Dakota Beacon

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

2. AUDITOR’S OFFICE ESTABLISHES THAT SPENCER MOVING EXPENSES NOT ILLEGAL

Feland charged and convicted Blunt of not collecting moving expenses from his “friend” Dave Spencer stating to that:

“As Spencer resigned less then 2 years after being hired, he was required by WSI policy and state law to reimburse WSI for one-half of those moving expenses. Again, contrary to WSI policy and state law, the defendant allowed Spencer to keep the entire moving reimbursement illegally and all of the evidence of this fraudulent action has been previously provided to the defendant.”

However, a series of notes in the NDSAO audit working papers show that this issue was fully reviewed by State Auditors with the North Dakota Attorney General’s Office (NDAGO) and that WSI (Blunt) acted appropriately (legally) in not collecting the money since Spencer’s resignation was not “voluntary.” Notes by Auditor Ron Tolstad dated October 20, 2006, state “Eventually we were told (and convinced) the separation was other than voluntary [based on discussions with Attorney General's Office determination was made the separation was other than voluntary; letter offering position requires 50% payback if leave voluntarily in first 2 years].” And notes by Auditor Jason Wahl dated October 24, 2006, state “… Sandy identified new information which makes it appear Dave's leaving would not fit the definition of voluntarily leaving (payback provision required voluntary leaving). Due to this, no recommendation is made to recover the $7,500.”

Perhaps most important was that Wahl put these facts into a November 8, 2007, memo which he sent to Feland where Wahl stated:  

“…Based on the information Mr. Blunt provided, he made it appear Mr. Spencer’s leaving was not completely voluntary - either Mr. Spencer had to choose to leave or Mr. Blunt would make that decision for him. Mr. Blunt specifically stated it was not a voluntary departure. Due to the new information provided by Mr. Blunt, we determined, in consultation with a representative of the Attorney General’s Office, there was not a voluntary resignation so it was determined to drop the recommendation we had drafted.”

NDSAO auditors then go on to either strike out or hand X out all references to the moving expenses recommendation in their audit working papers; an intentional act to signify for the record that the recommendation was invalid. 

Further yet, Wahl’s November 8, 2007, memo to Feland clearly advised her that “I (Wahl) was considering a recommendation regarding Mr. Spencer's use of sick leave.” Considering how contentious the audit of WSI had become, I have absolutely no doubt that if Spencer’s use of sick leave had simply “hinted” at impropriety Wahl would have prominently included his concern at least as a recommendation in the final audit. While Wahl may have “considered” a recommendation regarding Spencer's use of sick leave, that is as far as it ever went as neither Wahl nor any other NDSAO auditor ever drafted a formal or even informal recommendation to WSI and the legislature. Easily accessed and publicly available documents show that no recommendation in any form was ever drafted let alone ever published in the final performance audit.

Contrary to Feland’s and Suhr’s assertions to Judge Romanick and the jury, the issue of Dave Spencer’s sick leave and moving expenses were settled before the audit was ever published in October of 2006. And these prosecutors were clearly advised of this fact no less than 12 months BEFORE Feland lied to the Judge to add these “crimes” against Blunt just weeks before his trial.

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

From the October 2009 Dakota Beacon - The Prevaricating Prosecutor III Series

1. FELAND LIES TO JUDGE ROMANICK

1. Assistant State’s Attorney Feland lied to the Court (Pre-Trial Hearing, November 3, 2008) in response to Judge Bruce Romanick’s concern “that all of a sudden we say, 30 days out, well, here's another 150,000 dollars when the case has been in the mill for a year.” Feland responded to Judge Romanick’s concern about adding new items relating to David Spencer and a North Dakota Firefighters’ Association safety grant at the last minute by stating: “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 part of the original.” Feland further stated to the Judge that these newly added criminal acts were “always (in) the case from the get-go;” a case charged against Blunt on April 18, 2007. Interestingly though, research shows that “The only evidence being held … in this case is the copy of the State Performance Audit done by North Dakota State Auditor, which is also a matter of public record and the accompanying documents that go with it.” And the 2006 Performance Audit (the only evidence being held) mentions none of the added items, not one. So if these items NEVER appeared in the audit in evidence, then how could they have “always (been in) the case from the get-go?” What provision in the legal system allows/justifies Feland to so obviously deny Blunt his due process by lying to a District Court Judge in open Court?

