Home Contact Register Subscribe to the Beacon Login

Steve Cates

Thursday, February 09, 2012

PROSECUTOR PREVARICATION PROCLIVITY II – THE “FROM THE GET-GO” LIE MOVIE

Judge Feland’s exclusive defense against suspension of her law license for ethical reasons is that it was all an accident. Inadvertent. Mistake. “I’m sorry, I don’t recall.”

Watch the video.

THE TRUTH WILL NOT SET HER FREE.

During the ethics trial of Feland the Panel examined a primary aspect of the prosecution of Sandy Blunt related to Mr. David Spencer and the fact that charges specific to Spencer were added without establishing probable cause because Feland lied to the trial judge about Spencer issues always being part of the criminal investigation. “From Day One”. This was never true and the hearing panel does not seem to be swallowing this WHOPPER.

Judge Cynthia Feland was found guilty of withholding evidence that the North Dakota Supreme Court Disciplinary Board Panel found to be “so reckless as to constitute a knowing disregard of the discovery requirement contained in Rule 3.8.”.

 

The evidence upon which this video is based is at:  PROSECUTOR PREVARICATION PROCLIVITY II – THE “FROM THE GET-GO” LIE

Monday, February 06, 2012

PROSECUTOR PREVARICATION PROCLIVITY I – THE “FROM THE GET-GO” LIE

BURLEIGH COUNTY STATE’S ATTORNEY’S OFFICE UNTRUTHFUL REGARDING INVESTIGATION OF DAVID SPENCER ISSUES

 
 The claims by “The State” (Cynthia Feland, Lloyd Suhr, and Richard Riha of the Burleigh County State’s Attorney’s Office) that the “alleged” additional criminal offenses by Sandy Blunt related to David Spencer’s moving expenses and sick leave were part of the criminal case against Blunt from the “get-go” or from “day one” are demonstrably false. The State’s claim that a single audit working paper (page C99) --a page that was inadvertently provided to Blunt in discovery and not supported by any investigation or any other documentation-- establishes or even suggests it was the known and intentional basis for the Spencer related crimes from the “get-go” or from “day one” is provably false. And The State’s claim that a legally-executed grant to the North Dakota Firefighter's Association was also part of the case from the “get-go” is beyond truthful. The get-goguarantee was also made in the face of an overwhelming amount of evidence within The State’s possession that proved not only that there was no probable cause for charging the additional criminal offenses but that the additional criminal offenses were in fact determined to have been legal acts. Lastly, The State’s contrived get-goguarantee to Judge Bruce Romanick (lie) was extremely significant to the case because it allowed The State to wrongly prosecute Blunt in front of a jury of his peers for additional criminal offenses without ever being provided with the evidence of the crimes or a preliminary hearing; a denial of Blunt’s due process rights.

 

 

NOT FROM THE GET GO, NOT FROM DAY ONE

 

On May 10, 2007, The State provided to Blunt a 528 page discovery transmittal that included 30 pages of “C Series” audit working papers. Inadvertently sitting among the clean, unedited C Series audit working papers was a non-descript page entitled page C99 which contained struck out language relating to Spencer’s moving expenses and noted “Eventually we were told (and convinced) the separation was other than voluntary.”

 

 

 

In that Spencer’s Letter of Hire clearly documented that a “voluntary” resignation was required to trigger the time-delimited collection of any portion of his moving expenses, page C99 actually proved nothing was owed by Spencer and that this page was simply in there by accident as pages C100 and C101 contained data that was part of the case. Nevertheless, Feland --under questioning from her Attorney Ronald Fischer at her Disciplinary Hearing-- stated under oath to the Hearing Panel that the only reason the C99 document was in her discovery was to prove the Spencer moving expenses issue was a crime and that “yes” the Spencer issue was part of her case from “day one:”

 

June 30, 2011, 9:10 am

 

MR. FISCHER: With respect to the C99 document which we know, even with Mr. Hoffman’s admission, he said that he received one without the handwritten notes, but would have received either with the very first discovery that was disclosed, was there any purpose to that document other than going to the Spencer issue?

MS. FELAND: It only enters for the Spencer issue.

MR. FISCHER: OK. And so, it was clearly a part of the case from day one?

MS. FELAND: Yes.

---

MS. FELAND: Number one, I can look on here and I can readily tell that I know the C99 was on here for that purpose.

 

In an “after the fact” attempt to cover up a massive set of lies, The State is now claiming that the single, clean, unedited page C99 was intentionally and knowingly placed into their discovery file to “prove” that the Spencer issues were “always” part of the criminal charges in Count I. The reality is, the inclusion of page C99 in The State’s May 10, 2007, discovery transmission was nothing more than a happy accident that The State is now trying to frantically use as proof to confirm that the Spencer issues were crimes from day one or the get-go.” However, these are false statements (lies) which case records and newly revealed documentation at Feland’s Disciplinary Hearing prove are lies. The following is a step-by-step factual analysis which proves that false statements were made to the District Court, Supreme Court, and Supreme Court Disciplinary Board by the State.

 

 

STEP-BY-STEP ANALYSIS OF VERIFIABLE CASE, PUBLIC, AND KNOWN RECORDS

 

The BCI Case Number for the Originally Misapplication case against Blunt is Case Number: 070241 (Agent: S/A Dupree).

 

 

 

In October of 2007 (following the DISMISSAL of the case against Blunt by Judge Wefald), Feland and Quinn sought and received a search warrant for Armstrong’s Journal based on new, never before investigated “additional criminal offenses” alleged by Bjornson and Long.

 

 

 


On October 19, 2007, Judge Hagerty grants a search warrant to Feland and Quinn to gather “a stenographer style spiral bound notebook” which will be property that “constitutes evidence of the commission of a criminal offense;” a criminal offense that will receive a completely new case number for a completely new set of never-investigated allegations and offenses.

 

 

 

On October 19, 2007, Quinn executes the search warrant and under Rule 41 creates a “Search Warrant Receipt and Inventory” record for a “top flight steno book – Mark Armstrong’s desk WSI / Blue/Red cover.”

 

 


Of greatest import, though, Quinn also creates a SFN #14937 “EVIDENCE/PROPERTY INVENTORY FORM” to record: the item; the victim, offense, subject, and agent to which the form relates; the date the item was taken into evidence; and, MOST IMPORTANTLY, the agency case number to which the item relates.

 

 

 

While on October 19, 2007, the old case against Blunt had been dismissed for nearly two months, the subject of Quinn’s NEW “additional criminal offenses” on his EVIDENCE/PROPERTY INVENTORY FORM is still Blunt and it is for additional misapplication of funds … criminal offenses” against the victim of the State of North Dakota. Again, of the most import, Quinn assigns a completely NEW case number of 096241 (as compared to the case number of 070241 in the dismissed case) to the newly seized material that “constitutes evidence of the commission of a criminal offense. This new case number is very consistent with Quinn’s testimony --elicited by Feland-- before Judge Hagerty on October 19, 2007, stating that in the process of follow up Quinn came upon “additional criminal offenses that may have occurred.”

