Dakota Beacon

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

After being apprised that they did not provide a memorandum from the primary prosecution witness that destroys the vast majority of the prosecution’s case, Burleigh County Assistant State’s Attorney Lloyd Suhr,  responds that it was an oversight. Then, he claims that the very succinct document in question is no big deal, that their was plenty of other evidence “of fact and description of events” somewhere in all the other documents turned over to the defense.

Defense attorney Michael Hoffman destroys this nonsense in his letter that also points out that there is very much other evidence that was not provided as law requires. He then explains how Auditor Wahl had likely, in his opinion, committed perjury! Suhr then asserts that witness testimony was not only equivalent in signifigance but likely more important then the MEMO!

April 19, 2007, Hoffman Requests ALL Discovery

Sandy Blunt’s Attorney Michael Hoffman wrote to Assistant Burleigh County State’s Attorney Cynthia Feland citing legal requirements when making a REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY AND REQUEST FOR NOTICE OF PROSECUTION’S INTENTION TO USE EVIDENCE.

 FIRST PARAGRAPH-- Pursuant to Rule 12(d)(2), NDRCrimP, Defendant, in order to afford an opportunity to raise objections to evidence prior to trial under Rule 12(b)(3), NDRCrimP, hereby requests notice of the prosecution’s intention to use in its evidence in chief at trial any evidence to which Defendant is entitled to discovery under Rule 16, NDRCrimP, subject to any relevant limitations prescribed in Rule 16.

 LAST PARAGRAPH -- Continuing duty to disclose: If, before or during trial, the prosecution discovers additional evidence or material previously requested or ordered which is subject to discovery or inspection under Rule 16, the prosecution shall promptly notify Defendant or the Court of the existence of the additional material.

August 28, 2009, Hoffman Writes To Feland

I have come into possession of a copy of the enclosed Memorandum to you from Mr. Wahl dated November 8, 2007. I did not have this memo at the time of the trial of this case, and you had not produced this memo in discovery or in response to my request for material under Brady v. Maryland.

Before I file what I determine to be the appropriate motion or petition, I wanted to give the State of North Dakota the opportunity to explain why I did not have this document before trial and perhaps to give the State of North Dakota the opportunity to rectify this situation by filing an appropriate motion or petition. Thank you.

September 10, 2009, Assistant Burleigh County State’s

Attorney Suhr to Hoffman

I am in receipt of your August 28th letter to Cynthia regarding the November 8, 2007 memorandum from Jason Wahl regarding Dave Spencer. Neither Cynthia nor I recalled this specific memorandum so we had our support staff go back through the file to confirm we had it. We do have a copy of the memorandum in our file, with one notable exception. The copy we have is printed on letterhead from the Office of the State Auditor and the copy you provided with your letter does not. I am uncertain why that is.

Our staff has also reviewed the multiple discovery responses over the course of this case and the discovery checklists prepared in conjunction therewith. While meticulous effort was taken to ensure that every single page of discoverable materials was provided in discovery, the volume of documentation (thousands of pages) received and disclosed over the course of nearly two years made it impossible to individually catalog each and every document as received and disclosed. Accordingly, we were unable to identify a specific discovery response pertaining to disclosure of this particular document. Therefore, I can neither expressly confirm nor deny that the document was not disclosed. Any failure to disclose was inadvertent and unintentional and a byproduct of the sheer volume of documentation in this case.

That being said, I have carefully reviewed the contents of Mr. Wahl’s memorandum and it appears to me, without question, that the substantive contents of each assertion of fact and description of events set out therein was fully disclosed to you through other materials provided during the lengthy and voluminous discovery process. Your thorough exploration of these asserted facts and events at trial evidenced your pre-trial knowledge of the same, as you would not have otherwise been able to delve into the issues as you did during trial.

To that end, I would ask you to please clarify the specific assertions of fact and descriptions of events set out in Mr. Wahl’s memorandum which you believe you were not privy to prior to trial as a result of not having Mr. Wahl’s memorandum, and how it prejudiced the defense of the case.

September 23, 2009, Hoffman to Suhr

This letter is in response to your letter to me dated September 10, 2009, and specifically in response to the last paragraph of that particular letter.