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

As a result of publishing a sampling of what I believe to be documented misconduct by the ND State Auditor’s Office and the Burleigh County State’s Attorney’s Office (BCSAO) in the “persecution” of Sandy Blunt, I have been contacted by readers with still more examples of apparent prosecutorial misconduct meted out under the direct supervision and leadership of Richard Riha. As I have not been able to thoroughly examine and document these new examples, I am not comfortable publishing them just yet. BUT, unfortunately, these examples continue to paint a larger and more disturbing picture of what appears be a consistent pattern of misconduct by the BCSAO.

The documented misconduct in Blunt’s case and the mounting new examples of apparent misconduct in others’ case’s have led me to look closer at the obligations and responsibilities of these prosecutors. What I discovered was that under North Dakota Century Code (NDCC) 27-13-08 (Misconduct of Attorney): “Every attorney who … Is guilty of any deceit or collusion or consents to any deceit or collusion with intent to deceive the court or any party … is guilty of a class A misdemeanor and in addition forfeits to the party injured treble damages to be recovered in a civil action.”

The examples printed in the October 2009 Dakota Beacon magazine ALONE appear to clearly show that Cynthia Feland and Lloyd Suhr of the BCSAO are at a minimum guilty of multiple class A misdemeanors and that Blunt has cause for a very significant civil action against the county. And if each violation of 27-13-08 can be stacked over-and-over again as part of a continuing course of conduct (as they did to Blunt), would Feland and Suhr then eventually be guilty of a felony? I have no idea, but it is an intriguing question. And if Blunt was charged with multiple Misapplication of Entrusted Property charges for things that others “supposedly” did while he was the CEO, then aren’t Feland, Suhr, and RIHA also guilty of Misapplication of Entrusted Property for “willfully” (engaging in intentional, knowing, or reckless conduct) prosecuting Blunt for provably LEGAL actions? If it is good for the goose, then is it not also good for the gander? I say yes.

But the laws and rules governing attorney conduct do not stop with just NDCC 27-13-08. I have also discovered additional rules and laws governing their conduct such as ...

NORTH DAKOTA RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT PREAMBLE: A LAWYER'S RESPONSIBILITIES [1] A lawyer, as a member of the legal profession, is a representative of clients, an officer of the legal system and a public citizen having special responsibility for the quality of justice.

RULE 3.3 CANDOR TOWARD THE TRIBUNAL (a) A lawyer shall not knowingly: (1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer;

NORTH DAKOTA CENTURY CODE (NDCC) 27-13-01 DUTIES OF ATTORNEYS. Every attorney and counselor at law shall (in part):

1. Maintain respect for courts of justice and judicial officers;

3. Perform faithfully the attorney's responsibilities as an officer of the court and protector of individual rights;

5. Work to make the legal system more accessible, responsive, and just;

6. Employ for purposes of maintaining the causes confided to the attorney, those means only as are consistent with truth and honor, and never seek to mislead the judge or jury by any artifice or false statement of fact or law

NORTH DAKOTA RULES OF ATTORNEY PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT 1.0 Terms; (e) "Fraud" or "fraudulent" denotes conduct having a purpose to deceive and not merely negligent misrepresentation or negligent failure to apprise another of relevant information.

NORTH DAKOTA RULES OF ATTORNEY PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT, 1.0 Terms Comment Fraud -[5] When used in these Rules, the terms "fraud" or "fraudulent" do not include merely negligent misrepresentation or negligent failure to apprise another of relevant information. For purposes of these Rules, it is not necessary that anyone has suffered damages or relied on the misrepresentation or failure to inform in order for the misrepresentation or failure to inform to constitute fraud.

NORTH DAKOTA RULES OF ATTORNEY PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT Scope [4] … since the rules do establish standards of conduct for lawyers, a lawyer's violation of a rule may be evidence of breach of the applicable standard of conduct. Failure to comply with an obligation or prohibition imposed by a Rule is a basis for invoking the disciplinary process.

RULE 3.4 FAIRNESS TO OPPOSING PARTY AND COUNSEL A lawyer shall not: (a) unlawfully obstruct another party's access to evidence or unlawfully alter, destroy or conceal a document or other material having potential evidentiary value;

RULE 3.8 SPECIAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF A PROSECUTOR The prosecutor in a criminal case shall:

(a) refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause;

(d) disclose 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, and, in connection with sentencing, disclose to the defense and to the tribunal all unprivileged mitigating information known to the prosecutor …

RULE 4.1 TRUTHFULNESS IN STATEMENTS TO OTHERS In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not make a statement to a third person of fact or law that the lawyer knows to be false. Comment (Misrepresentation) A lawyer is required to be truthful when dealing with others on a client's behalf … Misrepresentations can also occur by partially true but misleading statements or omissions that are the equivalent of affirmative false statements. For misrepresentations by a lawyer other than in the course of representing a client, see Rule 8.4.

