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!
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!
DakotaBeacon