Dakota Beacon

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

As a result of publishing a sampling of what I believe to be documented misconduct by the ND State Auditor’s Office and the Burleigh County State’s Attorney’s Office (BCSAO) in the “persecution” of Sandy Blunt, I have been contacted by readers with still more examples of apparent prosecutorial misconduct meted out under the direct supervision and leadership of Richard Riha. As I have not been able to thoroughly examine and document these new examples, I am not comfortable publishing them just yet. BUT, unfortunately, these examples continue to paint a larger and more disturbing picture of what appears be a consistent pattern of misconduct by the BCSAO.

The documented misconduct in Blunt’s case and the mounting new examples of apparent misconduct in others’ case’s have led me to look closer at the obligations and responsibilities of these prosecutors. What I discovered was that under North Dakota Century Code (NDCC) 27-13-08 (Misconduct of Attorney): “Every attorney who … Is guilty of any deceit or collusion or consents to any deceit or collusion with intent to deceive the court or any party … is guilty of a class A misdemeanor and in addition forfeits to the party injured treble damages to be recovered in a civil action.”

The examples printed in the October 2009 Dakota Beacon magazine ALONE appear to clearly show that Cynthia Feland and Lloyd Suhr of the BCSAO are at a minimum guilty of multiple class A misdemeanors and that Blunt has cause for a very significant civil action against the county. And if each violation of 27-13-08 can be stacked over-and-over again as part of a continuing course of conduct (as they did to Blunt), would Feland and Suhr then eventually be guilty of a felony? I have no idea, but it is an intriguing question. And if Blunt was charged with multiple Misapplication of Entrusted Property charges for things that others “supposedly” did while he was the CEO, then aren’t Feland, Suhr, and RIHA also guilty of Misapplication of Entrusted Property for “willfully” (engaging in intentional, knowing, or reckless conduct) prosecuting Blunt for provably LEGAL actions? If it is good for the goose, then is it not also good for the gander? I say yes.

But the laws and rules governing attorney conduct do not stop with just NDCC 27-13-08. I have also discovered additional rules and laws governing their conduct such as ...

NORTH DAKOTA RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT PREAMBLE: A LAWYER'S RESPONSIBILITIES [1] A lawyer, as a member of the legal profession, is a representative of clients, an officer of the legal system and a public citizen having special responsibility for the quality of justice.

RULE 3.3 CANDOR TOWARD THE TRIBUNAL (a) A lawyer shall not knowingly: (1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer;

NORTH DAKOTA CENTURY CODE (NDCC) 27-13-01 DUTIES OF ATTORNEYS. Every attorney and counselor at law shall (in part):

1. Maintain respect for courts of justice and judicial officers;

3. Perform faithfully the attorney's responsibilities as an officer of the court and protector of individual rights;

5. Work to make the legal system more accessible, responsive, and just;

6. Employ for purposes of maintaining the causes confided to the attorney, those means only as are consistent with truth and honor, and never seek to mislead the judge or jury by any artifice or false statement of fact or law

NORTH DAKOTA RULES OF ATTORNEY PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT 1.0 Terms; (e) "Fraud" or "fraudulent" denotes conduct having a purpose to deceive and not merely negligent misrepresentation or negligent failure to apprise another of relevant information.

NORTH DAKOTA RULES OF ATTORNEY PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT, 1.0 Terms Comment Fraud -[5] When used in these Rules, the terms "fraud" or "fraudulent" do not include merely negligent misrepresentation or negligent failure to apprise another of relevant information. For purposes of these Rules, it is not necessary that anyone has suffered damages or relied on the misrepresentation or failure to inform in order for the misrepresentation or failure to inform to constitute fraud.

NORTH DAKOTA RULES OF ATTORNEY PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT Scope [4] … since the rules do establish standards of conduct for lawyers, a lawyer's violation of a rule may be evidence of breach of the applicable standard of conduct. Failure to comply with an obligation or prohibition imposed by a Rule is a basis for invoking the disciplinary process.