RULE 8.4 MISCONDUCT It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:

(a) violate or attempt to violate these Rules, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;

(b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;

(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation that reflects adversely on the lawyer's fitness as a lawyer;

(f) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice …

Comment

[1] Lawyers are subject to discipline when they violate or attempt to violate these Rules, knowingly assist or induce another to do so or do so through acts of another, as when they request or instruct an agent to do so on the lawyer's behalf.

[2] Many kinds of illegal conduct reflect adversely on fitness to practice law, such as offenses involving fraud … Although a lawyer is personally answerable to the entire criminal law, a lawyer should be professionally answerable only for offenses that indicate lack of those characteristics relevant to law practice. Offenses involving violence, dishonesty, breach of trust, or serious interference with the administration of justice fall within that category. A pattern of repeated offenses, even ones of minor significance when considered separately, can indicate indifference to legal obligations.

[4] N.D.C.C. Section 27-14-02 provides for the revocation or suspension of the certificate of admission of any lawyer who has committed an offense determined by the North Dakota Supreme Court to have a direct bearing on the lawyer's ability to serve the public as a lawyer and counselor at law. Statutes also provide for revocation or suspension in other instances of misconduct, including 27-13-01 (duties of attorneys), 27-13-08 (misconduct of attorneys), 27-13-09 (permitting use of the attorney's name), 27-13-11 (involvement in the defense while a partner of the prosecutor), and 27-13-12 (involvement in the defense after involvement as state's attorney or other public prosecutor).

[6] Lawyers holding public office assume legal responsibilities going beyond those of other citizens. A lawyer's abuse of public office can suggest an inability to fulfill the professional role of a lawyer.

RULE 5.1 RESPONSIBILITIES OF PARTNERS, MANAGERS, AND SUPERVISORY LAWYERS

(b) A lawyer having direct supervisory authority over another lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the other lawyer conforms to these Rules.

(c) A lawyer shall be responsible for another lawyer's violation of these Rules if:

(1) the lawyer orders or, with knowledge of the specific conduct, ratifies the conduct involved; or

(2) the lawyer is a partner or has comparable managerial authority in the law firm in which the other lawyer practices, or has direct supervisory authority over the other lawyer, and knows of the conduct at a time when its consequences can be avoided or mitigated, but fails to take reasonable remedial action.

And on-and-on it goes from there.

As I am not a law trained individual, I will not attempt to interpret or apply the above cited rules and laws –that is to be left to the appropriate legal officials. And in the case of this prosecutorial misconduct, the appropriate legal officials are the ND Supreme Court (which can revoke a certificate of admission of an attorney to the Bar of ND) and the Governor (which can remove a elected official from office for cause).

In my opinion, it has now come to the point where –for the good of the county and for the assurance of justice-- that Feland, Suhr, and Riha be placed on notice and placed under review for their actions. Their behavior appears to be clearly against the mandates of their profession and professional obligations. As citizens we have a responsibility to point out injustice and abuse when we find it.

Look for an official action of accountability to occur soon in this case. And when this public action is taken, it will be important for each of us as citizens of this state and this county to demand and assure that a full and unobstructed investigation is conducted into the unethical and possibly illegal behavior/actions of Feland, Suhr, Riha, and other individuals so that their misconduct is not just simply swept under the rug.

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

FELAND CLAIMS HONESTY, HONESTY, HONESTY, ABOVE ALL ELSE

In the trial against Sandy Blunt, the following instructions (in part) were presented to the jury to use in determining Blunt’s guilt or innocence:

The Court: “It is a defense to misapplication of entrusted property that the actor honestly believed that he has a claim to the property or services involved which he was entitled to assert in the manner which forms the basis for the charge against him. … The State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, as an additional element of the offense charged, that the Defendant; one, honestly believed he had a claim to the property involved … If the State has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant did not; one, honestly believe he had a claim to the property involved … the Defendant is entitled to a verdict of not guilty.”

Assistant State’s Attorney Cynthia Feland in her Closing Argument to the jury addressed these instructions as follows:

Feland: “The defendant is basically saying he honestly had a claim to the property, which … he is entitled to assert in a manner which forms the basis for the charge against him. Okay. Here's the problem with all of that. You have to honestly believe if he wasn't honest with anyone else about all of the facts, how could he ever be honest with himself? Now, I'll let you think about that for a minute. … He wasn't being candid with them (Board) and giving them the whole story. How can you honestly form a belief and try to base it on things that other people are helping you with if you're not even candid with them? You can't. Find me the piece of evidence that says to you that he could honestly believe. There isn't any, because he can't.”

