Home Contact Register Subscribe to the Beacon Login

Steve Cates

Friday, May 11, 2012

SELWYN DUKE: THE REAL NEWS TODAY: OBAMA WAS ALWAYS FOR FAUX MARRIAGE

By Steve Cates on May 11, 2012 at 07:42 pm
No Comments Yet

So another mask has dropped.  Barack Obama made history yesterday in becoming the first president to announce support for faux marriage.

And on January 20th, 2009 he made history in becoming the first president who supports faux marriage.

Obama revealed himself in a Wednesday interview with ABC News’ Robin Roberts, saying, “At a certain point I’ve just concluded that, um, for me, personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that, uh, I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.”

This statement was made after Obama explained his “evolution” on the issue, a hothouse transformation that included discussions with homosexuals on his staff.  But here’s the reality: the aforementioned “certain point” he reached had more to do with the electorate’s perceived evolution than anything else.  This is because Barack Obama has always been pro-faux marriage.

How do I know?  For starters, Obama isn’t a Christian, as he claims; he isn’t a Muslim, as some critics claim, although he is a Muslim sympathizer.

He is a moral relativist and de facto atheist.

But, unlike with my first two sentences, I repeat myself.

And being a thoroughly modern Alinskyite secularist, he will always be on the cutting edge of societal devolution, which includes support for the undermining of marriage. 

If that isn’t enough for you, though, consider that, writes ABC News, “n 1996, as a state Senate candidate, he [Obama] indicated support for gay marriage in a questionnaire, but Obama aides later disavowed it and said it did not reflect the candidate’s position.”  Allow me to translate: “Our guy was dumb enough to reveal that he supported faux marriage when he needs votes in areas in which blacks are numerically strong.  And, as you may know, the black community doesn’t look kindly upon faux marriage.  So just ignore that man behind the curtain!  Barack is down!”

And now Obama is a bit down in the polls.  What’s his game?  Did loose-cannon Biden put him on the spot by announcing his acceptance of faux marriage earlier in the week?  Or was half-slow Joe’s remark a trial balloon?  Is Obama trying to shore up support among his demoralized base?  Whatever the case, know that the president’s problem isn’t that marriage, like the matter of when life begins, is above his pay grade.

It’s that morality and telling the truth are above his pay grade.

And now think about this: If Obama was willing to drop the marriage mask before the election, what masks will be dropped after it when, as he said to Dmitry Medvedev, he has “more flexibility”?

For sure, he will continue to evolve.  Heck, he may even announce that he’s a communist before 2016 is up – no doubt after discussing the issue with the Marxists on his staff.

                                                         Contact Selwyn Duke  

Tuesday, May 08, 2012

DENNIS M. PATRICK: WE ELECT WHO WE DESERVE

By Steve Cates on May 8, 2012 at 09:06 am
No Comments Yet

Day by day November approaches.

Question. Will Americans elect “leaders” who will restore America to its former greatness? Are America’s citizens, especially her youth, capable of electing a congress and an executive qualified to lead us back to the status of a respected world leader?

Don’t count on our education system to produce knowledgeable citizens. The education establishment rejected classical education, architect of our founders and great leaders, long ago.

From the introduction by Charles Grosvenor Osgood, Ph.D., to Boswell’s “Life of Samuel Johnson” comes this definition. “But the supreme end of education, we are told, is expert discernment in all things -- the power to tell the good from the bad, the genuine from the counterfeit, and to prefer the good and genuine to the bad and the counterfeit. This is the supreme end of the talk of Socrates, and it is the supreme end of the talk of Johnson. ‘My dear friend,’ said he, ‘clear your mind of cant; don’t think foolishly.’ The effect of long companionship with Boswell’s Johnson is just this. As Sir Joshua (Reynolds) said, ‘it brushes away the rubbish; it clears the mind of cant; it instills the habit of singling out the essential thing; it imparts discernment.’”

This definition doesn’t exactly square with the contemporary view of education.

The end of education is not to “get a job.” This alien notion was imported from the former Soviet Union during its communist heyday and facilitated by the USSR’s use of the United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) to further its own ends. Nor should the end of education be complicit with the latest fads of social and environmental indoctrination. Nor should education be a willy-nilly accumulation of unrelated factoids instilled over twelve years of babysitting.