The most important language of the Memorandum to Ms. Feland from Mr. Wahl dated November 8, 2007, which we were not privy to until recently and well after the trial, is contained in the last paragraph of that memorandum, “we determined, in consultation with a representative of the Attorney General’s Office, there was not a voluntary resignation”. In the context of the specific allegation of failure to recoup moving expenses of Mr. Spencer, this quoted language is virtually controlling in Mr. Blunt’s favor. In the context of the entire case, its importance would have permeated virtually every aspect of the case, procedurally and substantively.

It is difficult for me to fathom the prosecutors in this case not knowing or not remembering the above quoted language of the memorandum when the decision was made in September, 2008, to add the allegation of failing to recoup the Spencer moving expenses to Count I in this case. How could the State believe that was a legitimate action in the face of the subject language in the memorandum? Rule 3.8(a), North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct, provides, “The prosecutor in a criminal case shall ... refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause”. The subject language of the memorandum, in my opinion, rises to the level of no probable cause for the allegation of failing to recoup the Spencer moving expenses.

Rule 3.8(a) is tied to the prosecutor’s duty to do justice, rather than just seek a conviction. See Comment [I] to Rule 3.8. Quite frankly, it appeared to me that the State scrambled in September, 2008, to add the new allegations related to Mr. Spencer and the grant money in an effort to shore up what was perceived to be a questionable case. My belief in this regard is bolstered, in part, by your opening statement to the jury wherein you start with Count II, the bonuses, the class C felony (rr. 34), and then go to Count I, the class B felony, starting with the Spencer sick leave and moving expenses (Tr. 37), including a discussion of the issue of voluntary leave (Tr. 40), and then the grant money (Tr. 41), before you go to what started this case, the gift certificates (Tr. 43) and meeting expenses (Tr. 44). Following the jury trial, the Bismarck Tribune quoted Ms. Feland in characterizing Count II “as the more clear” of the two counts. Saturday, December 20, 2008, Page IIA. The Forum quoted you as stating Count II “was the more clear-cut charge.” Saturday, December 20, 2008, A4.

Of course, we never had a preliminary (probable cause) hearing on the Spencer moving expenses. If a magistrate would have seen the subject language from the Memorandum at a preliminary hearing, the Spencer moving expenses would have never survived the preliminary hearing. This relates specifically to Mr. Blunt’s Issue for Review No. 2 presently before the North Dakota Supreme Court, “Did the trial court err in allowing the State to constructively amend Count I to include the allegations of Spencer sick leave and relocation expenses without a new preliminary hearing?”

When that Issue for Review No. 2 was argued in the trial court, Ms. Feland stated to the trial court, in part, regarding the Spencer moving expenses, “As soon as the Supreme Court came back indicating, yes, there was sufficient evidence for probable cause, then as I indicated, we went through the file and anything that we had had in there that had not been sent, we made sure that was sent out.” (Tr. of Pretrial Conference Hearing, November 3, 2008, pp. 18-19). Obviously, that statement is incorrect. What is even more troubling now, in light of the subject language in the Memorandum, is this statement by Ms. Feland to the trial court: “a preliminary hearing is for purposes of determining probable cause, and the State is only required to bring forth sufficient evidence to establish probable cause, not all of the evidence.” (Tr. of Pretrial Conference Hearing, November 3, 2008, p. 6, lines 18-22).

Rule 16(t)(I)(B), North Dakota Rules of Criminal Procedure, provides, “Upon a defendant’s written request, the prosecution must furnish the defendant ... any statements made by the listed prosecution witnesses”. Mr. Wahl was a listed prosecution witness, Mr. Blunt made this written request, and the subject Memorandum constitutes a statement made by Mr. Wahl. There exists here a clear violation of Rule 16.

Recently, I had a DUI trial with another prosecutor in your office. Upon cross examination of the arresting officer, we learned there existed a video of the stop which had not been provided to us. Judge Hagerty, citing Rule 16 and City of Grand Forks v. Ramstad, 2003 ND 41, 658 N. W.2d 731, dismissed the case, in part, because the defendant’s right to incorporate anything from the video into his opening statement, and to otherwise prepare for trial, had been compromised.

I have already mentioned defense use of the Wahl Memorandum at a preliminary hearing, or, as it turns out in this case, at the argument to Judge Romanick on November 3, 2008, as to why Mr. Blunt should be entitled to a preliminary hearing on the Spencer moving expenses. Just as Judge Hagerty acknowledged in that DUI case, Mr. Blunt could have used the Memorandum in his trial preparation and in his opening statement.