This single example and Feland’s corresponding statements were used by Feland to sum up her ENTIRE case that Blunt could never have “honestly believed that he has a claim to the property or services involved” at any time about anything. The problem with this claim is that it – like the entire case -- was nothing more than a strategically created deception done in partnership with State Auditor Jason Wahl. Wahl had created State's Exhibits 6, 7, 8 and 9 for Feland to show at trail that Blunt provided “bonuses” to employees –a false allegation that only Wahl, Feland, Suhr, and Richard Riha ever bought into. There are no audit records that I can find that these exhibits were ever created and presented as part of the audit to Blunt and the WSI Board of Directors, nor were these documents provided to me by the State Auditor’s Office when I made a request for ALL information regarding contact between the Auditor’s Office and the Burleigh County State’s Attorney’s Office.

Trial transcript supports the fact that these documents were manufactured by Wahl and not WSI or anyone else. When? How? Why?

Feland: State would offer State's Exhibits 6, 7, 8 and 9.

Hoffman: I just want to clarify. These were created by, I mean, by State Auditor Wahl?

The Court: He testified he created them, correct.

Blunt’s attorney Mike Hoffman goes on to question Wahl about the documents.

Hoffman: So when the Jury goes back and has these Exhibits 6, 7, 8, and 9 in their possession in the Jury room, they look at the word "bonus," that is not something that WSI ever acknowledged to be correct. Is that right?

Wahl: Correct.

…

Hoffman: Am I correct here, Mr. Wahl, it says cause, and it states it appears WSI was unaware retroactive payments made to employees for retaining or to reward performance are, in fact, bonuses.

Wahl: That's what the document states, yes.

PROSECUTORS USING MANUFACTURED EXHIBIT TO CLAIM DISHONESTY

In introducing these manufactured exhibits to Board Audit Chair Evan Mandigo (the one and only person with whom Feland establishes that Blunt was not honest with the Board “so how can he be honest to himself”), Feland plainly and unquestionably states “Okay. I'm going to show you a couple of documents, and I can guarantee you have never seen these before, at least I don't think.” If Blunt and WSI were so aware of how and why Wahl called the payments “bonuses,” then how is it that Feland can “guarantee” that Mandigo has never seen them? Is it because these exhibits were created after the audit and only for the trial?

Assistant State’s Attorney Lloyd Suhr went on in his questioning of WSI Legal Counsel Tim Wahlin to establish:

Suhr: Mr. Wahlin, I'm showing you what have been received into evidence as State's Exhibits 6, 7, 8, and 9. Have you seen those documents before?

Wahlin: No.

Suhr: Today is the first day that you had seen them?

Wahlin: Today is the first day I have seen them.

Of course Wahlin (or anyone else for that fact) had never seen the exhibits because Wahl appears to have privately manufactured them for the trial. They were never any part of any communication between any of the involved parties. They were used by Feland and Suhr to set up an inference that Blunt was not honest with the Board or himself in withholding this information. After knowing all of this and introducing documents never used or seen during the audit, Feland asks Mandigo:

Feland: Okay. So at the time that you're formulating these responses and Mr. Blunt bringing this information and running it by the board, you didn't know any of that?

Mandigo: I guess not.

ATTORNEY HOFFMAN GOES TO THE HEART OF THE PRESECUTORIAL DECEPTION

What Feland, Suhr, and Wahl did not ever disclose was when these documents were created or why. Hoffman outlines this fact in his closing argument.

Hoffman: “The State made an argument about even the board of directors didn't have all the facts. And I think what the State is arguing is that when Mr. Evan Mandigo was on the witness stand, he hadn't seen the columns, the exhibits with the columns, the three columns. Well, what do you know about the exhibits with the three columns? They were created by the state auditor. They weren't records from WSI. … They were created by the state auditor. And you know what, were you ever given a time frame as to when these were created? Talking about the alleged bonus documents, the three columns, were you given any evidence of when they were created? No, you weren't. You don't know when they were created. You don't know whether they were created for purposes of just this prosecution, if they were created after all of this was in the past and these criminal charges were brought. How would Mr. Mandigo, sitting here, ever have had the opportunity to look at them? It goes to this issue of credibility. … It goes to the credibility of this prosecution. Mr. Blunt, they say, did not give the board all the facts. Well, we didn't get all the facts. When were those documents created? Did Mr. Bob Indvik, Mr. Mandigo ever have the opportunity to see those in the past? That goes to the credibility of the prosecution. And you have the right to reject that. And you have a right to reject their case based on that. You have the right to go back and say, "no". No, we reject that.” 

