Dakota Beacon

State's Attorney Richard Riha	Assistant State's Attorney Cynthia Feland	Assistant State's Attorney Lloyd Suhr

FELAND CLAIMS HONESTY, HONESTY, HONESTY, ABOVE ALL ELSE

In the trial against Sandy Blunt, the following instructions (in part) were presented to the jury to use in determining Blunt’s guilt or innocence:

The Court: “It is a defense to misapplication of entrusted property that the actor honestly believed that he has a claim to the property or services involved which he was entitled to assert in the manner which forms the basis for the charge against him. … The State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, as an additional element of the offense charged, that the Defendant; one, honestly believed he had a claim to the property involved … If the State has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant did not; one, honestly believe he had a claim to the property involved … the Defendant is entitled to a verdict of not guilty.”

Assistant State’s Attorney Cynthia Feland in her Closing Argument to the jury addressed these instructions as follows:

Feland: “The defendant is basically saying he honestly had a claim to the property, which … he is entitled to assert in a manner which forms the basis for the charge against him. Okay. Here's the problem with all of that. You have to honestly believe if he wasn't honest with anyone else about all of the facts, how could he ever be honest with himself? Now, I'll let you think about that for a minute. … He wasn't being candid with them (Board) and giving them the whole story. How can you honestly form a belief and try to base it on things that other people are helping you with if you're not even candid with them? You can't. Find me the piece of evidence that says to you that he could honestly believe. There isn't any, because he can't.”

This single example and Feland’s corresponding statements were used by Feland to sum up her ENTIRE case that Blunt could never have “honestly believed that he has a claim to the property or services involved” at any time about anything. The problem with this claim is that it – like the entire case -- was nothing more than a strategically created deception done in partnership with State Auditor Jason Wahl. Wahl had created State's Exhibits 6, 7, 8 and 9 for Feland to show at trail that Blunt provided “bonuses” to employees –a false allegation that only Wahl, Feland, Suhr, and Richard Riha ever bought into. There are no audit records that I can find that these exhibits were ever created and presented as part of the audit to Blunt and the WSI Board of Directors, nor were these documents provided to me by the State Auditor’s Office when I made a request for ALL information regarding contact between the Auditor’s Office and the Burleigh County State’s Attorney’s Office.

Trial transcript supports the fact that these documents were manufactured by Wahl and not WSI or anyone else. When? How? Why?

Feland: State would offer State's Exhibits 6, 7, 8 and 9.

Hoffman: I just want to clarify. These were created by, I mean, by State Auditor Wahl?

The Court: He testified he created them, correct.

Blunt’s attorney Mike Hoffman goes on to question Wahl about the documents.

Hoffman: So when the Jury goes back and has these Exhibits 6, 7, 8, and 9 in their possession in the Jury room, they look at the word "bonus," that is not something that WSI ever acknowledged to be correct. Is that right?

Wahl: Correct.

…

Hoffman: Am I correct here, Mr. Wahl, it says cause, and it states it appears WSI was unaware retroactive payments made to employees for retaining or to reward performance are, in fact, bonuses.

Wahl: That's what the document states, yes.

PROSECUTORS USING MANUFACTURED EXHIBIT TO CLAIM DISHONESTY

In introducing these manufactured exhibits to Board Audit Chair Evan Mandigo (the one and only person with whom Feland establishes that Blunt was not honest with the Board “so how can he be honest to himself”), Feland plainly and unquestionably states “Okay. I'm going to show you a couple of documents, and I can guarantee you have never seen these before, at least I don't think.” If Blunt and WSI were so aware of how and why Wahl called the payments “bonuses,” then how is it that Feland can “guarantee” that Mandigo has never seen them? Is it because these exhibits were created after the audit and only for the trial?

Assistant State’s Attorney Lloyd Suhr went on in his questioning of WSI Legal Counsel Tim Wahlin to establish:

Suhr: Mr. Wahlin, I'm showing you what have been received into evidence as State's Exhibits 6, 7, 8, and 9. Have you seen those documents before?

Wahlin: No.