 

And why was Quinn following up? Quinn was following up because at 3:16 pm on October 15, 2007, Feland had directed Quinn to do so following a private, undocumented conversation with Bjornson after Bjornson was deposed by Feland. (A deposition where Bjornson had finally admitted in a third charge against Blunt that it was Bjornson who had given the legal directive to access DOT’s driver’s license photos thereby causing Feland to have to drop the third and final charge against Blunt; leaving no criminal charges against Blunt.) Bjornson was deposed on October 15, 2007, from 1:30 pm to 2:00 pm.

 

 

 

It is known that Bjornson and Feland met after Bjornson’s deposition on October 15, 2007, and that Bjornson alleged the start of the “additional criminal offenses” to Feland because Bjornson admits to such under oath in her July 16, 2009, deposition by Attorney Tom Tuntland in the Long v State civil case (Civil No. 08-C-2354). Bjornson also clearly states that NO the Spencer issues were not part of the initial charges against Blunt because it was Bjornson who first alleged them to Feland on October 15, 2007, and then pointed Feland to Long and Peltz.

 


(more...)

Friday, February 03, 2012

STEVE CATES: NATIONAL WORKMENS’ COMP LEADERS TELL AMERICAN BUSINESSES ABOUT TRAVESTY IN N.D.

TUESDAY, JANUARY 31, 2012

 

An Open Letter to North Dakota


[We've rarely (if ever) weighed in on WC issues, but this case appears uniquely egregious. Our friend Joe Paduda has helped spearhead an effort to better publicize this travesty, and we were happy to lend our support. HGS]

To the Press, Business Community and People of North Dakota:

 

The authors of this letter are journalists, columnists, bloggers and content publishers for the workers' compensation industry across the United States. We are a politically and professionally diverse group. We do not agree on everything, yet find ourselves of one opinion on a highly critical matter. We are competitors who are now colleagues for a common cause; to bring light to a serious injustice being committed within your state.

The prosecution of Charles (Sandy) Blunt was, in our view, an outrageous and almost farcical event. It is, in the final analysis, a travesty that has damaged the national view of your state, hampered the operation of a State agency, and ruined the life of a good man wholly undeserving of such results.

Sandy Blunt was Director of North Dakota's Workforce Safety & Insurance from May of 2004 until December of 2007. He was, as you arelikely aware, prosecuted by state authorities for “misspending government funds”. Specifically, he was charged and convicted on two counts:

During his almost 4 year tenure his agency spent approximately $11,000 on employeeincentive items, including flowers, trinkets, balloons, decorations and beverages for Workforce Safety and Insurance employee meetings, and on giftcertificates and cards in small denominations for restaurants, stores and movie theaters. Blunt personally approved some of these expenditures. Others weremade by managers as part of daily operations under his watch. Not a dime went into an employee’s pocket, nor did Blunt personally benefit from any expenditure. 
 

His agency paid $8,000 to an employee, David Spencer, for sick pay when he was not apparently sick, and it also failed to collect $7,000 from Spencer when he left prior to the end of his employment agreement. The $7000 was for moving expenses incurred that prosecutors felt Spencer owed the state. Blunt’s position was that the agency was not entitled to collect these funds, sinceSpencer’s departure was not voluntary.

All told, the state prosecuted Sandy Blunt, and he is now a convicted felon for “misspending” $26,000 of government money.

No one has ever alleged that Blunt personally benefited from any of these expenditures. Blunt was acting like other capable, ethical North Dakota executives - in the best interest of customers and of the mission of his employer. In our industry it is considered a best practice to provide employees and supervisors with incentives. It is not frivolous, it's necessary, and what every employer should do.

The first of these two charges would be, to many people, laughable if it were not for the damaging consequences associated with them. The notion that buying inexpensive incentive items for your employees couldresult in a felony conviction is simply stunning. This would not be elevated to a criminal status in most states in the nation. The fact that it is in North Dakota should have a chilling effect on businesses looking to move there.

The second and more serious charge, involving the sick pay and moving expenses of employee Spencer, has been fatally undermined by therevelation that the prosecutor in the matter, Cynthia Feland, withheld critical evidence from the defense – evidence that largely clears Blunt in this area. A disciplinary panel for the North Dakota Supreme Court has found on November 7, 2011 that:

“Cynthia M. Feland did not disclose to Michael Hoffman, defense attorney for Charles Blunt, the Wahl memo, and other documents which were evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tended to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigate the offense.”

Withholding of evidence by prosecutors is one of the most serious acts of prosecutorial misconduct in North Dakota and all other states. In recognition of this, the panel recommended Ms Feland’s license to practice law be suspended. We urge that you read the entire report of the panel, including the penalties the board recommended be imposed on Ms. Feland. For the report, go here.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/72258971/Feland-Ethics-Panel-Decision

Had the prosecutor not withheld evidence, in all likelihood the case would never have come to trial, and the reputation of Blunt and the WSI would be free of taint. The evidence in question shows that WSI’s auditor’s own findings backed Blunt’s position on payments related with Spencer. However, those findings were not made available to the defense, and the prosecutor was found to have allowed testimony to be given at the trial that directly conflicted with information she had. As we indicated, Feland, now a judge in your state, has been recommended for suspension and a fine over these findings.

Yet Sandy Blunt remains a convicted felon. His crime? Buying balloons, trinkets and $5 gift cards – for his employees, not for himself. For that, Blunt, who is married with two children, has had to spend half a decade, and untold thousands of dollars trying to clear his name.

Some of us have known Sandy for quite a while. Some have come to know him while learning of his situation. Others of us have never met Sandy, but recognize the tenuous nature of his treatment. Collectively we speak to thousands within our industry every day. Our opinions have been clear; this situation needs the light of truth shone brightly upon it. The time and resources expended prosecuting a man on such questionable grounds should be more closely examined, by the business community, workers compensation professionals and the media in North Dakota.

Sandy Blunt is a good and decent man. He deserves better. So, it would seem, do the people of North Dakota.

 

Peter Rousmaniere                                                       
Consultant & Writer                                                       
WorkingImmigrants.com                     

 

Robert Wilson  

President & CEO

WorkersCompensation.com

 

Joseph Paduda

Principal, Health Strategy Assoc, LLC

ManagedCareMatters.com



Rebecca Shafer                                                                 
LowerWC.com                                                        
                                                                   

Julie Ferguson 

Consultant & Editor

WorkersCompInsider.com

 

David DePaolo

President & CEO

workcompcentral.com

 

Tom Lynch                                                                      
Founder & President                                                         
Lynch. Ryan & Associates, Inc.       

 

Jon Coppelman

Senior Vice President

Lynch. Ryan & Associates, Inc.

