Home Contact Register Subscribe to the Beacon Login

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

THE PREVARICATING PROSECUTOR III, NO. 1: ASSISTANT STATE’S ATTORNEY LIES TO JUDGE

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

From the October 2009 Dakota Beacon - The Prevaricating Prosecutor III Series

 

  1. FELAND LIES TO JUDGE ROMANICK

 

  1. Assistant State’s Attorney Feland lied to the Court (Pre-Trial Hearing, November 3, 2008) in response to Judge Bruce Romanick’s concern “that all of a sudden we say, 30 days out, well, here's another 150,000 dollars when the case has been in the mill for a year.” Feland responded to Judge Romanick’s concern about adding new items relating to David Spencer and a North Dakota Firefighters’ Association safety grant at the last minute by stating: “I can tell the Court that the information pertaining to this was part of the original audit that was conducted. The information pertaining to sick leave, the information pertaining to the relocation expense, the information pertaining to grant funds, that was part of the original.” Feland further stated to the Judge that these newly added criminal acts were “always (in) the case from the get-go;” a case charged against Blunt on April 18, 2007. Interestingly though, research shows that “The only evidence being held … in this case is the copy of the State Performance Audit done by North Dakota State Auditor, which is also a matter of public record and the accompanying documents that go with it.” And the 2006 Performance Audit (the only evidence being held) mentions none of the added items, not one. So if these items NEVER appeared in the audit in evidence, then how could they have “always (been in) the case from the get-go?” What provision in the legal system allows/justifies Feland to so obviously deny Blunt his due process by lying to a District Court Judge in open Court?

Click here to email your elected representatives.

Comments

the moving expenses were a legal act), Feland maliciously charged the moving expenses as a crime. She further compounds this malicious act by lying to the Judge that the issue was part the original performance audit and her case in order to avoid having to (properly) take the issue to a preliminary hearing where the issue would have been immediately rejected by the sitting Judge for lack of probable cause to continue to a trial. Without question, both Wahl and Feland knew t

Dress on April 22, 2010 at 08:29 am
Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?