Going further, however, Mr. Blunt could have quite clearly used the Memorandum in his questioning of Mr. Wahl. Please see the attached trial transcript, pp. 845-846, and please imagine how that questioning would have been different if we would have had the subject Memorandum. Instead of me asking Mr. Wahl “if” Mr. Spencer had left involuntary (Tr. 845, line 5), I could have established that Mr. Wahl in fact had concluded it was involuntary (Memorandum). Instead of Mr. Wahl speaking in general terms that “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” (Tr. 845, lines 10-12), I could have established that Mr. Wahl in fact did consult the Attorney General before concluding it was involuntary (Memorandum). Indeed, Mr. Wahl sitting there at that time on the witness stand and not responding that he had in fact consulted the Attorney General, had in fact concluded the Spencer leaving was involuntary, and that he wrote a Memorandum as such to the prosecutor in this case, is, in my legal opinion, perjury. I believe the definition of “statement” in NDCC 12.1-11-04(4) covers his testimony above and the “representation” he made at trial.

In my closing statement to the jury, I argued, “Mr. Wahl said, if Mr. Spencer’s leaving was not voluntary, the issue’s moot which means, it’s not an issue. If you find, ladies and gentlemen, that Mr. Spencer’s leaving was not voluntary, then under Mr. Wahl’s own testimony, there is no issue here regarding relocation expenses.” (Tr. 1007, lines 12-18). You can easily imagine how that argument would have been different if the defense would have had the Memorandum (and if the trial court would not have thrown out the moving expenses on a motion for judgment of acquittal). Also attached is the trial transcript, pp. 1035-1036, where the jury, during deliberations, asked about involuntary versus voluntary. One would have to be completely disingenuous to say the Wahl Memorandum would not have had a bearing on the jury.

The Wahl Memorandum also directly relates to Mr. Blunt’s Issue for Review No. 6 before the North Dakota Supreme Court, “Was the State’s allegation that Blunt ‘failed to collect relocation (moving) expenses from Dave Spencer’ not proven as a matter of law?” Consistent with Mr. Wahl’s testimony at trial, Mr. Blunt’s argument on appeal was and is limited, “The State Auditor’s position was that, if Spencer’s leaving WSI was involuntary, then recoupment of meeting expenses was a moot point”. Brief of Appellant, p. 26. Clearly, that is not the whole truth of the matter.

Going back to Rule 3.8 of the North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.8(d) provides in relevant part, “The prosecutor in a criminal case shall ... [d]isclose to the defense at the earliest practical time all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense”. Here, this was not done. Mr. Blunt contends that what was done here constitutes prosecutorial misconduct which “so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.” See State v. Kruckenberg, 2008 ND 212, 20, 758 N.W.2d 427.

Although Mr. Blunt believes this prosecutorial misconduct should bar a retrial, see State v. Jacobson, 545 N.W.2d 152, 159 (N.D. 1996), Levine, Surrogate Judge, dissenting and citing Pool v. Superior Court, 677 P.2d 261 (Ariz. 1984) and Commonwealth v. Smith, 615 A.2d 321 (Pa. 1992), Mr. Blunt runs the risk procedurally of waiving his pending arguments on appeal, including his acquittal arguments, if he files now a motion for new trial or a petition for post-conviction relief in the trial court. The unfortunate circumstance of not filing a motion or petition with the trial court now is that the Supreme Court will be deciding a case without all the facts, as we are limited on appeal to what is actually in the record.

The State, however, at this time could remedy the situation by bringing the Wahl Memorandum to light and filing a motion to dismiss Count I with prejudice. This, I believe, under all the circumstances, factually and legally, is what the State should do. I believe the Wahl Memorandum to Ms. Feland in November, 2007, justifies this.

In closing, I need to add that there appears to be other statements which would need to be investigated. Mr. Wahl’s very last words in the Memorandum regarding moving expenses are, “so it was determined to drop the recommendation we had drafted.” However, at the pretrial conference on November 3, 2008, Ms. Feland states, “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 all part of the original.” (Tr. of Pretrial Conference Hearing, November 3, 2008, p. 11, lines 17-22). The statements by Mr. Wahl and Ms. Feland are inconsistent, which in and of itself is problematic. Further, no audit pertaining to sick leave, moving expenses, or grant money was ever provided by the State to the defense in discovery. Therefore, the question arises whether there were statements by the auditor regarding sick leave (and grant money) which were also not provided in discovery, and perhaps also beneficial to the defense. Was the issue of sick leave also “dropped” by the auditor? If so, was that also done upon the legal advice of the Attorney General?