 

Henry Stern, LUTCF, CBC

InsureBlog.net

And here are three other links …


Sandy Blunt related articles from these authors:

Blunting Political Vindictiveness

What's wrong with Sandy Blunt.

Is justice on the horizon in North Dakota?

Let Me Be Blunt: Sandy Got Screwed in North Dakota

The Square Wheels of Justice in the Peoples Republic of North Dakota

Monday, December 05, 2011

FARGO FORUM GIVES PORN STAR FREE ADVERTISING - AS A NEWS STORY!

 

From the Fargo Forum:

 

"Adult film star Jenna Jameson coming to Fargo this weekend

Adult entertainment star Jenna Jameson will appear at two nightclubs this Saturday.

 

Adult entertainment star Jenna Jameson will appear at two nightclubs in Fargo this Saturday. The actress/model will attend a VIP party at the Northern Gentleman’s Club from 9:30 – 10:30 p.m. Saturday. Tickets are $15. From there, Jameson will move to The Hub for the “Sexiest Pajama Party,” which starts at 10 p.m. Admission is $5. Jameson holds a meet-and-greet with VIPs who purchase table service, which starts at $120 for a bottle for four people.

For more information on Jameson's Hub appearance, call (701) 232-6767.

Tags: life, events, variety, news, updates"

 

This is not a news story. This is an advertisement. What next?

 

Attention girls and young women, you could get your own news story in the Fargo Forum!

Quite the educational piece.

 

Thanks Fargo Forum!

Monday, November 21, 2011

JUDGE CYNTHIA FELAND AND THE “FOREVER” PRELIMINARY HEARING

The claims by “The State” (Cynthia Feland, Lloyd Suhr, and Richard Riha of the Burleigh County State’s Attorney’s Office) that the “alleged” additional criminal offenses by Sandy Blunt related to David Spencer’s moving expenses and sick leave were part of the criminal case against Blunt from the “get-go” or from “day one” are demonstrably false. The State’s claim that a single audit working paper (page C99) -- a page that was inadvertently provided to Blunt in discovery and not supported by any investigation or any other documentation-- establishes or even suggests it was the known and intentional basis for the Spencer related crimes from the “get-go” or from “day one” is provably false.

 

The get-goguarantee was also made in the face of an overwhelming amount of evidence within The State’s possession that proved not only that there was no probable cause for charging the additional criminal offenses related to Workforce Safety and Insurance (WSI) recouping the reimbursement of moving expenses from involuntarily separated former WSI senior staff member David Spencer.

 

The State’s contrived get-goguarantee to Judge Bruce Romanick (lie) was extremely significant to the case because it allowed The State to wrongly prosecute Blunt in front of a jury of his peers for additional criminal offenses related to Spencer’s separation without ever being provided with the evidence of the crimes or a preliminary hearing; a denial of Blunt’s due process rights. 

 

The FALSE claim that Spencer issues were part of the case “from the get-go” is repeated over and over to the North Dakota Supreme Court as well as to the Court’s Disciplinary Board Panel that heard the case of Cynthia Feland on June 29 and 30, 2011. It is especially significant as Sandy Blunt’s supposed refusal to obtain reimbursement of Spencer's moving expenses was a primary aspect of Blunt’s trial and conviction.

North Dakota Supreme Court Disciplinary Board Chief Council asks Judge Feland why Spencer was not a subject of the August 7, 2007 Preliminary Hearing.

Watch the following video to understand how 2.25 hours is “FOREVER” according to Judge Cynthia Feland:

 

<

 

 

Further Background Information regarding Judge Feland’s “FOREVER” claim:

 

NOT ENOUGH TIME TO INTRODUCE SPENCER OR

FIRE FIGHTER GRANT AT PRELIMINARY HEARING

 

In the June 29 & 30, 2011, Disciplinary Hearing in the matter of Attorney Cynthia Feland, The State (through Feland) repeatedly asserted under oath at the hearing that The State did not have enough time to cover the matters of David Spencer and the Fire Fighter’s Grant at the August 7, 2007, Preliminary Hearing due to the length of time the hearing had already taken:

 

June 30, 2011; 10:12 am

 

MR. JACOBSON: You did testify that the aspect of the Spencer moving expenses recoupment was not part of the preliminary hearing, you explained that you do not have to present everything. My question is, why wasn’t it presented?

 

 

MS. FELAND: The preliminary hearing, presenting just the evidence that we did to the day, that is a long preliminary hearing. Not that we don’t have long preliminary hearings. I’ve never had one that went as long as that one did. Typically in a major case, a homicide case, something, I wouldn’t call it tantamount to this from the standpoint of just sheer volume of documents. It doesn’t come close to this but it is probably the next closest thing that we do at The State’s Attorney’s Office because those are very evidence intensive cases. Typically we will set a half a day for one of those. We set aside a whole day and we didn’t go right to five o’clock but I know it was late in the afternoon by the time that we finished and it was a one witness, I had Mr. Quinn from the Bureau of Criminal Investigation, he testified, and it went on forever.

 

MR. JACOBSON: So, it would have taken too long is why you did not present the evidence concerning the moving expenses at the preliminary hearing?

 

MS. FELAND: I suppose that I could have done moving expenses, I could have gotten into the sick leave. I suppose I could have gotten into all of those things but that is not the point of a preliminary hearing and quite frankly, The Court is less than impressed if we decide that we are going to have a mini-trial at the preliminary hearing stage.

 

 

June 30, 2011;11:10 am

 

MS. FELAND: And then ultimately you end up with the trial. Judge Wefald dismissed it back here at the prelim. I had to bring enough evidence forward to show in count one that there was over 10,000 dollars so I did that through the meeting expenses and the gift certificates. And then that took almost a full day. And we didn’t even present arguments. He asked us to put in written, post-hearing briefs and he ultimately made his decision. That is not common. We don’t usually have preliminary hearings that long. They usually take half hour on a routine case? Fifteen minutes on some. A judge usually makes up his mind right there. And again, to Judge Wefald’s credit, he heard a lot of evidence so that it was something that he wanted to go back and reflect on.

 

But what is the truth? Did the hearing really take almost a full day? Normally, a “full day” in court is considered to run from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (7 court hours and a 1 hour lunch). So if Blunt’s hearing took almost a full day then it could reasonably be expected that the hearing took roughly 6 court hours or more; however, it did not. The court records reveal that Blunt’s hearing took less than one third of a full day. The August 7, 2007, “Appeal Transcript of Preliminary Hearing” documents that the hearing began at 1:30 p.m. and concluded at 3:45 p.m. for a total time --including a recess-- of 2 hours and 15 minutes. 

 

“The following is a transcript of the proceedings had and made of record before The Honorable Robert O. Wefald, District Judge, presiding, commencing at 1:30 p.m. on Tuesday, August 7, 2007 … Recess taken at 2:28 p.m. … Open court resumed at 2:55 p.m. … WHEREUPON, this hearing was duly ended at 3:45 p.m. 