It’s not the fault of contemporary education to which the regression of American culture can be ascribed. That would be far too simplistic. Our predicament runs far deeper.

The United States encountered an unanticipated cultural shift influencing not only education but religion, politics and all manner of public discourse. The very culture from which our freedom arose is at risk of being undone when citizens are successfully deluded into apathy by petty diversions and entertainments. Sociologist Neil Postman from the University of Pennsylvania articulated the cataclysmic cultural shift in his now-classic book “Amusing Ourselves to Death.”

Postman’s most important observation is that television, the ever blinking eye, teaches us to live a life without context. TV programs have nothing to do with anything that came before or comes after their broadcast. Commercials are imbedded without context. Accordingly, we learn to view life as a series of unconnected, random events, entertaining at best, but bearing no significance to a larger perspective. As a culture, we have lost our ability to integrate thoughts and experiences into a greater tapestry. The television medium trains us to live life in tiny segments unrelated to what went before or comes after any event.

As we transition from a television-based culture to a computer-based culture, the image remains central. Form (TV images and, later, computer technology) excludes content. Weighty and serious discourse wrestling with important matters is far less possible. Public discourse is no longer about rational argument but about entertainment and appearance. A frequent, rapid change of scenes must cater to a passive audience with a short attention span. Short attention spans do not allow time to lay out rational arguments. Postman maintains we have left the Age of Typography (the written word) and entered the Age of Show Business. Even news casts are stripped of context when news items are offered in bite-sized chunks of entertainment which the viewer can easily dismiss as trivia.

Ideologically, America is a far cry from where we started two hundred fifty years ago. The ideas of limited government, states rights trumping the federal government and the concept of a free citizenry has been all but lost in the Age of Show Business. And, if schools graduate students that can‘t, or won’t, read, so what?

Yes, November is coming and there is a lot of entertainment between now and then. Whom will the electorate choose?

 

Dennis M. Patrick can be contacted at P. O. Box 337, Stanley, ND 58784 or (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

BRENT MCCARTHY: IT’S DEJAVU

By Steve Cates on May 8, 2012 at 08:57 am
No Comments Yet

Whenever elections rolled around Dorgan, Conrad and Pomeroy put on their flannel shirts to film commercials with soothing guitar music as they told us that they believed in North Dakota values. The biased North Dakota media did their best to convince us they were moderates, not your run of the mill Democrats.

Real unemployment numbers are nearing Great Depression levels thanks to their votes for socialism. We just about have $4 a gallon gasoline thanks to their votes against drilling. The federal government is borrowing money by the trillions to support their entitlement spending. They voted for the most radical legislation ever passed, a government takeover of our healthcare industry. After promising to protect Medicare, they betrayed seniors by gutting it to pass Obamacare. All three even voted for amnesty for illegal aliens.

Where are Dorgan and Pomeroy today? In Washington making big bucks lobbying for the healthcare nightmare that they passed and North Dakota didn’t want. You can’t get the corruption of Washington out of these career politicians.

North Dakota finally realized that Dorgan, Conrad and Pomeroy were left wing extremists marching to the beat of the radical and socialist Democrat party. We awakened from our nightmare and chased them out of office.

History has a funny way of repeating itself. Today Heidi Heitcamp is trying to distance herself from the Democratic Party while trying to convince us that she believes in North Dakota values. The biased liberal North Dakota media is trying to convince us that she’s a moderate. She says that she will protect Medicare after campaigning for Obamacare which gutted it. She referred to President Obama as “awesome”. She’s an extremist just like Dorgan, Conrad, Pomeroy and President Obama. There’s nothing new.

It’s dejavu. If we fall for the same old trick, we will wake up to another socialist nightmare.

DR. MARK W. HENDRICKSON: YO-YO ECONOMICS?

By Steve Cates on May 8, 2012 at 08:35 am
No Comments Yet
Editor’s note: A version of this article first appeared at Forbes.com.
 
President Obama recently referred to free-market economics as “you’re-on-your-own economics.” It’s a catchy phrase—rhythmic, alliterative, clever. Too bad it’s bunk.
 
The only genuine “you’re on your own economics”—let’s call it “yo-yo economics,” for short—is known as “Robinson Crusoe economics.” It applies only to those who really are on their own, like sole inhabitants of islands or hermits. Apart from those oddities, human beings don’t live in solitude, but are interdependently connected in a social division of labor.
 