Finally, I am wondering if there are other witness statements which have not been provided. From the trial, we have reason to believe there were law enforcement interviews of at least Mr. Wahl, Mr. Long, Ms. Peltz and possibly Ms. Bjornson which were not provided in discovery. This would have to be investigated. Again, I suggest to the State a dismissal of Count I with prejudice. Thank you.

September 30, 2009, Suhr to Hoffman

I am in receipt of your September 23rd letter further discussing the November 8, 2007 memorandum from Jason Wahl regarding Dave Spencer. Much of your letter focuses on how you would have altered your questioning of Mr. Wahl at trial and the arguments you believe you would have made differently. Your letter further speculates on the impact of such questioning and arguments as it related to the ultimate verdict of guilty. Your citations to the trial transcript ignore Mr. Spencer’s own testimony under your cross examination that his departure was involuntary. See transcript, p.459-460. It is unclear how, when Mr. Spencer himself testified that his departure from WSI was involuntary, your ability to argue the same was hampered or prejudiced as you have suggested.

To the extent your letter discusses issues raised on appeal, I do not believe it appropriate to further discuss those matters given the pendency thereof.

Insurance expert Joe Paduda sees what the North Dakota media cannot and writes on the Managed Care Matters site that:

Sure, the misdemeanor charges were ludicrous; authorizing the purchase of small gift cards, balloons, and food for employee meetings and celebrations, and a raft of other contrived accusations which together wouldn't amount to enough to give even the squeaky-cleanest among us any pause. In total, Blunt 'signed for' $2,693.15 over three years; all of it with the consent of the fund's legal and financial departments.

But this is an entirely different situation - this isn't just piling up a bunch of ridiculous charges in an effort to bring down a CEO, no, this is outright fraud on the part of the prosecutor.

FRAUD ON THE PART OF THE PROSECUTOR!

I contacted Feland several times over the last few weeks, asked her directly about this situation, and she refused to address the key question - had she provided Blunt with a copy of the State Auditor's memo which cleared Blunt of any malfeasance related to Spencer?

FELAND REFUSES TO ANSWER!

Paduda then asks the primary question:

What in the hell is going on in North Dakota?

And why are they persecuting a guy who's performance at the ND state work comp fund was exemplary?

The Questions

What:

• What is your favorite movie?
• What is your favorite television show of all time?
• What kind of music do you listen to the most?
• What is your favorite book?
• What is the most important book you have ever read?
• What is your favorite song?
• What is your favorite leisure activity?

Who:

• Who is your favorite author?
• Who are your top 3 figures in world history?
• Who are your top 3 figures in U.S. history?
• Who are your two favorite U.S. Presidents?
• The economist who’s ideas most reflect your own is?
• Who are your three favorite U.S. Supreme Court Justices of all times?
• Who are the four most influential people on your life?

On a scale of 0 to 10:

• The U.S. Federal Government’s role in K-12 education is?
• The U.S. Federal Government’s role in College education is?
• The U.S. Federal Government’s health care regulation is?
• A flat tax is a good idea?
• The definition of marriage is that of the union of one man and one woman?
• Human activity is leading to climate change?
• The United States Constitution is a living, breathing document/national law?
• I agree with President Bush’s position on embryonic stem-cell research?
• The traditional national media is truthful and accurate.
• The emergent alternative media of bloggers and talk radio are truthful and accurate.
• The emergent alternative media of bloggers and talk radio effects politics and public policy.
• Popular culture is eroding the institution of the traditional two parent family.

If:

• If government support was withdrawn tomorrow corn ethanol would be economically viable.
• If no, how long until viability?
• If government support was withdrawn tomorrow, wind generated electricity would be economically viable?
• If no, how long until viability?