 

Yet, even with the 3½ hours (half a court day) originally set for the hearing, The State (through Feland) had more than enough time to have added the three additional criminal offenses to Count I without impacting the original window of time whatsoever. The transcript documents that Quinn was called to the stand on the last half of page 4 and Feland concluded her direct examination of Quinn related to the evidence in Count I on first half of page 16. CONTRARY TO THE STATE’S WILDLY EXAGGERATED LENGTH-OF-TIME CLAIMS, THE COURT RECORDS ARE DEFINITIVE THAT IT TOOK ONLY 12 PAGES FOR THE STATE TO PRESENT ITS ENTIRE CASE OF EVIDENCE FOR COUNT I.

 

The next logical question to ask would be, “How long would it have taken The State to have presented 12 transcribed pages of evidence under direct examination?” Below is a logic-based analysis of estimated hearing times using known and recorded data points. This logical analysis demonstrates that it would have taken approximately 19 ½ minutes for The State and Quinn to have completely presented ALL of the evidence related to Count I that was in The State’s possession at the time of the hearing.

 

Page 01 – 1:30 p.m.

Page 36 – 2:28 p.m. 

36 Pages in 0:58 minutes

Average time per page 1.61 minutes

Total Pages of Direct Examination for Count I (total case in chief for Count I), 12 Pages

12 Pages * 1.61 minutes = 19.32 minutes

 

Based on the estimated timing above, it would have taken The State no more than an additional 10-15 minutes (AT THE VERY MOST) to have presented the three other “known” Spencer and Fire Fighter’s grant issues as well; time which The State indisputably had since the TOTAL presentation of the case in chief for Count I was only about 20 minutes. Further, by the end of Page 8 - start of Page 9 --less than 7½ minutes into The State’s direct examination of Quinn-- Feland asks Quinn to outline for her ALL of the expenditures that “encompassed the misapplication of entrusted funds that we have listed under Count I of the complaint.”

 

21 Q. (By Ms. Feland continuing) Which of the

22 expenditures encompassed the misapplication of entrusted

23 funds that we have listed under Count I of the complaint? 

24 A. They would be the expenditures for gift

25 certificates, staff meetings where beverages, lunches were

1 purchased, and employee incentives which would go along with

2 the gift certificates. 

 

As defined by the Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, encompass means “to include entirely or comprehensively.” So the question asked by The State to Quinn was, “Which of the expenditures entirely or comprehensively constituted all of the misapplication of entrusted funds that we have listed under Count I of the complaint?” To which Quinn responded,They would be the expenditures for gift certificates, staff meetings where beverages, lunches were purchased, and employee incentives which would go along with the gift certificates."


At NO TIME did Quinn EVER mention anything related to the sick leave, moving expenses, or a grant when outlining for The State and the Court the expenditures that entirely or comprehensively constituted ALL of the items The State had charged and “listed under Count I of the complaint.”

 

 

So Count II had to have taken “hours” to present then? Again, no. The State’s case in chief related to Count II goes from last half of page 16 to the last quarter of page 24 where Feland announces, “The state has nothing further of this witness, Your Honor.” (NOTE: Quinn was The State’s one and ONLY witness for the entire hearing and Mike Hoffman (Blunt’s Attorney) did not call any witnesses.)

 

Therefore, The State’s ENTIRE CASE IN CHIEF for BOTH COUNTS I & II was just 20¼ pages or approximately 32½ minutes* long (the exact amount of time for “a routine case). Therefore, based on the hearing’s estimated timing, The State had more than enough time to have presented ALL of the other additional criminal offenses for Count I – that is IF THEY HAD ACTUALLY KNOWN OF THE ADDITIONAL CRIMINAL OFFENSES AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING. (*Total Pages of Direct Examination for Count I & II, 20 ¼ Pages -- 20 ¼ Pages * 1.61 minutes = 32.60 minutes)

 

Monday, November 14, 2011

STEVE CATES: MORE LIES AND MORE EVIDENCE WITHHELD BY BURLEIGH COUNTY PROSECUTORS

In addition to the “Wahl Memo” which was the narrowly considered subject of the November 1, 2011 North Dakota Supreme Court Disciplinary Board Hearing Panel in the case of Cynthia M. Feland, lots of other discovery was withheld by prosecutors from defendant Blunt.

On August 5, 2010 I obtained from the North Dakota Attorney General’s Office the four Reports of Investigation written by North Dakota Bureau of Criminal Investigation (BCI) Special Agent (SA) Michael Quinn. Those reports had as attachments hundreds of pages as well as digital media. Defendant Blunt was given a tiny fraction of the material before his trial.

NONE OF THE FOUR BCI REPORTS AUTHORED BY QUINN WERE PROVIDED TO BLUNT

Prior to obtaining this material I make complaint(s) in April 2010 to the North Dakota Supreme Court Disciplinary Board (Disciplinary Board) regarding Richard Riha, Lloyd Suhr, and Cynthia Feland, all of the Burleigh County State’s Attorney’s Office (BCSAO) it was asserted by me as complaint item #6 SA Quinn of BCI had interviewed numerous person, many who were called as witnesses against Mr. Blunt by the prosecutors and that but for a single page, none of the interview materials had been provided to Mr. Blunt prior to his December 2008 trial. Riha, Suhr, and Feland all signed the same response to my complaint in which they stated that:

Allegation 6:

Mr. Cates asserts that the undersigned, through leadership, purposeful action, or acquiescence, willfully allowed and/or supported the withholding of prosecution witness statements from Mr. Hoffinan during the discovery process. Specifically, he alleges that notes prepared by Special Agent Mike Quinn (Quinn) during interviews with various witnesses (Billi Peltz and Jim Long) were not produced after request. He also complains that no statements from Mr. Wahl were ever provided. His allegation reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the criminal investigative process.

Agent Quinn conducted multiple interviews, including interviews with Billi Peltz and Jim Long, during the criminal investigation. Commonly a law enforcement officer will take handwritten notes during an interview which are later used to prepare their official report. All reports prepared by Agent Quinn were disclosed during the discovery process. Thus, Mr. Cates' allegation that Agent Quinn's "notes" were not disclosed is inaccurate, as they were the basis for his report.

 

I would submit for your consideration that this response statement is a LIE. I would suggest as well that the Mr. Riha, Mr. Suhr, and Ms. Feland knew/know full well that the statement is a LIE. This response letter/document was submitted to the Inquiry Committee West.

 

North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion: State v. Blunt, 2011 ND 127, 799 N.W.2d 363

[¶13] There was no evidence the State disclosed copies of the Wahl memorandum and Quinn's investigation report. The Wahl memorandum was a memo from Wahl to the prosecutor providing a summary of meetings and discussions he had with WSI executives about Spencer and the relocation expenses. Quinn's investigation report included notes from a telephone conversation he had with Wahl about Spencer's relocation expenses.