In a free-market economy, individuals typically prosper to the extent that they contribute economic value to others. Those who earn high incomes are generally producing more of what people value than those earning lower incomes. To President Obama and his ideological kindred, social justice consists of government overseeing a compulsory redistribution of property from the productive to the less productive. Disdaining free markets as “yo-yo economics,” Obama advocates a radically different agenda—what we might call “we’ll always take care of you” economics, or, to use another child’s toy as an acronym, “BB economics” (as in “Big Brother economics”).
 
We may concede to the president that, in a free market, some people will be in need. These include children, the sick and disabled, and even some healthy, involuntarily unemployed adults. It is a non sequitur, though, to conclude that the federal government must provide economic support to those people. Relatives, friends, neighbors, churches, voluntary community organizations, etc., can address those needs at far less cost and with a much more personal touch than can federal bureaucracies. Even if one believes that government must be involved, local, county, and state governments are closer to the situation than Uncle Sam.
 
The declaration that federal programs are not essential is anathema to the president’s belief in BB economics. According to him, yo-yo economics “has been tried in history and it hasn’t worked. It didn’t work when we tried it in the decade before the Great Depression. It didn’t work when we tried it in the last decade.” Wrong, wrong, and wrong. Let’s correct those errors with facts.
 
1) What the president belittles as “yo-yo economics”—that is, a system characterized by voluntary economic transactions—predominated for the first 125 years of our history. The glaring and regrettable exception, of course, was slavery. The salient historical fact here is that during the period of yo-yo economics, the United States developed into the richest country in the world. Contrary to the president’s counterfactual statement, “yo-yo economics” did work.
 
2) Later in our history, in the 1920s and 1930s, the superiority of the free-market/yo-yo over the government-intervention/BB model was clearly demonstrated. The depression of 1920-21 was as severe and rapid an economic contraction as any in U.S. history. Unlike the contraction in 1929-30 that eventually persisted for 12 years, the severe depression in the early ‘20s ended in 1922. By 1923, the economy was firing on all cylinders. Why?
 
The policy response of the Harding-Coolidge administration was to cut tax rates and slash government spending—basically to get government out of the way to let free markets make the necessary price adjustments. In the 1920s, yo-yo economics was an indisputable success. Obama’s insistence that “it didn’t work when we tried it in the decade before the Great Depression” is patently untrue.
 
In stark contrast to the successful policy response in the early ‘20s, Presidents Hoover and Roosevelt opted for BB economics: massive tax increases, government spending, new regulations. The result was the 12 years of made-in-Washington misery that became known as the Great Depression. Ignoring that grim historical lesson, Obama has persisted in pushing 1930s-style, debt-financed, “stimulus” spending and a huge expansion of government power over economic activity.
 
3) President Obama’s third historical inaccuracy was that “we tried [yo-yo economics] in the last decade” under George W. Bush and “it didn’t work.” Here, the president is half-right. It’s true that the last decade’s overall economic performance was inferior. The problem with the president’s statement is that George W. Bush’s policies were the antithesis of yo-yo economics—everything from the addition of a new federal entitlement (Medicare Part D) to Wall Street bailouts to expanding the annual federal budget from $2 to $3 trillion per year in only eight years.
 
The president’s aggressive historical revisionism is no mere academic debate. We’re not dealing here with inconsequential trivia like his 2008 gaffe about having visited 57 states. The stakes are much greater. Obama has contrived a historical narrative that justifies the kinds of economic policies that retard rather than promote prosperity.
 
The truth will make us free—and falsehood will make us less free. 
 
— Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson is an adjunct faculty member, economist, and fellow for economic and social policy with The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College.

© 2012 by The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College. The views & opinions
expressed herein may, but do not necessarily, reflect the views of Grove City College.
 

Friday, April 13, 2012

DENNIS STILLINGS: TRADITION OF CORRUPTION IN SMALL TOWN NEWSPAPER

By Steve Cates on April 13, 2012 at 11:36 am
No Comments Yet

During the night of August 28-29, 1889, a “mob” destroyed the offices of the Valley City Times-Record.  It was speculated that local anti-prohibitionist businessmen were involved, since the stance of the Times-Record was prohibitionist.  At the time, Valley City was known as a rough-and-tumble “wide open” town.

