Home Contact Register Subscribe to the Beacon Login

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

THE PREVARICATING PROSECUTOR III, NO. 8: DECEPTION OF VOLUNTARY vs. INVOLUNTARY EFFECT THE JURY

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

There is no getting around the fact that that the perpetrated and collusive deception by Burleigh County State's Attorneys Feland and Suhr, and North Dakota State Auditor's Office auditor Wahl regarding David Spencer’s departure status did in fact impact the outcome rendered by the jury. The trial transcript shows that the only substantive question asked by the jury during their deliberations surrounded the issue of what is a voluntary versus an involuntary resignation:

 

THE COURT: All right. I have a question from the Jury. … “Is there a ruling/law/legal definition regarding the terminology that an “involuntary resignation” is the same as a “termination.”” Carol Beiswanger. And then it continues, “please define “involuntary resignation” “voluntary resignation” “termination” as applied in employment law.””

 

The response to this question was, “You currently have the law you will receive to decide this case.” This issue should never have been charged against Blunt and the jury should never have been put in a position where they had to figure out on their own what the facts were from the great wall of lies presented to them. Had true justice been the aim of the BCSAO, the jury would have had no need to even consider the semantics of employment law as employment law had nothing to do with non-crimes!

Click here to email your elected representatives.

Comments

Mr Cates can’t be the only one with enough backbone to expose this story, but he is.  I think this speaks volumes about our media organizations here in ND.

Madknuk on November 25, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?