Misc:

• When is a human being a person?
• Will you make the following pledge: "I hereby pledge to the people of my district/state upon my election to the U.S. Senate, to sponsor and support legislation to repeal any federal health care takeover passed in 2010, and replace it with real reforms that lower health care costs without growing government."
• If you'd been in the Senate at the time it was being considered, would you have voted for the TARP bailouts?
• If you'd been in the Senate at the time it was being considered, would you have voted for the "stimulus" spending?
• Given the national budgeting situation, with big deficits and debts, will you forgo so-called "earmarks" or other North Dakota-specific spending not related to necessary security and/or infrastructure needs?
• How would you approach deficit-reduction at the federal level?
• How would you treat your constituents differently than Byron Dorgan?
• Do you believe in Truth, Justice, and the American way?
• Do you believe in Liberty and Justice for all?

WorkCompCentral is the nation’s premier publication dealing strictly with the Workman’s Compensation industry. WorkCompCentral is a news and information service for that industry. They publish news daily and provide information regarding rules, regulations, case law and various related legal issues. They also have extensive continuing education training and facilities.

That said, they have now seem to have gotten a whiff of the North Dakota stench coming from the persecution/prosecution of Sandy Blunt. WorkCompCentral is a subscription only website but they have graciously given The Dakota Beacon permission to reprint the article by Bill Kidd.

Columnists Defend Former WSI Director, Blast Prosecutor: Top [01/11/10]         
By Bill Kidd, Central Bureau Chief
(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Two prominent workers' compensation columnists say they believe former North Dakota Workforce Safety and Insurance (WSI) Director Sandy Blunt got a raw deal when he was convicted of misusing state funds to pay for items such as employee lunches and sick leave.

And they have targeted the prosecutor in Blunt's case for severe criticism. The prosecutor says the columnists don't have their facts straight.

Joseph Paduda, principal in Health Strategy Associates, and Peter Rousmaniere, columnist for Risk & Insurance, cite, among other issues, allegations that the prosecution may not have disclosed information that could have exonerated Blunt. They also argue prosecutors inflated what were at most misdemeanor violations into felony charges.

Blunt was convicted in December 2008 of charges relating to misapplying more than $10,000 of entrusted money from the state monopoly workers’ compensation insurance fund. Jurors found Blunt not guilty of a second count, which alleged that he gave out illegal bonuses totaling $7,509 to four employees.

Blunt’s case is currently on appeal before the North Dakota Supreme Court.

Blunt told WorkCompCentral Friday he could not comment on the case. “My attorney would absolutely excommunicate me if I did,” he said. But Blunt said he had seen the columns by Paduda and Rousmaniere and said he was grateful that "some people appreciate that there are some significant issues" involved.

Cynthia Feland, assistant state’s attorney for Burleigh County, began to investigate Blunt in 2006. In April 2007, she charged him with criminal misapplication of entrusted property.

Rousmaniere, in a column published Jan. 5, called “virtually all of the evidence…trivial, such as the $320 the fund spent on lunches at an employee summit and other sums for gift certificates, flowers and small employee bonuses.”

Blunt also was charged with misusing an employee’s license plate number in an attempt to find who had leaked WSI payroll data to reporters, Rousmaniere said.

In August 2007, a district court dismissed the charges as lacking merit but the state Supreme Court reversed that decision.

Rousmaniere wrote that the prosecutor, “lacking a respectable case,” added to the earlier allegations, including that Blunt allowed an employee whom he had recruited to “earn…unused sick leave” and not require the employee to repay relocation expenses after the employee was forced out.

Steve Cates, who publishes the Dakota Beacon, has run a series of articles on "The Prevaricating Prosecutor," examining the case against Blunt and actions by prosecutors in Blunt’s case.

An article published in November alleges prosecutors withheld an exculpatory memo from Blunt and his attorney, Mike Hoffman.
Cates wrote that the document would have allowed Hoffman to argue at pretrial that the sick leave and moving expenses at issue "had no probable cause to support them and therefore should not be added to the case against Blunt."

"Possession of the memo would have also allowed Hoffman to stop dead the primary assertion of the prosecutors regarding Sandy Blunt’s preferential treatment of WSI employees (which was a major prosecutorial theme in the trial)," Cates argued.

Cates said the alleged action violated North Dakota’s rules of criminal procedure and professional conduct.

Paduda, who has written several times on the Blunt case, quoted from Rousmaniere’s column in a Jan. 6 column of his own, concluding that “what the state of North Dakota has done to Sandy Blunt is reprehensible.”