A different, more genteel, approach to press censorship occurred in 1947 when Don C. Matchan was the owner and editor of the Times-Record.  Matchan’s somewhat left-of-center editorials went against the grain of several local businessmen. They moved to force Matchan out.  This went strongly against the will of the community according to a newspaper poll conducted by Matchan.  The Matchan Affair was reported in Time magazine.

Whatever one’s opinion of Matchan’s views, he was an exceptional person and—probably motivated by the threat of lost advertising revenues—he moved on to … well, anywhere else.  After Don Matchan, the Times-Record was partly or wholly owned by out-of-state individuals or corporations and, most recently, ended up in the hands of Horizon Publications of Marion, Illinois.

In brief: In July of 2011, one of the Times-Record employees, reporting to the T-R Publisher, Nikki Zinke, went over Ms. Zinke’s head to Melanie Radler, President of the Times-Record’s owners, Horizon Publications.  This individual, angling for Zinke’s job, reported to Radler that Zinke’s editorial policies were causing problems in Valley City that might be affecting advertising revenues.

As far as I know, no evidence of revenue losses were presented, but apparently even a whiff of such a possibility got the attention of Radler and Horizon—and they responded.

Many of the citizens of Valley City and Barnes County had welcomed the genuine hard-hitting investigative reporting that had become part of the editorial policy of the Times-Record  This was in stark contrast to the puff-and-fluff pieces that had hitherto dominated the Times-Record’s pages and had cast a shadow on their efforts to create an image of Valley City as some sort of up-and-coming Mayberry.

Horizon Publications sent an agent to interview “influential” townspeople. The result was that Zinke was fired.

On August 15th, Editor Lee Morris, sick of the intrigue and backstabbing taking place, wrote a camouflaged account of the events leading to Zinke’s firing.  His highly critical column, vaguely titled “An American pastime and politics,” was disguised by using the byline of Gene Lyons, a syndicated columnist whose opinion columns appear regularly in the Times-Record.  Lee then slipped this column into the Times-Record copy just before it was sent to the printer.
Lee’s exposé was picked up by dozens of blogs and other news outlets worldwide.  In addition to media sources throughout the eastern part of this state, national and international news outlets re-told Lee’s story.  These publications included Forbes, Stinky Journalism, The Fort Worth Weekly, Mondo Times (“media coverage involving 31,250 media outlets worldwide”), Inside Milwaukee, Media Jobs Daily, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, even LankaWeb (Sri Lanka) and The Paepae, published in Auckland, New Zealand.

Triad Watch of North Carolina commented: “An amazing story of how local newspapers manipulate the news.” And, in the words of Gillian Shaw of Google+:

 

A stunning commentary on the state of journalism or lack thereof at the North Dakota Valley City Times-Record.  Even more stunning is the fact that departing Lee Morris managed to get [his opinion of it] printed in that paper as his final contribution.

 

Online articles and comments were 100% in support of Nikki Zinke.  It is also clear from these comments and articles that policies of censorship-for-profit are quite common in small-town newspapers.

It should be also clear by now that the efforts of certain Valley Citians, in consort with outside controllers, have given Valley City a widespread reputation for scandal far beyond what might have been caused by letting the Times-Record operate by its own lights under Nikki Zinke.

What we currently have is control of Valley City Times-Record news and editorial content that involves collusion between an outside agency and local malcontents.

What is the character of Horizon Publications, the owners of the Valley City Times-Record—the people who dictate the nature of its content?

Melanie Radler at Horizon Publications—who had set in motion Nikki Zinke’s firing on the basis of unsubstantiated accusations from Nikki’s in-house enemy—took over as president of Horizon when her father, David Radler, the founder of the business, was sentenced to prison. David Radler was convicted of fraud, along with his partner in crime, Conrad Black, both of whom illegally pocket millions.

Nikki Zinke has since gone on to publish North Dakota’s newest newspaper—The Independent of Barnes County (launched October 28, 2011)—dedicated to area issues, events, and culture.  Her efforts will cause the Horizon-controlled Times-Record some problems.