RULE 3.4 FAIRNESS TO OPPOSING PARTY AND COUNSEL A lawyer shall not: (a) unlawfully obstruct another party's access to evidence or unlawfully alter, destroy or conceal a document or other material having potential evidentiary value;

RULE 3.8 SPECIAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF A PROSECUTOR The prosecutor in a criminal case shall:

(a) refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause;

(d) disclose to the defense at the earliest practical time all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense, and, in connection with sentencing, disclose to the defense and to the tribunal all unprivileged mitigating information known to the prosecutor …

RULE 4.1 TRUTHFULNESS IN STATEMENTS TO OTHERS In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not make a statement to a third person of fact or law that the lawyer knows to be false. Comment (Misrepresentation) A lawyer is required to be truthful when dealing with others on a client's behalf … Misrepresentations can also occur by partially true but misleading statements or omissions that are the equivalent of affirmative false statements. For misrepresentations by a lawyer other than in the course of representing a client, see Rule 8.4.

RULE 8.4 MISCONDUCT It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:

(a) violate or attempt to violate these Rules, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;

(b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;

(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation that reflects adversely on the lawyer's fitness as a lawyer;

(f) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice …

Comment

[1] Lawyers are subject to discipline when they violate or attempt to violate these Rules, knowingly assist or induce another to do so or do so through acts of another, as when they request or instruct an agent to do so on the lawyer's behalf.

[2] Many kinds of illegal conduct reflect adversely on fitness to practice law, such as offenses involving fraud … Although a lawyer is personally answerable to the entire criminal law, a lawyer should be professionally answerable only for offenses that indicate lack of those characteristics relevant to law practice. Offenses involving violence, dishonesty, breach of trust, or serious interference with the administration of justice fall within that category. A pattern of repeated offenses, even ones of minor significance when considered separately, can indicate indifference to legal obligations.

[4] N.D.C.C. Section 27-14-02 provides for the revocation or suspension of the certificate of admission of any lawyer who has committed an offense determined by the North Dakota Supreme Court to have a direct bearing on the lawyer's ability to serve the public as a lawyer and counselor at law. Statutes also provide for revocation or suspension in other instances of misconduct, including 27-13-01 (duties of attorneys), 27-13-08 (misconduct of attorneys), 27-13-09 (permitting use of the attorney's name), 27-13-11 (involvement in the defense while a partner of the prosecutor), and 27-13-12 (involvement in the defense after involvement as state's attorney or other public prosecutor).

[6] Lawyers holding public office assume legal responsibilities going beyond those of other citizens. A lawyer's abuse of public office can suggest an inability to fulfill the professional role of a lawyer.

RULE 5.1 RESPONSIBILITIES OF PARTNERS, MANAGERS, AND SUPERVISORY LAWYERS

(b) A lawyer having direct supervisory authority over another lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the other lawyer conforms to these Rules.

(c) A lawyer shall be responsible for another lawyer's violation of these Rules if:

(1) the lawyer orders or, with knowledge of the specific conduct, ratifies the conduct involved; or

(2) the lawyer is a partner or has comparable managerial authority in the law firm in which the other lawyer practices, or has direct supervisory authority over the other lawyer, and knows of the conduct at a time when its consequences can be avoided or mitigated, but fails to take reasonable remedial action.

And on-and-on it goes from there.

As I am not a law trained individual, I will not attempt to interpret or apply the above cited rules and laws –that is to be left to the appropriate legal officials. And in the case of this prosecutorial misconduct, the appropriate legal officials are the ND Supreme Court (which can revoke a certificate of admission of an attorney to the Bar of ND) and the Governor (which can remove a elected official from office for cause).

In my opinion, it has now come to the point where –for the good of the county and for the assurance of justice-- that Feland, Suhr, and Riha be placed on notice and placed under review for their actions. Their behavior appears to be clearly against the mandates of their profession and professional obligations. As citizens we have a responsibility to point out injustice and abuse when we find it.

Look for an official action of accountability to occur soon in this case. And when this public action is taken, it will be important for each of us as citizens of this state and this county to demand and assure that a full and unobstructed investigation is conducted into the unethical and possibly illegal behavior/actions of Feland, Suhr, Riha, and other individuals so that their misconduct is not just simply swept under the rug.