 

In concurrence, the Hearing Panel of the North Dakota Supreme Court Disciplinary Board found that:

FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND RECOMMENDATION FOR SUSPENSION

November 1, 2011

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

.........

3. The Panel concludes Cynthia M. Feland did not disclose to Michael Hoffman, defense attorney for Charles Blunt, the Wahl memo, and other documents which were evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tended to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigate the offense.



Most significantly, material evidence included as attachments to SA Quinn investigation reports not provided included:

Billi Peltz’s hand written notes concerning David Spencer leaving WSI.

An 1.3 hour long audio recording of S/A Quinn questioning prosecution witness Jim Long concerning David Spencer’s separation and establishing the involuntary nature of that separation.

Copy of Search Warrant and Return (2 Pages), 10/19/2007

Copy of BCI Evidence/Property Form (1 Page}, 10/19/2007

Copy of Spencer's OMB Documents (4 Pages), 10/23/2007

E-mail from R. Forward of WSI (1 pg), 11/06/2007

E-mail from T. Wahlin of WSI (3 pgs), 11/06/2007

E-mail from R. Forward of WSI (30 pgs), 11/08/2007

E-mail from J. Wahl (16 pgs), 11/09/2007

Document provided by Long of WSI (26 pgs), 11/14/2007

Memo provided by Long of WSI re: ATC mtng (1 pg), 11/14/2007

E-mail from Long of WSI (32 pgs), 11/1412007

E-mail from T/Tuntland (attorney for J. Long) (1 pg), 11/14/2007

E-mail from R/Forward of WSI (16 pgs), 11/14/2007

 

Thursday, November 10, 2011

STEVE CATES: ETHICS COMPLAINT RESPONSE - RIHA, SUHR, AND FELAND - TELL….LIES?

In my complaint(s) of April 2010 to the North Dakota Supreme Court Disciplinary Board (Disciplinary Board) regarding Richard Riha, Lloyd Suhr, and Cynthia Feland, all of the Burleigh County State’s Attorney’s Office (BCSAO) it was asserted by me as complaint item #6 regarding participation of the North Dakota State Auditor’s Office (NDSAO) in the investigation and prosecution of Mr. Blunt that:

“….BCSAO to withhold from Charles Blunt and his defense attorney multiple prosecution witness statements which were requested in writing by defense attorney Michael Hoffman.

………

There is irrefutable evidence of NDSAO auditor Jason Wahl’s EXTENSIVE involvement in Blunt’s case, yet no statements by Wahl who was the primary prosecution witness have ever been provided by BCSAO for Mr. Blunt’s defense even though repeatedly requested in writing by defense attorney Hoffman.”           

In the Special Agent (S/A) Michael Quinn’s authored his report of an official investigation. He provided that report BCSAO in which he writes of interviewing Mr. Jason Wahl on November 8, 2007 (the very same day that the “Wahl Memo” was created by Auditor Wahl):

“At 1:35 p.m., S/A Quinn spoke telephonically with Wahl of the North Dakota State Auditor's office. The purpose of the phone call was to discuss moving expenses that had been paid to Spencer when Spencer was initially hired by WSI. Wahl stated that if Spencer resigned, Spencer would have to pay back the moving expenses, but if Spencer had been forced out or fired, that Spencer would not have to pay back the expenses. Wahl stated that moving expenses were a "grey area" and that Wahl was not sure if non payment would violate a state statute. Wahl stated that Wahl had never really seen this issue before, so is not clear on the legality of it. Wahl stated that since Spencer's resignation was non voluntary, that Wahl felt it was a "non issue" for the auditor's office.”

Given the evidence provided by S/A Quinn concerning Wahl’s determination of Spencer’s separation circumstances (above), the statement in Mr. Riha, Mr. Suhr, and Ms. Feland’s response to my complaint(s) item #6 is particularly curious:

“Concerning the allegation that the prosecution did not provide statements from Mr. Wahl, no “statements” from Mr. Wahl were taken therefore there is nothing to disclose. Mr. Wahl’s involvement in the case is exclusively by virtue of the audit he led, and was thoroughly documented in the audit report, working papers, and related materials stemming from the audit. Those materials were disclosed and accordingly, Mr. Cates’s allegations to this effect is inaccurate. In short, he complains of a failure to disclose statement which never existed.”

I would submit for your consideration that this response statement is a LIE. I would suggest as well that the Mr. Riha, Mr. Suhr, and Ms. Feland knew/know full well that the statement is a LIE. This response letter/document was submitted to the Inquiry Committee West and signed by Richard Riha, Lloyd Suhr and Cynthia Feland.

If BCSAO had the S/A Quinn reports in her possession and had provided them to Mr. Blunt (as has been claimed in numerous motions, arguments, multiple times by Ms. Feland during her Disciplinary Board hearing, and documents before The Court subsequent to my complaint), why in the world the prosecutors (Riha, Suhr, and Ms. Feland) explicitly state that “he complains of a failure to disclose statement which never existed”?

There is only one possible answer to this question….. Riha, Suhr, and Ms. Feland absolutely knew that they had NEVER given the November 2007 BCI Quinn Reports to Mr. Blunt!

The Disciplinary Board Panel who adjudicated the disciplinary trial of Cynthia Feland, in their November 1, 2011 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND RECOMMENDATION FOR SUSPENSION stated under the heading of “FINDINGS OF FACT” stated that:

12. The investigative reports that were not provided to Hoffman included reports from BCI Agent Quinn that were obtained by the State during the time when the criminal case was on appeal from the trial court's dismissal. Included in those documents was a report that Agent Quinn spoke with Auditor Wahl, and Wahl basically repeated the same language that is in the Wahl memo to Feland of November 8, 2007.”

 

This is not merely a breach of North Dakota Lawyer Ethics rules but likely the breaking of law:

12.1-11-02. False statements.

 

1.      A person is guilty of a class A misdemeanor if, in an official proceeding, he makes a false statement, whether or not material, under oath or equivalent affirmation, or swears or affirms the truth of such a statement previously made, if he does not believe the statement to be true.

 

2.      A person is guilty of a class A misdemeanor if, in a governmental matter, he:

 

a.       Makes a false written statement, when the statement is material and he does not believe it to be true;

b.      Intentionally creates a false impression in a written application for a pecuniary or other benefit, by omitting information necessary to prevent a material statement therein from being misleading;

c.       Submits or invites reliance on any material writing which he knows to be forged, altered, or otherwise lacking in authenticity;

d.      Submits or invites reliance on any sample, specimen, map, boundarymark, or other object which he knows to be false in a material respect; or

e.       Uses a trick, scheme, or device which he knows to be misleading in a material respect.

 

3.      This section does not apply to information given during the course of an investigation into possible commission of an offense unless the information is given in an official proceeding or the declarant is otherwise under a legal duty to give the information. Inapplicability under this subsection is a defense.