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

STEVE CATES: BLUNT DISCOVERY PREFERENTIALLY PROVIDED AND WITHHELD

By Steve Cates on March 21, 2012 at 08:16 pm
1 Comment

A major aspect of the prosecution of Charles “Sandy” Blunt was related to Mr. David Spencer, a senior staff subordinate of Blunt’s, departure from North Dakota Workforce Safety and Insurance (WSI). The Burleigh County State’s Attorney’s Office (BCSAO) PREFERENTIALLY PROVIDED to and PREFERENTIALLY WITHHELD from Blunt materials from four criminal investigation reports authored by Special Agent (SA) Michael Quinn of the North Dakota Bureau of Criminal Investigation (BCI) during the fall of 2007.

These “Quinn Reports” consisted of a written narrative of investigation activities and hundreds of pages of inclusions/attachments. None of the Quinn Reports after June 19, 2007 with the investigation narratives were provided Blunt. BCSAO DID provide Blunt 186 pages of documents that the SA Quinn obtained from North Dakota Workforce Safety and Insurance (WSI) and the North Dakota Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Quinn described those documents as having been in the “Manila envelop.” BCSAO DID NOT provide 142 pages and a 1.25 hour long audio recording of a primary prosecution witness. Those materials included items listed in the reports as “ATTACHMENTS” as well as those not individually listed that came from as SA Quinn stated, “Manila envelope containing copies of documents provided by WSI under an Open Records request”.

 

Other than the 20 pages of the diary of a WSI senior staff member Mark Armstrong and 10 pages of OMB Spencer pay records, ALL of the evidence that the prosecutors provided Blunt from the fall 2007 Quinn Reports were from the “Manila Envelope.”

The vast majority of the provided “Manila Envelope” documents (181 of 186 pages) concerned Spencer and are available to anyone from WSI under North Dakota open records laws. The five pages (5 of 186 pages) of non-Spencer matter pages are email communications between WSI and the North Dakota State Auditor’s Office concerning pay grade evaluation of WSI employees.

The “Manila Envelope” documents were mostly basic personnel file related materials concerning the hiring process, internal agency policy awareness, employee performance evaluation, career development, expense submittal and reimbursement records, emails between WSI employees regarding Spencer leaving the agency, and OMB pay records, etc.

Fall 2007 Quinn investigation discovery materials were provided on only two dates:

 

August 25, 2008 Discovery

 

September 19, 2008 Discovery

 

In filing to the North Dakota Supreme Court and in testimony during her June 2011 attorney ethics hearing, Ms. Feland has repeatedly asserted that “ALL” evidence in possession of the Burleigh County State’s Attorney’s Office (BCSAO) was provided to Blunt. Feland has made claims that she kept “a stack” (as in a single stack) of evidence from SA Quinn which resided on a credenza behind her desk while waiting for confirmation that Blunt would be tried. She claims that when it was official that the trial would take place that she put “ALL” of the Quinn discovery Credenza Stack in “Kim’s box” (reference to her legal assistant Kim Bless) so that the assistant could process the discovery and send it “ALL” to Blunt’s attorney, Mr. Michael Hoffman.

 

This appears to be incorrect. It would seem that SOME of the Quinn documents, all supposedly from the same single “Credenza Stack”, given to Bless, were rigorously itemized on discovery check lists and provided to defendant Blunt. But for some reason the four Quinn reports themselves were never provided to defendant Blunt except Quinn Report “ATTACHMENT”s listed as gift certificate logs from 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and the Mark Armstrong diary.

 

Attorney Hoffman testified under oath in Ms. Feland’s attorney ethics hearing and specified which Quinn Report documents attachments were not provided as discovery by BCSAO to defendant Blunt (Feland Ethics Hearing Transcript of June 29, 2011, beginning on page 81). Oddly, those documents claimed by Hoffman to have not been provided were the EXACT SAME as those that neither BCSAO’s Bless nor Feland could provide a discovery checklist nor a photocopying bill for, even though the documents that Hoffman testified that he had not received came from the “Credenza Stack” that Feland claims to have put into “Kim’s box” and which Bless corroborated such under sworn testimony during the ethics hearing

 

 

BCI Quinn Report – 06/19/2007 thru 10/10/2007

From the first of the four not provided to defendant 2007 2007 BCI Quinn Reports:

 

The discovery provided by BCSAO to Blunt from first 2007 Quinn Report “Manila Envelope” was:

 

On August 25, 2008, Bless of the BCSAO transmits to Hoffman a Discovery Checklist Supplemental that consisted of 108 pages of document copies all of which were from the BCI Quinn Reports "Manila Envelope." From that BCSAO checklist:

 

20 _Hand written notes - 4/18/07 - 5/08/07

14_Various emails (Tim Wahlin, etc.)