This manufactured evidence is just one small example of what appears to be a large deception created and presented from the partnership between that Burleigh County State’s Attorney’s Office and the ND State Auditor’s Office. When Feland states the following to the jury she is correct, “You have to honestly believe if he wasn't honest with anyone else about all of the facts, how could he ever be honest with himself … How can you honestly form a belief and try to base it on things that other people are helping you with if you're not even candid with them.” But the lack of honesty and candidness was perpetrated by the Burleigh County prosecutors and State Auditors. And as I have noted in Prevaricating Prosecutor III, this is sadly not the lone example of a lack of honesty and intentional deception by Feland, Suhr, and Wahl.

THE ULTIMATE DISHONESTY: REVIEW OF THE HIDDEN,

WITHHELD, EXCULPATORY MEMO

Against North Dakota Rules of Criminal Procedure and the North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct, Feland and Suhr withheld a November 8, 2007, memo from Wahl to Feland (Wahl/Feland Memo) that proved the sick leaved and moving expenses added as crimes against were not crimes. Feland and Suhr (to this day) have withheld this unmistakably exculpatory document from Blunt and Hoffman.

Feland and Suhr had in writing that the ND Attorney General advised state auditors in October of 2006 that Spencer did not voluntarily leave and thus there was no legal authority to collect. This fact was then put in writing to Feland and Suhr a year before the trial and they still --with forethought-- added it as a crime just weeks before the trial and withheld the memo proving the moving expenses were not a crime. In the moving expenses issue ALONE, Feland and Suhr violated their obligations not to bring charges without probable cause, they violated their obligations to turn over witness statements, they violated their state obligations to turn over exculpatory evidence, they violated their federally mandated “Brady” obligation to turn over exculpatory evidence, they violated Blunt’s due process rights by not affording him a preliminary hearing to determine probable cause on the issue, Feland lied right to a Judge’s face in open court about the whole issue in order to add it as a crime, and Feland and Suhr seemingly encouraged and allowed Wahl’s willing participation to conceal all these facts from the jury.

Considering all that Wahl himself had documented, it is indisputable that Wahl knew that the charges regarding Spencer were false and unfounded. Nevertheless, UNDER OATH, Wahl assisted 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. Wahl 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 other’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.

Hoffman follows up with Wahl yet again asking him if he had any documentation that the moving expenses was a moot issue.

Hoffman: I want to make sure I understood correctly. On your direct examination, your examination of the files of WSI, you did not find any documentation from anyone at WSI making a statement that these moving expenses, this 50 percent was not required to be paid back by Mr. Spencer. Correct?

Wahl: Documentation regarding that statement?

Hoffman: Documentation stated he is not required to pay them back.

Wahl: I do not recall seeing documentation that specifically stated that, other than the memo you had just showed me would have addressed that issue.

Hoffman: All right. Were these moving expenses, this 50 percent sum, in the audit that you ended up publishing?

Wahl: No, sir.

Wahl seems to blatantly “forget” HIS clear and unambiguous documentation to Feland on November 8, 2007, that the ND Attorney General advised Wahl that there was not a voluntary resignation and thus there was no right to collect. And Wahl further states this issue was not published in the audit knowing full well its absence was based on counsel from the Attorney General but never ever hints at acknowledging this fact. In doing so, does Wahl --in collusion with Feland and Suhr-- perjure himself on numerous occasions with the active support of the prosecution’s attorneys?

AFTER DECEPTION AFTER DECEPTION, FELAND CLAIMS BLUNT NOT HONEST!

So I ask again the same question that Feland presented to the jury in her closing argument: “How can you honestly form a belief and try to base it on things that other people are helping you with if you're not even candid with them? You can't.”

When you combine the withholding of evidence and witness statements with the Feland, Suhr, and Wahl’s willingness to be less than candid and misrepresent manufactured evidence under oath, how could the jury have ever been able to give Sandy Blunt a fair trial? THEY COULDN’T! A juror never goes to court to serve ever even imagining that the attorneys representing the “State” would be anything but honest. You never expect collusion between a witness and the “State” prosecutors. You expect above all else justice.

Triumph of Science: Abby Johnson, former director of the Planned Parenthood clinic in Bryan, Texas saw an ultrasound video of a child being abborted, quit her job and became a pro-life activist.

From the Fox News article:

Abby Johnson, 29, used to escort women from their cars to the clinic in the eight years she volunteered and worked for Planned Parenthood in Bryan, Texas. But she says she knew it was time to leave after she watched a fetus "crumple" as it was vacuumed out of a patient's uterus in September.