“If and when the (North Dakota Supreme) Court does the right thing and throws out his conviction, Blunt should sue the prosecutor and her accomplices for every dime they have and ever will have. Their behavior was that egregious,” Paduda wrote.

WorkCompCentral furnished Feland copies of the articles by Paduda and Rousmaniere for comment.

In an e-mail reply, Feland said that “I find it unfortunate that the authors have chosen to print information without checking their facts.”

“A transcript of the trial is available and if they would have reviewed it, it would have been obvious that the information they received and used to write their stories and base their opinions was inaccurate,” Feland wrote.

“For example:  Mr. Rousmaniere stated (I) ‘tarted up the criminal count with three more heavier-looking allegations.’

“The facts from the case established that no new ‘allegations’ were added.

“They were always part of the case and the information concerning them was provided to the defense at the beginning stages of the case,” Feland said.

Rousmaniere told WorkCompCentral that Blunt may have been caught up in “a lot of turmoil” regarding the operation of WSI.

Rousmaniere said in his column that as Blunt was settling in at the fund in 2004, WSI was being attacked in newspaper articles as becoming an “unchecked empire” after being placed under an autonomous board in 1997.

Over the next few years, WSI was targeted by a state auditor’s investigation, subjected to “intense media attention and legislative hearings,” and drew public attention because of salary increases not given to other state employees, Rousmaniere said.

The board’s status was changed by a public referendum, so the fund is back under the control of the governor’s office, Rousmaniere said.

Unlike other state funds, Rousmaniere told WorkCompCentral, “this is a state that’s going in the reverse direction,” away from professionalism.

Blunt’s prosecution was “nasty froth atop a wave of popular distrust of the autonomous status of the fund,” Rousmaniere wrote.

Paduda, who has described Blunt as “a decent, honest, very capable guy who has been absolutely screwed,” concluded his column with the warning that “if this could happen to a person as above-board and completely honest as Sandy Blunt, it could happen to you.”

One thing in the controversy seems clear:  whatever the North Dakota Supreme Court decides, it will generate a lot of comment.

Rousmaniere’s column can be found at http://www.riskandinsurance.com/story.jsp?storyId=316815677.

Paduda’s column can be found at http://www.joepaduda.com/archives/001712.html.

Cates’ article can be found at http://dakotabeacon.com/entry/the_prevaricating_prosecutor_iii_no._4_states_attorney_withholds_exculpator/

In the 70 years since implementation of the New Deal, rural populism drove Washington D.C. to expand the depth and breadth of government's role in rural America.  We saw the introduction of rural electrification, paved roads, railroad regulation, grain elevator regulation, and commodity price regulation. Furthermore, the populist movement in North Dakota created the state mill and state bank. I have no intention of debating the efficacy these two institutions or the federal policy of the time. My purpose is to discuss the sour legacy of Populist tactics upon North Dakota.

My favorite traits of the populist are their unceasing adoration for people and the core paranoia of the movement. These attitudes are revealed in the Populist lexicon.

Populist politicians have a distinct vocabulary; I will use Mark Schneider's own words while describing Byron Dorgan and his independent Populist style: a better day for children, quality affordable education for all, a helping hand for those who cannot help themselves. This banter is a distraction to the real issues facing North Dakota specifically Cap and Trade and Health Care. So, while the NPL is out adoring the people, we conservatives must bring forth leadership and ideas to ensure the lignite coal industry a secure future in North Dakota. Finally, Byron Dorgan opposed Cap and Trade for one reason: the speculation of carbon credit on Wall Street.  He made no mention or distinction to the economic impact of Cap and Trade to North Dakota.

Populist politicians such as Earl Pomeroy distract citizens with terms like "out of state interests."  These out of state interests' have for 18 years waged a coordinated effort to slander the character of Earl Pomeroy.  And, after 18 years I would think someone in the media would have the curiosity to ask Congressman Pomeroy to name a specific threat.  Anyway, this is the 21st century and we should encourage interests from outside our borders to aid the growth of our economy.

On another note, I would like to welcome Kevin and Cramer to the congressional race. And let me be clear; Kevin Cramer is a leader and his record demonstrates this fact.

Very Best Regards,
Paul

CNN's Jack Cafferty explains the profligate spending and arrogant ways of the U.S. Congress and why he thinks the leader of that body is a HORRIBLE WOMAN.