 

4.      A matter is a "governmental matter" if it is within the jurisdiction of a government office or agency, or of an office, agency, or other establishment in the legislative or the judicial branch of government.

 

 

12. The investigative reports that were not provided to Hoffman included reports from
BCI Agent Quinn that were obtained by the State during the time when the criminal case
was on appeal from the trial court's dismissal. Included in those documents was a
report that Agent Quinn spoke with Auditor Wahl, and Wahl basically repeated the same
language that is in the Wahl memo to Feland of November 8, 2007.

Wednesday, November 09, 2011

STEVE CATES: CYNTHIA FELAND – FROM PREVARICATING PROSECUTOR TO “THE LYING JUDGE”

 

In a written statement that was reprinted by the Bismarck Tribune on November 8, 2011, Judge Cynthia Feland responded regarding her attorney ethics conviction by continuing her pervasive deceits when she stated that:

"The trial judge and the Supreme Court have already found the truth when they ruled that the defense in the Blunt case had all of the pertinent information. The State Auditor's and the State's' Attorney's offices' records are clear that the defendant had all of the information, some of it multiple times over. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court will have to deal with this case again."

This statement is a bold faced lie. She did not provide to Sandy Blunt’s attorney, Michael Hoffman "all of the pertinent information". The Disciplinary Hearing brought out into the open the fact that the North Dakota Bureau of Criminal Investigation Special Agent Michael Quinn authored four reports in the fall of 2007 as the result of investigation of Sandy Blunt that he did at the direction of Cynthia Feland. Those reports were not, although specifically and repeatedly requested before the Blunt trial provided to Blunt. A small number of the approximately 480 pages of attachments were given to the defendant. Those documents consisted of primarily informational records such as payment records, time records, and communications between WSI and Dave Spencer. But a whole lot of information was not provided to the defendant from those attachments and very much of it was in the opinion of this author exculpatory.

Evidence that was in the possession of the prosecution at the time of the trial and not provided to Mr. Blunt include:

The November 8, 2007 Auditor Jason “Wahl Memo” to Cynthia Feland concerning David Spencer’s separation and establishing the involuntary nature of that separation.

The four Investigation Reports of BCI Special Agent Michael Quinn authored during and provided to BCSAO in the fall of 2007 that included overt statements by prosecution witnesses concerning David Spencer’s separation and establishing the involuntary nature of that separation.

Billi Peltz’s hand written notes concerning David Spencer.

An 1.3 hour long audio recording of S/A Quinn questioning prosecution witness Jim Long concerning David Spencer’s separation and establishing the involuntary nature of that separation.

Jodi Bjornson’s Diary with numerous portions concerning David Spencer’s separation and establishing the involuntary nature of that separation.

A Series C Auditor’s working papers without annotation that had been edited to remove items related to David Spencer.

And these are only some of the documents withheld!

 

In fact the Disciplinary Board Panel that adjudicated the Cynthia Feland hearing state, in direct refutation of Feland’s public claims in the Bismarck Tribune that:

 

FINDINGS OF FACT

10. …. When the supreme court returned the case to district court, Feland provided Attorney Hoffman with some documents that had been received during the appeal period, but there is no evidence that the full investigative reports and Wahl memo accumulated by Feland during the appeal were provided to Attorney Hoffman.

And

12. The investigative reports that were not provided to Hoffman included reports from BCI Agent Quinn that were obtained by the State during the time when the criminal case was on appeal from the trial court's dismissal. Included in those documents was a report that Agent Quinn spoke with Auditor Wahl, and Wahl basically repeated the same language that is in the Wahl memo to Feland of November 8, 2007.

 

I believe that the clinical term is pathological….. Cynthia Feland is no longer the Prevaricating Prosecutor. She has become the Duplicitous Jurist – “The Lying Judge.”

To publically and repeatedly call an attorney, former prosecutor, and now judge a liar seems a very dangerous thing. And according to North Dakota law could be ruinous.

Claims like this are made by either the insane, the stupid, or one who has sufficient command of fact to verify such a contention.

Truth is the only protection against legal liability when one makes such an assertion.

So, who is lying? You decide.

 

The pdf of the complete ND Supreme Court Disciplinary Panel Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendation for Suspension 

 

POINT OF LAW:

 

12.1-11-05. Tampering with public records.

 

1. A person is guilty of an offense if he:

a. Knowingly makes a false entry in or false alteration of a government record; or

b. Knowingly, without lawful authority, destroys, conceals, removes, or otherwise

impairs the verity or availability of a government record.

2. The offense is:

a. A class C felony if committed by a public servant who has custody of the

government record.

b. A class A misdemeanor if committed by any other person.

3. In this section "government record" means:

a. Any record, document, or thing belonging to, or received or kept by the

government for information or record.

b. Any other record, document, or thing required to be kept by law, pursuant, in fact,

to a statute which expressly invokes the sanctions of this section.

<p><center><img src="http://dakotabeacon.com/images/uploads/douglass.jpg" width="450" /></center><p>

Tuesday, November 08, 2011

ND SUPREME COURT DISCIPLINARY BOARD RECOMMENDS SUSPENSION OF JUDGE CYNTHIA FELAND

Judge Romanick, Sandy Blunts trial judge (left) who worked with Prosecutor Feland in the Burliegh County State's Attorney's office, Cynthia Feland (center) now judge, Richard Riha (right) Cynthia Feland's boss during the Blunt trial

 

 

Although a number of other issues were examined during the hearing the decision is narrowly focused on the Wahl Memo. The recommendation is likely a reflection of the fact that the intent to withhold exculpatory evidence was not established. It is time that Judge Romanick give Sandy Blunt justice, if he can, Sandy needs his conviction overturned or a new trial.– Steve Cates

 

From the Decision:

“3. The Panel concludes Cynthia M. Feland did not disclose to Michael Hoffman, defense attorney for Charles Blunt, the Wahl memo, and other documents which were evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tended to negate the guilt of the accused of mitigate the offense.”

“8.       ….North Dakota Standards for Imposing Lawyer Discipline 6.12, which provides, in part, suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knows that material information is improperly bind withheld, and takes no remedial action, and causes injury or potential injury to a party to the legal proceeding, or causes and adverse or potentially adverse effect on the legal proceeding.

North Dakota Standards for Imposing Lawyer Discipline 6.22, which provides suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knows that he or she is violating a court order or rule, and causes injury or potential injury to a client or a party, or causes interference or potential interference with a legal proceeding.”

“The Hearing Panel recommends to the North Dakota Supreme Court that Cynthia M. Feland be SUSPEDED from the practice of law for sixty (60) days and that she be ORDERED to pay the costs of the disciplinary proceeding in the amount of $11,272.21.”