1 _ Attendance Policy

15 _ Spencer paycheck information

24 _ Hiring Selection Paperwork

10 _ Personnel Action Form & Related Documents

12 _ Performance Information

8 _ Acknowledgments

2 _ Miscellaneous (Awards, Training, etc.)

2 _ Career Development Information

 

On September 19, 2008, Bless of the BCSAO transmits to Hoffman a Discovery Checklist Supplemental that consisted of 78 pages of document copies all of which were from the BCI Quinn Reports "Manila Envelope." From that BCSAO checklist:

 

4 _ December 27, 2004 (Ck #50047240)

10 _ March 22,2005 (Ck #50154876)

12 _ April 12, 2005 (Ref #001 01858)

4 _ April20, 2005 (Ref #00107990)

2 _ May 17, 2005 (Ref #00115922)

6 _ June 7, 2005 (Ref#00119567)

4 _ June 22, 2005 (Ref #00122247)

5 _ October 4, 2005 (Ref #00135590)

5 _ October 11,2005 (Ref #00137310)

4 _ December 6,2005 (Ref #00144199)

9 _ December 20,2005 (Ref #00146578)

6 _ April 26, 2006 (Ref #00240907)

3 _ June 27, 2006 (Ref #00254698)

4 _ September 7, 2006 (Ref #00265731)

 

 

BCI Quinn Report – 10/11/2007 thru 10/24/2007

From the second of the four BCI Quinn Reports 

not provided to defendant Blunt (emphasis added in red is material Hoffman testified to as not having received from BCSA):


 

There is no BCSAO Discovery Checklist documenting that the above listed items shown in red were provided to defendant Blunt by BCSAO.

 

BCI Quinn Report – 10/25/2007 thru 11/16/2007

From the third of the four not provided to defendant Blunt, 2007 BCI Quinn Reports (emphasis added in red is material Hoffman testified to as not having received from BCSA):

 

There is no BCSAO Discovery Checklist documenting that the above listed items shown in red were provided to defendant Blunt by BCSAO.

 

BCI Quinn Report – 11/17/2007 thru 12/12/2007

1.      No items of evidence were seized as a result of this report.

 

Cynthia Feland has repeatedly claimed that if discovery was not provided to defendant Blunt it was by accident. An oversight. Too much paper. Neglected to create a discovery checklist……..

This is all very curious as on November 3, 2008, at Blunt’s Pretrial Hearing, Hoffman makes it clear that the defense has little no law enforcement investigation reports or interviews of listed witness in the matter of David Spencer but Feland tells The Court that all of “our ducks” have been placed in rows (red bolding emphasis added):

 

Page 14

 

15 MR. HOFFMAN: It's brand new. It's not a

16 matter of him just being a witness or not, it's the

17 theory of the prosecution that's changing.

18 You know, when we got the original discovery

19 in this case, I would have to say that the State in

20 terms of either BCI, law enforcement doing an

21 investigation before they brought charges, was next to

22 nothing. It was based upon them meeting with state

23 auditors and state auditors saying these things are

24 questionable, and then charging. I think the

25 discovery, those they talked to -- well, Angie

 

Page 15

 

1 Scherbenske was one, Tammy Dolan was another at the

2 time of bringing the charges. These are witnesses that

3 are named on the Information. But most of the names on

4 the Information, in terms of discovery of law

5 enforcement going and talking to witnesses and making a

6 report, it doesn't exist. These are all names of

7 people. Yeah, we're familiar with them because they're

8 involved with WSI. We have knowledge of who they are

9 and what potentially they might say. But in terms of

10 the State doing an investigation where they go out and

11 talk to the people and here is the report of what this

12 person says, it doesn't exist except for Angie

13 Scherbenske, Tammy Dolan, and maybe another one. The

14 other isn't corning to my mind right now. But all of

15 this Dave Spencer is brand new. It changes the theory

16 of the prosecution.