'When I was working at Planned Parenthood I was extremely pro-choice," Johnson told FoxNews.com. But after seeing the internal workings of the procedure for the first time on an ultrasound monitor, "I would say there was a definite conversion in my heart ... a spiritual conversion."

GREAT VIDEO:

Nationally recognized insurance expert/author Joe Paduda weighs in on the prosecution of Sandy Blunt writing at Workcompcentral.com in his article “Who is the Crook?”:

Few things I've encountered in my 25-plus years in the insurance business are as outrageous as the prosecution of Sandy Blunt, the former head of the North Dakota work comp fund.

…

Turns out it was way more than 'wildly excessive'; the Blunt conviction was the result of egregious prosecutorial misconduct.

The prosecutor didn't give Blunt's attorney exculpatory evidence evidence that would have proven that the sick leave charge was insignificant it wasn't even a concern to state auditors who had gone through the state fund's books with a fine-toothed comb. More importantly, the prosecutor didn't give the memo from the state auditor pertaining to this issue to Blunt's attorney.

…

I have no idea what in the hell is going on up in North Dakota, but I do know this. Sandy Blunt is a decent, honest, very capable guy who has been absolutely screwed, apparently in no small part by a prosecutor who broke the law.

Read the whole article at:

http://www.workcompcentral.com/signup/news/article.htm?&article=a7239795142443051f6b540b45113e2ej

Joe Paduda is listed with a short biography at Business Week magazine:

http://www.businessweek.com/bios/Joseph_Paduda.htm

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

While writing the centerpiece article for the October 2009 Dakota Beacon magazine I realized how central the issue of David Spencer’s separation from Workforce Safety and Insurance was to the prosecution of Sandy Blunt. Most of all I realized that the Burleigh County State’s Attorney’s Office, under the direction of State’s Attorney Richard Riha had withheld an extremely important document from Sandy Blunt and his attorney. The WITHHELD document was written by North Dakota State Auditor’s Office (NDSAO) auditor Jason Wahl, dated November 8, 2007 (13 months before the Blunt trial), sent to Assistant State’s Attorney Cynthia Feland which states that he (Wahl) was considering including recommendations to the 2008 Performance Audit of WSI regarding Dave Spencer’s sick leave and moving expenses. In the second to the last paragraph Wahl states that he “was considering a recommendation regarding Mr. Spencer's use of sick leave.” The sick leave issue apparently was not considered significant enough to even be included as a recommendation in the Audit, although NDSAO would have been required by statute to include had the finding been even remotely considered wrong, much less illegal. In the last paragraph, Wahl very specifically states that he with the N.D. Attorney General’s Office determined that “there was not a voluntary resignation so it was determined to drop the recommendation we had drafted”. This very important memo was withheld from the defense. Prosecutors MUST provide discovered exculpatory information to an accused individual and/or must provide “ALL statements made by listed prosecution witnesses (Wahl was THE primary witness for the prosecution).” This very important memo will henceforth be designated as the “ Wahl/Feland Memo”. The Burleigh County State’s Attorney filed the Plaintiff-Appellee brief for Supreme Court No. 20090110 prior to the October 21, 2009, argument before the High Court. The brief was prepared by Assistant State’s Attorneys Cynthia Feland and Lloyd Suhr and Legal Interns Gabrielle Goter and Christopher S. Pieske. In regard to Dave Spencer’s voluntary or involuntary separation from Workforce Safety and Insurance (WSI), the brief asserts:

“Blunt argues there was testimony questioning whether Spencer’s resignation was voluntary and that the failure to recoup the losses was on the advice of WSI’s legal counsel. Several of the State’s witnesses contradicted Blunt’s position. Trans. Of Trial, pp. 326- 343, 346-47, 538-42, and 547- 49. Thus, the State produced sufficient evidence to create an issue of fact upon which the jury could and did deliberate.”