The pdf of the complete ND Supreme Court Disciplinary Panel Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendation for Suspension 


 

Friday, October 21, 2011

AS MICHAEL RAMIREZ SEES IT: OCTOBER 21, 2011

 

 

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

STEVE CATES: CONSERVATIVES MUST NEVER FORGET THE FOUNDATION OF NATURAL LAW

At first it was a mere trickle. Then a steady seep. A little later a soft current. Then the current reaches critical velocity to enable the substrate to be washed away, the foundation undermined. At a certain point when there is nothing sustaining the structure, and not enough wealth can be expended to prevail against the onslaught, the house falls into the eroding water. The fresh paint, the manicured lawn, the expensive finishing touches – manifestation of material triumph, ultimately unable to stop the destruction.


There is at present a tension within the ascendant conservative movement. There are the laissez-faire capitalists who largely shy away from the contemporary moral questions to keep the debate on low taxes, limited government, and want to mostly be just left alone, perhaps best termed the Materialist Libertarians. On the other side of the discussion are those who believe that the moral questions as fairly narrowly constrained by the Judeo-Christian traditions of Western Civilization predominate in the arena of public debate. Many commentators fret about the possibility of an election lost as the result of excessive focus on the “divisive” questions of contemporary personal behavior. We must not ever forget the Natural Law foundation of America’s design:

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”  – Declaration of Independence, 1776

The designers of America were students of those great thinkers that recognized the natural order of the universe and the innate nature of humans due to that unalterable natural order, the term “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” was not mistake, rather it had central meaning for that document:

“Not only right and wrong are distinguished by nature, but also in general all honorable and disgraceful things. For nature makes common understandings for us and starts forming them in our minds so that honorable things are based on virtue, disgraceful things on vices”- - Marcus Tullius Cicero

“The evil implanted in man by nature spreads so imperceptibly, when the habit of wrong-doing is unchecked, that he himself can set no limit to his shamelessness.”  - Marcus Tullius Cicero

“There is but one law for all, namely that law which governs all law, the law of our Creator, the law of humanity, justice, equity - the law of nature and of nations.” - Edmund Burke

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” - John Adams

“Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.” - George Washington.

“Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.” - Alexis de Tocqueville

“The Americans combine the notions of religion and liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive of one without the other” -  Alexis de Tocqueville

Natural law - moral standards that govern human behavior are, in some sense, objectively derived from the nature of human beings and the nature of the world and is thus universal.  It is critical that one recognizes the primacy of culture and that freedom flourishes ONLY in societies undergirded by a moral culture that embraces the truth about the transcendent origin and destiny of all human beings. History reveals to us that an ordered, moral culture results in harmony and in the proper ordering of society and while the various institutions within the political, economic, and other spheres are important, the traditional family is the primary inculcator of the moral culture in a society.


As George Washington wrote in his Farewell Address, “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports . . . And let us indulge with caution the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion . . . Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail to the exclusion of religious principle.”

It is my firm belief that to reduce public policy to materialist questions without a strong foundation that begets an ordered and moral society is to ignore history, ignore the design of America’s freedoms, and to ultimately allow the building currents of societal decay that will assuredly result in loss of the freedoms so dear to the Materialist Libertarians.

Monday, October 17, 2011

SEPTEMBER 2011 DAKOTA BEACON MAGAZINE

 

 

Wednesday, September 07, 2011

STEVE CATES: OF LIFE AND DEATH AND GEESE AND DUCKS

Folks,

Kind of overcast this late summer morning. Slight breeze. Nice rain last night. Just enough to keep the hoses coiled under the faucets while everything remains green.  The raspberries are over and not much of a crop. Lots of moldy berries and moldy grapes. Very unexpected. But last night we had the first ears of this summer’s corn. Delicious. Will we get tomatoes after the pounding from the hail storm? Little fruit now but will they ripen? A very strange summer indeed.


The golden wheat field to my south was cut over the weekend. Thus, wheat harvest art for the art feature of this issue and the wheat field on the cover. There is a certain beauty that although we see lots of wheat field here in North Dakota they remain the beauty in the eye of the beholder.

Then there are the two geese and three ducks. The miracle of new life was brought home to my granddaughter with the hatching of eggs in the incubator in the apartment bath tub. Then the cute little fuzzy beings could not stay in the tub so a “temporary” arrangement was made and we put them in the “clubhouse”. Temporarily. Until arrangements could be made. But….then $18 worth of poultry fence and we seemed to have inadvertently become owners of a small flock. The flock kind of became part of the extended family, with complete dedication, following the wife who brought the food and water to them in the pen.

Then, under supervision the flock was allowed to roam about a little. At first we were afraid that the cat herd would be the untimely end of the flock. Surprise! It only took a single episode after which the cats were scared to death of the extremely aggressive geese. Then the geese started going after the poor old fat yellow dog. She never knew what hit her. Almost deaf and blind in one eye, the geese would come up behind her and bite her behind. So the flock moved to the top of the pecking order. This caused some conflict as both the dog and the cats were accustomed to following the wife around as she worked on the gardens and flower beds. At each work station, the dog would lay down, two cats would curl up with the old dog while another invariably gets in the way of actual work being done brushing against the legs of the wife and demanding affection and attention. The flock turned this idyllic scene into bedlam. Dog, cats, geese and ducks, yelping, quaking, honking, hissing, and squawking. It was entertaining to watch the whole chaotic scene but the flock started to be a little too “born free”. It turns out that they eat almost everything small enough to get into their mouths. Even pretty flowers. A few flattened bushes and flowers and confinement to the movable pen would have to be the sentence for the balance of their mortal existence.
But what of the deeper question of life and death of ducks and geese? The expectation is that I will dispatch said flock to the freezer. There to await our mid winter feasting, the, for the first time, Christmas goose? But somehow the idea of grabbing any of those fowl and wringing their necks seems foul. There will be violence. There will be flapping. There will be lots of noise. There will be lots of blood. On me.

The wife keeps inferring that the deed needs done sooner rather than later. How I wonder, can she feel like that when those creatures obviously hold her in such high esteem? I believe that stomping the flowers ended the mutual affection. So, I bought one more bag of feed, and anticipate moving the pen once or twice, to further fatten them up, before……


I will let you know next month about the impending duck/goose harvest. I am perhaps as curious as you how this all turns out.

Thursday, September 01, 2011

CURTIS OLAFSON: BULLY OF THE N.D. SENATE? BY PROXY? WITH TAXPAYER MONEY?

Note BLACK SPOT (clip-on sunglasses)

In early May of 2011 I became aware of the North Dakota Highway patrol sending an officer to the home of LaVonne Geotsch of Bellfield. The office was sent as the result of Senator Curtis Olafson, Republican, of Edinburg (District 10), contacting the N.D. State Highway Patrol (HP). It seems that a letter was placed on his senate desk. A May 5, 2011 story in the Bismarck Tribune explained that according to Olafson:

“We are told if any document or message we receive has any tone that we question, we should turn it over to Highway Patrol for their attention,” Olafson said. “There’s nothing wrong with disagreeing with someone in the Legislature, but when the tone causes you to question what they’re thinking, that’s when you hand it over to Highway Patrol, and they put their good judgment to work.”