A MUST WATCH VIDEO!Not because of what he calls Madam Speaker but WHY.

While the North Dakota media continues to ignore the biggest miscarriage of justice in recent history, industry insiders and top analysts begin to expose the truth about the persecution of Sandy Blunt. How can it be that people at the very top of the industry would make so many public pronouncements in defense of a convicted FELON? Answer: THEY WOULD NOT unless they KNEW with near certainty what was going on! THE VINDICATION CONTINURES TO GROW! But will North Dakota ever know? Time will tell.

Major Worker’s Comp blogger Lynch Ryan (over 7,600 unique site visitors in December 2009) weighs in on Sandy Blunt and the strange case of his persecution. Ryan writes at Workers’ Comp Insider that:

Sandy Blunt and the goings on in North Dakota - Good for Peter Rousmaniere and Joe Paduda for shedding light on the travesty of a prosecution related to Sandy Blunt, former CEO of North Dakota's Workforce Safety and Insurance. I met Sandy Blunt at a conference in DC a number of years ago and had been following the turn-around he was effecting in North Dakota's system. He struck me as progressive, innovative, and very sharp - it seemed a real coup for North Dakota to have his services. Then came a series of surprising charges resulting in his ouster. In following the case, it appears that most of these charges were minor, trumped up administrative issues, such as spending a few hundred dollars on lunches and gift certificates to motivate staff - practices that were not uncommon in other state departments. Other more serious charges were dismissed or shown to be erroneous. Blunt has appealed his conviction to the state's Supreme Court and we hope he will prevail.

Read more about the Sandy Blunt Persecution at The Dakota Beacon website.

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

After a series of articles written by himself (Joe Paduda, nationally prominent analyst), and top author Peter Rousmaniere at Risk and Insurance (Blunting Political Vindictiveness), the top periodical of workman’s compensation, WorkCompCentral started to get a whiff of something rotten in the state of Nodak and started an interesting process of investigation.  It seems that the more Burleigh County Assistant State’s Attorney says, the more curiouser and curiouser things get.

Joe Paduda’s article of January 12, 2010 “Fact Checking – North Dakota Style”, begins to put the hot, hot spotlight on the shenanigans that were used to convict former North Dakota Workforce Safety and Insurance CEO Sandy Blunt. It is not a pretty sight. He provides a nice summary of the situation saying:

Turns out that the prosecutor who brought the charges, Cynthia Feland, knew that failing to collect the moving expenses was not a crime - yet she brought charges anyway.

She had in writing that the ND Attorney General advised state auditors in October of 2006 that the exec did not voluntarily leave and thus there was no legal authority to collect. This fact was then put in writing to Feland a year before the trial and she

- added it as a crime just weeks before the trial and

- withheld the memo proving it was all legally done, thereby not giving the defense exculpatory evidence she was legally required to provide."

That's a big assumption, as her comments could have referred to any of the other posts I've written about the Blunt case, but as the possible withholding of exculpatory evidence is the most egregious of the prosecutor's actions, I'll focus on it.

Ms. Feland has now made public statements that authors have been incorrect in their interpretation of the events and situation of the Sandy Blunt case. Will she give a straight answer to Paduda’s latest query?:

Ms Feland made an assumption of her own in her note to Kidd; in fact I have read the relevant parts of the transcript, and searched the entire transcript for any mention of the memo in question. Couldn't find any reference to it anywhere. Now, I'm certainly no attorney, so it's possible I didn't look for the right words. So I've asked Ms Feland to tell me exactly where the memo is mentioned in the transcript, when it was placed into evidence, and/or any other official documentation that it was shared with Blunt before or during the trial.

I'll keep you posted.

For more background check out the Sandy Blunt Persecution section of The Dakota Beacon website.

Obama getting serious about terrorism.....

America’s premier periodical of Insurance, “Risk & Insurance” is weighing in on the Sandy Blunt affair in shall we say “Blunt” terms when their star columnist, Peter Rousmaniere, publishes his article “Blunting Political Vindictiveness”.  Having spent a lot of time in study of the travesty of justice which is the Sandy Blunt affair, perhaps my favorite quote from the article is:

Blunt's criminal trial took place in December 2008. Feland, lacking a respectable case, tarted up the criminal count with three more heavier-looking allegations, one of which the judge threw one out (claiming that Blunt had improperly awarded a grant to a volunteer firefighter association).

