Home Contact Register Subscribe to the Beacon Login

Tuesday, December 01, 2009

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

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 Attorney's Office (BCSAO) prosecutors Feland and Suhr, and North Dakota State Auditor's Office auditor Jason Wahl regarding 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! 

There is no getting around the fact that that the perpetrated and collusive deception by
Feland, Suhr, and Wahl regarding 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!

TREASURE ISLAND - COINS AND PRECIOUS METALS

 

 

Click here to email your elected representatives.

Comments

visions Committee swiftly and unanimously rejected the Bill by the third day of the 60th Legislative Assembly with a 5-0 Do Not Pass vote. The Bill was further roundly rejected on the Senate floor in a 45-2 Do Not Pass vote on the fourth day of the 60th Legislative Assembly. Yet, even after being clearly told no, NDSAO continued to take a demonstrably active if not driving role in the prosecution of Blunt doing the exact activities that the defeated bill told them they could not and were not to e

Dress on April 22, 2010 at 08:27 am
Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?