So, what was the tone? Obviously such that the HP must be contacted and they must do something. The letter, dated March 29, 2011 from Mr. Goetsch stated:

“Dear Senator Curtis Olafson,

One of your colleagues told me you are sometimes your own worst enemy. My observation is your ego, pride and arrogance maybe the problem.

In this day and age do you really think you can keep secrets at the capitol?

So you are pro-life! Proposed amendments to HB 1450 (Draft #3) blows your cover. Page 5, after line 19 inserts tells it all about you and your pro-life stand. The lies, pretense and deception you have used on your constituents who believe you are pro-life will now be exposed by you yourself. HB 1450 will not die.

You being elected again may be another story. I for one will be glad to help educate District 10.

Sincerely,

LaVonne H. Goetsch”

In the lower right hand corner of that letter as it was submitted to the Highway Patrol by Olafson was the handwritten notation:

“Dropped off @ desk Daniel Woodard”

But the fact was that Olafson knew exactly who Daniel Woodard is. Olafson knew that Daniel Woodard was a lobbyist for the North Dakota Life League. Olafson knew exactly how to contact Woodard. Olafson and Woodard had had extensive email correspondence. Olafson did not make any attempt to contact Woodard. No, instead, Olafson spent taxpayer money to send the HP to investigate.

From the May 5, 2011 Bismarck Tribune story on the matter:

Olafson said if the letter was email or mailed, he wouldn’t have given it a second thought.

“If you just let people walk in there and drop whatever package or letter they want, it bypasses any level of security".

Olafson also knew that lobbyist come and go within the North Dakota Senate Chamber and are ONLY constrained from being on the Senate floor (in front of the “railing”) during, according to Senate rule 205, Duties of Sergeant-at-Arms, “the time period commencing sixty minutes before the Senate convenes on any legislative day and ending when the Senate recesses for that calendar day.” There are no rules of security that were bypassed. Olafson is making this up.

Obviously the tone was such that most any legislator would become alarmed. In fact Olafson even wrote a letter that was published by several state daily newspapers around April 20, 2011 where he clarifies his concerns:

“Many members of the North Dakota Senate felt threatened and intimidated by some of the supporters of HB1450. Some supporters will not accept the fact that many of us who are pro-life do not see the issue in extreme black-and-white terms as they do. We were told that if we didn’t fall into lockstep agreement with them, our votes would be scored and used against us in the next election.

I can think of no other issue wherein such threats and intimidation are used in the Legislature.”

Knowing of the Highway Patrol visit to Ms. Goetsch and the claim by Olafson, I made an open records request of the North Dakota Highway Patrol on May 5, 2011, in order to substantiate the “threats and intimidation” of which he was speaking, writing:

“Major Johnson,

I am writting to make an open records request of your agency.

Please provide me with any and all records between your agency and North Dakota State Senator Curtis Olafson.

Thank you,

Steve Cates”

To my great astonishment I found that Olafson had also contacted the Highway Patrol concerning The Dakota Beacon website and myself! Following is Olafson’s email of complaint.

“From: Olafson, Curtis

Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2011 6:49 AM

To: Prochniak, Col. James J.

Cc: Armendariz, Sgt. Pedro R.

Subject: Threatening comment

http://www.dakotabeacon.com/

Good morning Colonel Prochniak,

I want to bring your attention to the comment made my Lynn Bergman on the attached link wherein he labels me as a “murderer.”  I will leave it to your good judgment as to whether you feel this warrants action on the part of the Highway Patrol.  Note that they intentionally used a picture that would cast me with the worst image possible.  I believe the picture was intentionally distorted, including adding a black spot on my t-shirt.  The Dakota Beacon is published by Steve Cates.  If you deem the comment inappropriate, Mr. Cates is the one you should contact to direct that it be removed and an apology posted for allowing the comment to be posted on the site.  Thank you. 

Senator Curtis Olafson

13041 84th St NE

Edinburg, ND 58227

701-993-8240 Home

701-265-2356 Cell

(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

www.senatorolafson.com”

It seems that when I posted the letter signed by the Executive Directors of the North Dakota Family Alliance, North Dakota Right to Life, and the North Dakota Chapter of Concerned Women of America which I titled, “The Appalling Duplicity of Senator Curtis Olafson”, Mr. Bergman commented on April 29, 2011 that:

“Senator Olafson received a “C” grade in my 61st North Dakota Legislative Session Vote Analysis. Three points to make here.

1. I cannot wait to compile my 62nd Session Analysis.

2. This is a classic example of the kind of slick moves that these two-tongued ” Moderate” Republicans pull on those who believe they voted for a conservative.

3. Conservatives…you had better get infinitely more active in the Republican Party District Reorganizations currently under way. Or don’t complain when murderers stay in office.”

Later, on May 6, 2011 Mr. Bergman made the clarification that:

“Albert Einstein said “The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.”

We have all “looked on” far too long regarding abortion in our state. It is time to take political action to reveal any folks who are in the wrong political party but will not admit it.

 

 

I regret calling a fellow Icelander a murderer; the reference should have been “accomplice to murder”. To clarify, I mean no harm to the Senator, just cannot stand by and “do nothing”.”

The fact is that Olafson has my telephone number and email address. He could have called or written to register his complaint. But…..he contacted the Highway Patrol! He wanted THEM to make me do something! Olafson wanted the HP to make me change the Beacon website! How much did that cost the North Dakota taxpayers?

This is not all.. My first exposure to the tactics of Olafson was during the 2009 Legislature. Representative Dan Ruby of Minot made a comment that Olafson took offense to. At the time I was unfamiliar with Olafson when he approached me to be an intermediary asking Ruby for a public retraction of the comment. Olafson would not contact Ruby and like a man ask for the retraction. No, he had to use someone like myself to bully by proxy. It took longer than I would like to admit but I finally understood how I was being used. Since that time I have had absolutely no respect whatsoever for Curtis Olafson as a state lawmaker.

This last legislative session his dishonest effort to kill the Human Life bill was despicable. Those of you who are regular readers of this publication know that I seldom make such overt statements about anyone in public office except the provably dishonest. This case is different. Dishonest bullies should be extricated from public office and from the Republican Party in North Dakota for the sake of honest governance. These types of people in elective office always bring grief to the party eventually. Strong language I know. But I am not alone in my recognition of this Senator’s arrogance and dishonesty. His reputation is well established in both of the legislative houses.

I await the knock on my door as Olafson uses your money to harass those that disagree with him

Wednesday, August 31, 2011

AUGUST 2011 DAKOTA BEACON MAGAZINE

 

 

 <  1 2 3 4 5 >  Last »
Page 3 of 18 pages