Blogs : THE CASE OF THE CONFLICTED ACCUSER
By: SCates
A former WSI employee who was allowed to resign rather than being fired for cause is the person that initiated the investigation of Sandy Blunt and Romi Leingang. Now that that person has been publicly acknowledged by the State’s Attorney’s office the question should be raised about a disgruntled, dismissed individual who was the primary force behind this persecution/prosecution. Why did Trooper Henke state that this person was a former WSI employee, and that he (Henke) did not know why that person was separated from WSI? It seems a little shoddy that as a prosecutor, knowing someone is a former employee and subordinate of the people being accused, would not lead to some cursory examination of the motive of the accuser before initiating a very expensive prosecution. But when Joel Heitkamp keeps calling you (the State’s Attorney Office) during the legislative session and asking when the charges will be filed, you may become somewhat remiss in terms of due diligence.
Barney, Tim, Maxville are I believe, just some of the pseudonyms used by the person who initiated the persecution/prosecution. If you have followed this issue online you will remember that Barney has been particularly unkind and accusatory to Mark Armstrong, Sandy Blunt, and in some cases the publisher of The Dakota Beacon (Me). When I was talking to Scott Hennen on his Hot Talk program about WSI a caller who identified himself as “Tim” called and began questioning my friendship with the Armstrongs and made various other accusations. The caller had a very distinct voice. It turns out that that caller (Tim) was none other than the disgruntled former employee who as a condition of his separation signed a Separation Agreement that stated, “Employee agrees not to disparage WSI or any of its officers, employees, agents or do anything that would have an adverse impact on WSI”.
I called that former employee and in light of his participation in talk radio and internet blogs and told him with these exact words that “You better watch yourself”. He claimed harassment/threatening/intimidation. My admonishment was in vein. He as remained actively involved.
| Comments Posted: 0 |