Suhr: Today is the first day that you had seen them?

Wahlin: Today is the first day I have seen them.

Of course Wahlin (or anyone else for that fact) had never seen the exhibits because Wahl appears to have privately manufactured them for the trial. They were never any part of any communication between any of the involved parties. They were used by Feland and Suhr to set up an inference that Blunt was not honest with the Board or himself in withholding this information. After knowing all of this and introducing documents never used or seen during the audit, Feland asks Mandigo:

Feland: Okay. So at the time that you're formulating these responses and Mr. Blunt bringing this information and running it by the board, you didn't know any of that?

Mandigo: I guess not.

ATTORNEY HOFFMAN GOES TO THE HEART OF THE PRESECUTORIAL DECEPTION

What Feland, Suhr, and Wahl did not ever disclose was when these documents were created or why. Hoffman outlines this fact in his closing argument.

Hoffman: “The State made an argument about even the board of directors didn't have all the facts. And I think what the State is arguing is that when Mr. Evan Mandigo was on the witness stand, he hadn't seen the columns, the exhibits with the columns, the three columns. Well, what do you know about the exhibits with the three columns? They were created by the state auditor. They weren't records from WSI. … They were created by the state auditor. And you know what, were you ever given a time frame as to when these were created? Talking about the alleged bonus documents, the three columns, were you given any evidence of when they were created? No, you weren't. You don't know when they were created. You don't know whether they were created for purposes of just this prosecution, if they were created after all of this was in the past and these criminal charges were brought. How would Mr. Mandigo, sitting here, ever have had the opportunity to look at them? It goes to this issue of credibility. … It goes to the credibility of this prosecution. Mr. Blunt, they say, did not give the board all the facts. Well, we didn't get all the facts. When were those documents created? Did Mr. Bob Indvik, Mr. Mandigo ever have the opportunity to see those in the past? That goes to the credibility of the prosecution. And you have the right to reject that. And you have a right to reject their case based on that. You have the right to go back and say, "no". No, we reject that.” 

This manufactured evidence is just one small example of what appears to be a large deception created and presented from the partnership between that Burleigh County State’s Attorney’s Office and the ND State Auditor’s Office. When Feland states the following to the jury she is correct, “You have to honestly believe if he wasn't honest with anyone else about all of the facts, how could he ever be honest with himself … How can you honestly form a belief and try to base it on things that other people are helping you with if you're not even candid with them.” But the lack of honesty and candidness was perpetrated by the Burleigh County prosecutors and State Auditors. And as I have noted in Prevaricating Prosecutor III, this is sadly not the lone example of a lack of honesty and intentional deception by Feland, Suhr, and Wahl.

THE ULTIMATE DISHONESTY: REVIEW OF THE HIDDEN,

WITHHELD, EXCULPATORY MEMO

Against North Dakota Rules of Criminal Procedure and the North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct, Feland and Suhr withheld a November 8, 2007, memo from Wahl to Feland (Wahl/Feland Memo) that proved the sick leaved and moving expenses added as crimes against were not crimes. Feland and Suhr (to this day) have withheld this unmistakably exculpatory document from Blunt and Hoffman.

Feland and Suhr had in writing that the ND Attorney General advised state auditors in October of 2006 that Spencer did not voluntarily leave and thus there was no legal authority to collect. This fact was then put in writing to Feland and Suhr a year before the trial and they still --with forethought-- added it as a crime just weeks before the trial and withheld the memo proving the moving expenses were not a crime. In the moving expenses issue ALONE, Feland and Suhr violated their obligations not to bring charges without probable cause, they violated their obligations to turn over witness statements, they violated their state obligations to turn over exculpatory evidence, they violated their federally mandated “Brady” obligation to turn over exculpatory evidence, they violated Blunt’s due process rights by not affording him a preliminary hearing to determine probable cause on the issue, Feland lied right to a Judge’s face in open court about the whole issue in order to add it as a crime, and Feland and Suhr seemingly encouraged and allowed Wahl’s willing participation to conceal all these facts from the jury.