 

In response to Hoffman’s statements, The State (through Feland) assures/guarantees Judge Romanick that they “made sure” that anything at all in The State’s discovery relating to the additional criminal offenses was “sent out” to Blunt:

 

Pages 17 and 18

 

16 As I stated to the Court, the interview that

17 was conducted of Mr. Spencer took place back in '07.

18 No, I'll be candid with the Court, it wasn't my intent

19 to necessarily not provide it, but while we were

20 waiting for the Supreme Court, there wasn't really any

21 ongoing discovery that went out at that point. We

22 didn't know where the case was going to be. As soon as

23 the Supreme Court came back indicating, yes, there was

24 sufficient evidence for probable cause, then as I

25 indicated, we went through the file and anything that

1 we had had in there that had not been sent, we made

2 sure that was sent out. At that same time we started

3 going through things in preparation for trial to make

4 sure that, you know, we had all of our ducks in a row,

5 if you will. If all of the witnesses were properly

6 listed, if all of the exhibits and things that we were

7 looking at had been provided to Mr. Hoffman. And we

8 have been continuing to provide that information.

 

It is critical to understand from the pre-trial hearing that it was made plain by Hoffman to The Court and Feland that he had not received any discovery in the form of interviews or reports by law enforcement regarding David Spencer or anyone/anything else between June of 2007 and the time of the hearing. To which Feland responds making the inference by omission that Spencer had been the ONLY person interviewed. From the BCI Quinn reports we know that many other witnesses were interviewed regarding Spencer. Feland somehow neglects to mention that Wahl, Wahlin, Bjornson, Peltz, and Long had also been documented to have spoken to Quinn and exchange records with Quinn as well.

 

Also, Feland claims that as soon as she knew that the trial was going to happen according to the Supreme Court, that she had everything pertaining to Blunt reviewed and whatever had not been sent was sent to the Defendant. Since she has been unable to provide any Discovery Checklists or billings sent to the defense for photocopying for the discovery supplements records, what exactly did BCSAO “review” to make sure all of “our ducks” were lined up?

 

How is it that only some of the “credenza stack” is listed and verified to have been provided the defendant?

 

Why can BCSAO not find the other documentation for the other portion of the “credenza stack?”

 

Where two stacks made?

 

Was only one stack turned over to the defendant?

 

Why can BCSAO not find the checklists or billing records for only those materials that Hoffman testifies he did not receive?

 

If you understand what is the material difference between what BCSAO provided and what they did not provide defendant Blunt, the question of why exculpatory evidence was withheld becomes readily apparent.

 

Perhaps most compelling are statements on the issue of what was withheld were those made by the North Dakota State Supreme Court Disciplinary Board Panel regarding in the matter of attorney Cynthia Feland. After review of hundreds of pages of documents, and after two days of witness testimony during the hearing that took place on June 29 and 30, 2011, the Panel states in their November 2011 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendation For Suspension that:

 

“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”. Page 4

 

“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”. Page 5

 

“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”. Page 9

 

From the June 30, 2011 Feland Ethics Hearing Transcript (page 369):


 

"MR. ULMER to MS. FELAND: I guess where I get confused in this particular -- not confused -- where I struggle is I think of a prosecutor's obligation to prosecute, but more importantly, I think of the prosecutor's obligation to also do justice. … but I still am struggling internally with where is the sense of justice here? This is one of the issues or why most folks walk around and go -- they demean the process. … So we're coming in with some sort of entrapment process rather than a straightforward where are we, and I think that's frankly what's wrong with the judicial system at this juncture."


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Friday, February 10, 2012

CHARLES G. MILLS: THE WAGGING FINGER

By Steve Cates on February 10, 2012 at 09:29 am
No Comments Yet

GLEN COVE, NY -- Governor Jan Brewer has been criticized by some for an encounter on the tarmac of an Arizona airport with President Obama. She was photographed pointing - or wagging - a finger at him. The truth is that she was doing her duty to a degree that is rare among state governors today.

 


There is clearly bad blood between the two. The Obama administration is attacking the constitutionality of Arizona's attempt to control criminal and disorderly illegal immigrants within its borders. Arizona, meanwhile, is joining with most other states in attacking the constitutionality of the centerpiece of Obama's legislative achievements, the Stalinist scheme known as Obamacare.

 


The Arizona governor gave President Obama a written invitation to meet and to visit the Arizona-Mexican border. He apparently walked away without accepting it. Governor Brewer did her duty by wagging her finger at him and trying to correct him.

