Home Contact Register Subscribe to the Beacon Login

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

THE PREVARICATING PROSECUTOR III, NO. 6: PROSECUTORS AND AUDITOR IN COORDINATED TRIAL FRAUD

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

Considering all that North Dakota State Auditor Wahl himself had documented, it is indisputable that Wahl knew that the charges regarding David Spencer were false and unfounded. Nevertheless, UNDER OATH, Wahl assisted Burleigh County State's Attorney (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.

 

Keep in mind as you read the following two exchanges by Wahl under oath that Wahl knew without question that he had placed in writing to Feland that he consulted with the North Dakota Attroney General Office (NDAGO) and that the unanimous conclusion was that Spencer did not voluntarily resign so no moving expenses were owed to WSI. Also keep in mind that Wahl’s disclosure of this fact had NEVER been turned over to Blunt and Hoffman by BCSAO so Hoffman never had any way of knowing that Wahl had made such a declaration in writing and thus had no knowledge to directly question him about it at the trial. Finally, keep in mind that even though Wahl knew these facts, he 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 Tolstad’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.

 

To this author, the trial transcript gives fairly plain and damning evidence that both Feland and Wahl could converse as they did in open court ONLY if they both knew that attorney Hoffman did not know of the November 8, 2007 memo. It smells like a collusion to conspire to commit legal fraud in open court. While admittedly being a legal layman, it seems to me that this behavior is the very essence of perjury; perjury actively induced and supported by Feland.

Click here to email your elected representatives.

Comments

To this author, the trial transcript gives fairly plain and damning evidence that both Feland and Wahl could converse as they did in open court ONLY if they both knew that attorney Hoffman did not know of the November 8, 2007 memo. It smells like a collusion to conspire to commit legal fraud in open court. While admittedly being a legal layman, it seems to me that this behavior is the very essence of perjury; perjury activel

Dress on April 22, 2010 at 08:28 am
Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?