The trial transcript cited in the brief testimony provided by Billi Peltz and James Long during the trial of Blunt. The testimony from the TWO witnesses can be summarized as follows: PELTZ: Trans. of Trial, pp. 326 - 343 (Billi Peltz – Cross by Feland) – Rather than contradicting Blunt, Peltz’s testimony actually substantiates Spencer’s involuntary separation while noting absolutely no discussion regarding advise of WSI Legal Counsel! Pg. 326 – Peltz says Sandy Blunt knew that Spencer must go: “he agreed that it was in the best interests of the agency to separate employment with Dave.” Pg. 327 – Peltz corroborates that Spencer would be INVOLUNTARILY SEPARATED, and understands that when she left work that the next day Dave Spencer “would no longer be employed there (WSI).” Pg. 329 – Peltz’s testimony makes it clear that she knew that Blunt would force Spencer to resign and discusses the procedure for separating an employee by having a “witness” when telling someone that they would no longer be employed because “you never know how the person is going to respond.” Pages 329-343 – Deals almost exclusively with Spencer’s sick leave. There is NO CONTRADICTION of Blunt’s position or even any related discussion in this interval. Pg. 343 – Peltz identifies Spencer’s letter of resignation. No discussion as to the circumstances under which the resignation is obtained either voluntarily or involuntarily is this cited page. Pages 346-47 – Peltz does not mention (and is never asked) anything on either of these pages about the voluntary or involuntary separation of Spencer from WSI. There is also no mention whatsoever of advice from WSI counsel regarding Spencer. Contrary to the State’s Attorneys’ contentions, in no manner does Peltz’s testimony contradict Blunt’s position. Further yet, Peltz is never asked about and never discusses Spencer’s moving expenses. In reality, Peltz’s testimony was the most direct refutation that Spencer’s separation was voluntary. There is no mention of WSI counsel in any manner on any of the trial transcript cited by Feland and Suhr in their brief. LONG: 538-42 (James Long – Direct by Suhr) Page 538 – Long testifies that Blunt “talked to Mr. Spencer and told him that he would – could no longer work there (WSI) …” Contrary to Feland and Suhr’s assertion, Long clearly explains that Spencer’s separation was involuntary. The rest of the trial transcript interval cited by Feland and Suhr (pages 538-542) is almost exclusively regarding Mr. Spencer’s sick leave. On page 542 there is a two sentence discussion regarding if Spencer was fired or did he resign. And while Spencer “technically” resigned, it is more than clear that it was not voluntarily done by Spencer. In this citation, there is neither any discussion regarding voluntary or involuntary separation nor any reference to advice from WSI counsel regarding obtaining reimbursement of moving expenses. None! 547- 49 (James Long – Direct by Suhr). There is no discussion within these cited pages regarding the conditions of Spencer’s separation either voluntary or involuntary or any reference whatsoever to advice from WSI counsel concerning WSI seeking reimbursement of Spencer’s moving expenses. NOTHING --ABSOLUTELY NOTHING-- IN TESTIMONY “QUESTIONS WHETHER SPENCER’S RESIGNATION WAS VOLUNTARY AND THAT THE FAILURE TO RECOUP THE LOSSES WAS ON THE ADVICE OF WSI’S LEGAL COUNSEL.” THIS SMALL, SINGLE SECTION OF RIHA, FELAND AND SUHR’S BRIEF IS YET ONE MORE EXAMPLE OF THE PROVABLE LAYER UPON LAYER OF DECEPTION USED TO PERSECUTE SANDY BLUNT. IS IT ILLEGAL TO ATTEMPT TO DEFRAUD THE STATE’S SUPREME COURT? And most important of all: IT IS ALL A MOOT POINT BECAUSE FELAND & SUHR “KNOW” THAT SPENCER’S SEPARATION WAS INVOLUNTARY. FELAND AND SUHR “KNOW” THIS BECAUSE ND STATE AUDITOR WAHL SENT A MEMO ON NOVEMBER 8, 2007, DOCUMENTING THIS FACT! BLUNT AND HIS ATTORNEY WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO PROVE THIS FACT TO THE SUPREME COURT AT THE HEARING HAD FELAND AND SUHR NOT INTENTIONALLY WITHHELD THIS MEMO FROM BLUNT AND HIS ATTORNEY. DEFENSE ATTORNEY HOFFMAN WAS PRECLUDED FROM PRESENTING WAHL’S EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE BECAUSE IT WAS NOT IN THE ORIGINAL BLUNT TRIAL RECORD. I BELIEVE THAT FELAND, SUHR AND RIHA KNEW THIS. THEIR KNOWING THIS IS THE ONLY EXPLANATION FOR THEM MAKING THE CLAIMS THAT THEY MAKE IN THE BRIEF AND LATTER TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA! THIS IS JUST ONE MORE EXAMPLE THAT THIS ENTIRE EPISODE IS AND HAS BEEN A CHARADE! A CHARADE CONSISTING OF NOT EVEN A TISSUE OF TRUTH!

OLD VERSION

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away..

Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed.

The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.
MORAL OF THE STORY: Be responsible for yourself!

————————————————————————————————————————

MODERN VERSION

The ant works hard in the withering heat and the rain all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while he is cold and starving.

CBS, NBC , PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food.

America is stunned by the sharp contrast.

How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?

Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper and everybody cries when they sing, ‘It’s Not Easy Being Green.’

ACORN stages a demonstration in front of the ant’s house where the news stations film the group singing, “We shall overcome.” Then Rev. Jeremiah Wright has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper’s sake. 