And….

The prosecution of Blunt was nasty froth atop a wave of popular distrust of the autonomous status of the fund. With the Blunt conviction, North Dakota has marched toward, not away from, more political intrusion into workers' compensation.

Let's hope that this kind of political vindictiveness remains rare in our field. Best wishes, Mr. Blunt, in your career.

The article first appears online, and will be published in the next issue of the print version. The folks that know about insurance and bureaucracy are interested and know what took place in North Dakota even if no one in the N.D. media will say anything.

"After a lot of thought I have made the very difficult decision that I will not be seeking reelection in 2010, "Dorgan wrote in a memo to staff distributed this afternoon. "This decision is not a reflection of any dissatisfaction with my work in the Senate, nor is it connected to a potential election contest next fall (frankly, I believe if I were to run for another term I would be reelected)."

Read all about it in The Washington Post!

Byron Dorgan, Abortion, and the Cloture Vote Deception

In August of 2009, Senator Byron Dorgan promised the citizens at the numerous Town Hall meetings that he would not support a health care bill that did several things. Other than telling his state’s citizens what he would not do, there is no evidence that he made any effort to DO anything thing about opposing in any way, those thing he knew that the vast majority of North Dakota voters wanted. Instead, it will turn out that technically, he will be instrumental in advancing the radical socialist agenda of the President Obama, Senator Reid, and Representative Pelosi  triad (the ORP).

The Senator is telling you one thing, then purposely making sure that the ORP has a victory by providing the crucial procedural vote that really matters to ensure the massive take over of health care by the ORP. The Senator, having ensured the ORP victory will then vote against the bill on the final vote so that he can claim to have done what he told the home folks he would do. Once again, the head fake will work. Without doing anything to truly oppose the ORP  agenda other than say things, Senator Dorgan will ensure the opposite, and no one in the state media will have the guts to call him on this very significant bit of deception.

 In August Senator Byron Dorgan said, "I've indicated I won't vote for a bill that's a government take over of health insurance, or the healthcare system. I won't vote for a bill that pays for abortions, public funding for abortions. I won't vote for a bill that represents healthcare rationing. I won't vote for a bill that undermines or undercuts healthcare for senior citizens in their Medicare program."

From the fully documented and source referenced Heritage Foundation analysis of the bill:

“The Senate health care bill would overhaul the entire health care sector of the U.S. economy by erecting massive federal controls over private health insurance, dictating the content of insurance benefit packages and the use of medical treatments, procedures, and medical devices. It would alter the relationship between the federal government and the states, transferring massive regulatory power to the federal government.”

If Federal funds will be used for abortions in the final Senate bill it will before the first time in American history and your dollars will be dispersed by the federal government to kill unborn children. The bill as currently written allows requires federal subsidies to private health plans that cover elective abortions.  While the bill includes a “state opt-out” provision  so that if any state outlaws insurance coverage of abortion federal funds will not be used in “that” state, it’s all a huge deception because it does not prevent one state’s tax dollars from paying for elective abortions in other states. Senator Dorgan should be ashamed for complicity in this fraud!

Over $500 billion in Medicare cuts are demanded in the Senate bill. Chief actuary Richard S. Foster of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has raised the alarm that, the results of these cuts are likely to be so costly to hospitals and nursing could not afford to service Medicare paid patients any longer.

The likely political cover for Senator Dorgan will be that he will vote against H.R. 3590 on the final vote, because for passage all the Senate needs is 51 in support. His real vote that will make this law a reality will be providing one of the 60 votes for cloture, cutting off debate, thus allowing  for the final vote.

If Senator Dorgan votes for cloture, claiming that the bill deserves an up or down vote, and then asserts that he voted as he promised North Dakota, he may well fake-out lots of citizens of this state but in truth, he will have given all of the votes needed for the government take over of health insurance, government take over of the health care system, federal funding for abortion, and undermining Medicare.

It is evident for all to see that it is the intent of the Obama Administration and the Democrat Congress to eventually have taxpayer funding of pre-birth infanticide. President Obama cannot make this happen by himself, he must have complicit legislators. A cloture vote is a vote for government support of infanticide. Regardless of what he SAYS, voting for cloture, even though voting against H.R. 3590, will ensure the creation of the governmental super-structure that will eventually mean that the blood of unborn children will be on the hands of Senators Dorgan.