Considering all that Wahl himself had documented, it is indisputable that Wahl knew that the charges regarding Spencer were false and unfounded. Nevertheless, UNDER OATH, Wahl assisted BCSAO in the perpetration of a deceptive legal proceeding against Blunt by actively leading the jury to believe that Spencer’s letter of hire was still valid and thus required Blunt to collect 50% of Spencer’s moving expenses. Wahl never once attempted to disclose any of them on the stand; instead, Wahl intentionally and deceptively danced around the issue.

Hoffman: Mr. Wahl, when I ask you -- I want to ask you a question about Mr. David Spencer. If his leaving WSI was involuntary, then your opinion as a state auditor is that the recoupment of relocation or moving expenses would be a moot point. Correct?

Wahl: I guess, that would relate to a legal question, so we would present the information that we had available to us at the time and contact our legal counsel, which is the Office of the Attorney General.

Hoffman: Well, you have already given testimony regarding the meeting with Mr. Blunt and Ms. Jodi

Bjornson October 24, 2006. Right?

Wahl: Correct.

Hoffman: I would ask you to look at the bottom of Page 7 going over to the top of Page 8. Does that accurately reflect statements that you made at that meeting?

Wahl: Yes. I believe those statements I made are accurate there and based on conversations we had with our legal representative prior to that meeting.

Hoffman: And you specifically state to Mr. Blunt and Ms. Bjornson that if Mr. Spencer's leaving WSI was involuntary, then the recoupment of relocation expenses becomes a moot point. Correct?

Wahl: Yes.

Hoffman obviously has no idea that Wahl has written a memo to Feland stating that all of the Spencer issues are of no import. And while Wahl may have been able to dance the issue with Hoffman, it appears that he chose to just flat out lie about it to Feland. Under questioning from Feland, Wahl completely ignores (lies about) his and other’s numerous documented statements of discussions with Blunt that led Wahl to the determination that the money could not be collected:

Feland: Okay. Did you talk to Mr. Blunt about the fact that this money should be paid back and that they should be trying to seek reimbursement of these public funds?

Wahl: Yes.

…

Feland: Could he (Blunt) give you any conversations that he had with Mr. Spencer where the rules changed?

Wahl: No.

Hoffman follows up with Wahl yet again asking him if he had any documentation that the moving expenses was a moot issue.

Hoffman: I want to make sure I understood correctly. On your direct examination, your examination of the files of WSI, you did not find any documentation from anyone at WSI making a statement that these moving expenses, this 50 percent was not required to be paid back by Mr. Spencer. Correct?

Wahl: Documentation regarding that statement?

Hoffman: Documentation stated he is not required to pay them back.

Wahl: I do not recall seeing documentation that specifically stated that, other than the memo you had just showed me would have addressed that issue.

Hoffman: All right. Were these moving expenses, this 50 percent sum, in the audit that you ended up publishing?

Wahl: No, sir.

Wahl seems to blatantly “forget” HIS clear and unambiguous documentation to Feland on November 8, 2007, that the ND Attorney General advised Wahl that there was not a voluntary resignation and thus there was no right to collect. And Wahl further states this issue was not published in the audit knowing full well its absence was based on counsel from the Attorney General but never ever hints at acknowledging this fact. In doing so, does Wahl --in collusion with Feland and Suhr-- perjure himself on numerous occasions with the active support of the prosecution’s attorneys?

AFTER DECEPTION AFTER DECEPTION, FELAND CLAIMS BLUNT NOT HONEST!

So I ask again the same question that Feland presented to the jury in her closing argument: “How can you honestly form a belief and try to base it on things that other people are helping you with if you're not even candid with them? You can't.”

When you combine the withholding of evidence and witness statements with the Feland, Suhr, and Wahl’s willingness to be less than candid and misrepresent manufactured evidence under oath, how could the jury have ever been able to give Sandy Blunt a fair trial? THEY COULDN’T! A juror never goes to court to serve ever even imagining that the attorneys representing the “State” would be anything but honest. You never expect collusion between a witness and the “State” prosecutors. You expect above all else justice.