President Obama condemns the ant and blames President Bush, President Reagan, Christopher Columbus, and the Pope for the grasshopper’s plight.

Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid exclaim in an interview with Larry King that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share.

Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity & Anti-Grasshopper Act retroactive to the beginning of the summer.

The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the Government Green Czar and given to the grasshopper.

The story ends as we see the grasshopper and his free-loading friends finishing up the last bits of the ant’s food while the government house he is in, which, as you recall, just happens to be the ant’s old house, crumbles around them because the grasshopper doesn’t maintain it.

The ant has disappeared in the snow, never to be seen again.

The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident, and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the ramshackle, once prosperous and once peaceful, neighborhood.

The entire Nation collapses bringing the rest of the free world with it.
MORAL OF THE STORY:  Be careful how you vote in 2010.

From over the internet transom: thanks Dennis

September 29, 2009

NDFA Receives Family Champion Award

Focus on the Family Action honors the North Dakota Family Alliance

Washington, D.C. – The North Dakota Family Alliance received the Family Champion Award at the Value Voters Summit in Washington, D.C. NDFA received the recognition from Focus on the Family Action for its successful efforts dealing with pro-family issues during the 2009 legislative session.

“We are humbled by this award and fully recognize the deserved credit belongs to our Creator and the faithful people of North Dakota for their persistent grassroots effort,” said Tom Freier, executive director of NDFA. “It is really a testament to what can be accomplished by a people who believe in a mission.”

Focus on the Family Action annually honors state-based organizations for their work championing the family.

“In the four years we have been giving these awards, we’ve never been more proud of anyone than we’ve been with the accomplishments of Tom Freier and the North Dakota Family Alliance,” said Tom Minnery, senior vice president of Focus on the Family Action. “They represent the very essence of grassroots involvement.”

Focus Action recognized NDFA for its fight against pro-abortion legislation and efforts defeating SB 2278, a bill which would have granted special protections based on sexual orientation.

“While the proponents of SB2278 argued the bill’s intention was protection for individuals from discrimination, it became apparent if the bill were to be passed, it would grant recognition of same-sex relationships, and be in direct conflict the constitutional amendment protecting marriage as between one man and one woman,” Freier said.

Focus Action also touted NDFA’s efforts in passing five of six bills dealing with abortion, including HB 1371, which requires abortion providers to offer women an ultrasound of their preborn baby, and HB 1445, mandating abortion facilities to inform women that the abortion procedure will “terminate the life of a separate, unique, living human being.”

“These bills will have a great influence in better informing pregnant women before they decide whether or not to go through with the abortion.  We were so pleased when these bills passed with such a huge majority” shared Freier.

The North Dakota Family Alliance is a state wide Christian based non profit organization whose mission is to strengthen families, protect family values and religious freedoms.  It is headquartered in Fargo and has been in existence since 1987.  NDFA became associated with Focus on the Family in 2008. 

Curtis & Leroy saw an ad in the Starkville Daily News Newspaper in Starkville, MS. And bought a mule for $100.

The farmer agreed to deliver the mule the next day..

The next morning the farmer drove up and said, “Sorry, fellows, I have some bad news, the mule died last night.”

Curtis & Leroy replied, “Well, then just give us our money back.”

The farmer said, “Can’t do that. I went and spent it already..”

They said, “OK then, just bring us the dead mule.”

The farmer asked, “What in the world ya’ll gonna do with a dead mule?”

Curtis said, “We gonna raffle him off.”

The farmer said, “You can’t raffle off a dead mule!”

Leroy said, “We shore can!  Heck, we don’t hafta tell nobody he’s dead!”

A couple of weeks later, the farmer ran into Curtis &Leroy at the Piggly Wiggly grocery store and asked.

“What’d you fellers ever do with that dead mule?”

They said,“We raffled him off like we said we wuz gonna do.”

Leroy said,“Shucks, we sold 500 tickets fer two dollars apiece and made a profit of $998.”

The farmer said,“My Lord, didn’t anyone complain?”

Curtis said, “Well, the feller who won got upset. So we gave him his two dollars back.”

Curtis and Leroy now work for the government.

They’re overseeing the Bailout Program.

From over the internet transom

Let me get this straight..

...we’re going to pass a health care plan written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn’t understand it,
passed by a Congress that hasn’t read it but exempts themselves from it,
to be signed by a president that also hasn’t read it and who smokes,
with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn’t pay his taxes,
all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, 
 

and financed by a country that’s nearly broke.

What could possibly go wrong?

From over the internet transom….Thanks Dennis.

What a hoot!