Blogs : WILL PROSECUTION OF BLUNT AND LEINGANG BE SUSTAINABLE?
By:
One of the most interesting things going on with this prosecution is that it is possible that after all of the expense of the investigation and prosecution that none of the charges will hold up under current law. Something that has not been investigated is the fact that Workforce Safety and Insurance (WSI) was established by the state legislature in Title 65 of the Century Code. In this law WSI was set up as a company owned by the taxpayers of ND, like the Mill and Elevator and the Bank of ND. In that legislation WSI was given certain procedural autonomy different from other state agencies. During the Performance Audit, on which the basis of the charges against Leingang and Blunt, a ND Attorney General’s opinion was never obtains in regard to the application of Title 65 to the procedures of WSI. It may be that under Title 65, WSI did undertake a legal investigation of the email spamming so that the charges of “conspiracy to disclose confidential information” is invalid, WSI had the freedom to make whatever purchases (unlike other state agencies) that they deemed necessary, and that WSI could establish pay schedules and methods (unlike other state agencies), invalidating both charges of “misapplication of entrusted property”. Have any of the legal entanglement regarding Title 65 been resolved before we, the taxpayers spend any more money on this Nyphoning of WSI?
These laws differentiate between the laws applicable to state employees under which Leingang and Blunt are being prosecuted under criteria that may apply to state employees, but, the problem is that the applicable laws are under Title 65 so their prosecution may be without merit.
As a quasi-law-enforcement entity WSI is empowered by Title 65 with broad investigatory authority, that is not limited to fraud claims as various other types of investigations related to compliance, including assistance with claim compensability, subrogation, judgment collection, and any violations of Title 65 (for example, unlawful retaliation under section 65-05-37 are investigated by WSI. If the investigation of the “email spamming” was an official investigation (there is nothing in Title 65 that says it could not be), then downloading an image from the NDDOT database was an entirely normal and legal procedure. That is why after all, WSI had access to the image database. This aspect of the legality of the investigation was asserted by WSI management during the Performance Audit of 2006 but an ND Attorney General’s opinion was not requested by the State Auditors’ Office on this matter. If the taxpayers pay for the prosecution of Blunt and Leingang, one must consider the possibility that it may be in vain regardless of outcome without establishment via an AG Opinion applicable jurisdiction under Title 65.
| Comments Posted: 11 | |
| wzrneylz | 21:04, December 2, 2007 |
| [URL=http://nxsafrgd.com]cpciyzly[/URL] ypaggkun http://ynzebaml.com vbbydexj sqynrney <a href="http://ezuadtvc.com">xzkxbnbb</a> | |
| morhxtls | 14:58, November 8, 2007 |
| <a href="http://gjzhgacl.com">myccnwnz</a> [URL=http://ylgmsnan.com]teuuraze[/URL] asilmyzt http://xxhrqtiy.com mzjebrrp jlocfhtm | |
| MAX-FACTS | 15:54, June 13, 2007 |
| Cates you haven't a clue about state law have you. In most instances state entities (and yes WSI is a state entity) have to have authorization to do business.......not that the law has to prohibit it. Think about it, would you want to have to write laws telling agencies only what they couldn't do specifically? WSI has the authority to make whatever purchases they deem necessary? Are you on crack? What a ridiculous assertion. So if they feel prostitutes are "necessary" for staff morale, it's legal to hire them? If they feel buying a $100 million computer sytem is necessary, they can just purchase it? Of course they can't........they have to follow the state's procurement guidelines. Their purchases can't violate state law even if WSI feels they are "necessary". Biased? The audit was biased? Your blogging for your lifelong buddy Armstrong and his wife is what is biased. | |
| Reader | 13:28, June 13, 2007 |
| Nice work Steve. You are exactly right. An opinion by the AG's Office would have been the appropriate action to take. | |
| Hey Stevie | 12:52, June 13, 2007 |
| How come you haven't answered Intimidating's question. Could that be because it is true or have you finally realized you are talking on a topic that you don't have a clue about? Don't we deserve an answer and the truth would be nice. | |
| Intimidating? | 20:33, June 10, 2007 |
| Is it true you have been calling ex-WSI employees and intimidating them? It's almost believable. You are a work of art. | |
| SCates | 08:52, June 8, 2007 |
| I rather doubt that he ever thought any of this nonsense would go any further than a biased Performance Audit. But, maybe he was thinking that he better not since he knew he was doing all types of illegal things and it might call attention to his crime? | |
| But SCates... | 22:02, June 7, 2007 |
| If that were true, why didn't Charley request an opinion during the audit? He wasn't part of any legal proceedings then. And if that was a lock down shut your face excuse... | |
| SCates | 21:03, June 7, 2007 |
| The Attorney General will not provide an opinion relative to pending legal proceedings. WSI frequently cited Title 65 as the basis for the authority to run WSI like a company. The Auditors' Office did not seek substantiation. | |
| Not the smartest guy in the room. | 20:39, June 7, 2007 |
| Now everyone knows the Golden boy is the smartest guy in the room. If he knew an Attorney General's opinion would clear himself and get the auditors, BCI, Highway Patrol, State's Attorney and the rest of the conspiracy off his back, why didn't he request an opinion? Spin Charley Spin. | |
| [1] [2] | |