Home Contact Register Subscribe to the Beacon Login

Friday, August 27, 2010


On August 9, 2010 Cynthia Feland filed a Motion In Litis Contestatio that essentially asksing Judge Bruce Romanick (trial judge in State v. Blunt, 2008) to decide the question:


“THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA through Cynthia M. Feland, Assistant Burleigh County State's Attorney hereby moves the Court Litis Contestatio to rule whether the state violated the rules of discovery in this case.”


The crux of the matter is the significance of the “Wahl Memo”, authored by Jason Wahl of the North Dakota State Auditor’s Office (SAO) on November 8, 2007. The seemingly exculpatory for Mr. Blunt memo was evidently never provided to Mr. Blunt nor his attorney Michael Hoffman by the prosecutor.


Cynthia Feland claims that the memo was not material as the Burleigh County State’s Attorney’s Office (BCSAO) had a document that said the same thing as the Wahl Memo making the assertion on page 7 of the motion (BCSA 08-09-10 Motion) that:

“All this, however, is for naught as the state can unequivocally prove that this same information was disclosed and provided to the defense in another document the state sent to the defense. See Attachment 5, and 6. In the sAo working papers, provided to the defense, it is specifically noted: ''Based on discussions with the attorney general's office determination was made the separation was other than voluntary". • .. See, Attachment 6.”

 Take a look at Attachment #6 on page 34 of BCSA 08-09-10 Motion at BCSAO C99.


But…… Attorney Mike Hoffman thinks, as he states in the first sentence of the August 26, 2010 motion asking for new trial or dismissal of the charges against Sandy Blunt that:

“Attached is the document C99 produced by the State in discovery dated May 10, 2007 (B1), which is not the document produced now by the State as Attachment 6.”

Take a look at Blunt 08-26-10 Motion, page 1 and see the original discovery C99. They are way different.

It turns out that that of the actual Program C audit working papers provided by the prosecution are ALL computer-clean, printed from a pure electronically-provided file with NO writing and NO notes.


Just what if Cynthia Feland has presented to Judge Romanick a document that is NOT as she claims the C99 that she gave Sandy Blunt?



Click here to email your elected representatives.


oh oh Feland I think you are in trouble

Madknuk on August 30, 2010 at 10:06 am
Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?