 


The criticism of Governor Brewer stems from a basic misunderstanding: Many people wrongly think that the president actually has the power to give orders to state governors. He does not. State governors are neither part of the federal government nor subordinate to it. They derive their powers, rather, from the sovereign people of their states.

 


Governor Brewer's duty is thus to the people of Arizona. She is not a federal civil servant who must defer to Obama. Indeed, she must hold him duty bound to honor her state's sovereignty - and correct him when he does not.

 


The limitations that the federal government can legitimately put on a state governor are few, and all authorized by express language in the United States Constitution. They are few and include, but are not limited to, the following: State governors cannot decree ex post facto punishments, decree corruption of blood, make paper money, deprive people of a fair trial, restrict voting rights on the basis of race, create a hereditary aristocracy, invalidate contracts, impose custom duties, or segregate public facilities.

 


These restrictions, however, do not come from the federal government, but from the sovereign people of the states. The people of each state are "free and independent by the grace of God," as many official documents describe the people of the State of New York. The sovereign people place great restrictions on the power of the governor through the instrument of a state constitution. Governors actually do not have much power - and what power they do have truly belongs to the sovereign people of their states.

 


The president of the United States is entitled to a certain courtesy precedence over a state governor. For example more guns are fired when saluting a president than a governor. He has a higher diplomatic position than a governor. This is because all fifty states have decided voluntarily, in adhering to the Constitution, to exhibit the majesty and power of our nation as a union, not as individual states.

 


The courtesy precedence extended to the president should not be dispositive of his rank in constitutional questions with respect to the governors, however. Although the president is obviously the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, he does not command the state militias - the governors do. Certainly, he has exclusive power with the Senate to make treaties. He is also the chief executive and chief magistrate of the executive department of the federal government.

 


At the same time, he is the servant of the people of the United States. This is not a single conglomerate American people, but the people of each of the fifty states. History clearly proves this. Rhode Island did not become subject to the Constitution as soon as nine states ratified it, or as soon as the first Congress and president were elected, or as soon as federal judges were appointed and confirmed for the other twelve original states. It became a state only when it chose to ratify the Constitution and enter into the compact with the other states.

 


Of all fifty states, not one was simply established and imposed by the federal government. Each one entered the union by virtue of its voluntary application. The first Congress proposed a Constitutional amendment - one that was rapidly adopted - which made it express and explicit that every power not specifically delegated by the states to the federal government was "reserved to the states, respectively, or the people." This language is clear: Sovereignty is in the people of the respective states, not of some conglomerate.

 


The president is elected by the Electoral College, which is chosen by state law by the people of each state separately. He represents the compact between the states. The governors, on the other hand, represent the people of their states. The president has a duty to correct a governor only when he or she violates a specifically delegated federal power. The governor, on the other hand, represents the full general power of the people of the state and must oppose any transgression against his or her people by a president illegitimately trying to expand federal power.

 

Jan Brewer has set the example. Let fifty hands wag fingers at the president whenever he tries to usurp power from the people of the states.

. . .

###

The Confederate Lawyer archives

 

###

The Confederate Lawyer column is copyright © 2012 by

Charles G. Mills and the Fitzgerald Griffin Foundation,www.fgfBooks.com. All rights reserved. This column may be posted or forwarded if credit is given to Charles Mills and fgfBooks.com.

 

Thursday, February 09, 2012

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

By Steve Cates on February 9, 2012 at 10:39 am
1 Comment

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

By Steve Cates on February 6, 2012 at 10:49 am
1 Comment

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-go” guarantee 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-go” guarantee 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.

By Steve Cates on February 3, 2012 at 11:08 am
1 Comment

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!

By Steve Cates on December 5, 2011 at 01:52 pm
No Comments Yet

 

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

By Steve Cates on November 21, 2011 at 03:45 pm
No Comments Yet

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-go” guarantee 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-go” guarantee 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

By Steve Cates on November 14, 2011 at 08:43 am
No Comments Yet

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?

By Steve Cates on November 10, 2011 at 07:11 pm
No Comments Yet

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”

By Steve Cates on November 9, 2011 at 12:08 pm
1 Comment

 

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>

 1 2 3 >  Last »
Page 1 of 16 pages