I heard and read the opinion.  You have to ask yourself why would the Supreme court post this opinion right before the Feland disciplinary hearing?  Were they trying to intimidate the hearing panel and sway the outcome in the State of North Dakotas favor.  Forget about “JUSTICE FOR ALL”, justice for some as long as it does not make the Legal system in North Dakota look bad.  And if your not a native North Dakotan then there will be no justice for you!

Madknuk on July 6, 2011 at 09:15 am
Avatar for Kate

Blunt can’t get a rehearing from the supreme court?  wtf?  Has anyone started a petition to get rid of the supreme court?  Something has to be done.  Poor Sandy can’t catch a break.

Kate on August 24, 2011 at 01:11 am
Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?