Bismarck Tribune - Bismarck News - Judge orders WSI trial

Judge orders WSI trial

Aug 30, 2007 - 04:05:06 CDT

By CRYSTAL R. REID
Bismarck Tribune

A South Central District Court judge determined there is enough evidence for two state agency executives to go on trial for felony charges.

Judge Donald Jorgensen ruled Wednesday afternoon to send Charles "Sandy" Blunt, executive director of Workforce Safety and Insurance, and Romi Leingang, head of the agency's special investigations unit, to trial for conspiracy to disclose confidential information.

The charge stems from an investigation WSI conducted to discover the identity of the sender of an e-mail containing WSIsalary information. In the course of the investigation, driver's license photos of suspects were allegedly downloaded and shown to employees of the Mandan Public Library and Northbrook Post Office.

The preliminary hearing, which is held to determine whether there is probable cause to believe an offense has been committed by the defendants and whether the charges should go to trial, was Friday. It ended in all sides agreeing to submit briefs. Jorgensen reviewed the briefs and issued his order Wednesday.

"From the evidence presented at the time of the hearing, this court does herewith find that there is probable cause to believe that each of the defendants, Charles Blunt and Romi Leingang, did knowingly engage in a conspiracy to secure confidential information for public disclosure ..."Jorgensen wrote in his ruling.

He then ordered the court administrator to immediately schedule an arraignment date, where both defendants will enter a plea.

Tim Purdon, representing Leingang, and Michael Hoffman, representing Blunt, could not be reached for comment late Wednesday, but both have said their clients are not guilty.

Richard Riha, the Burleigh County state's attorney, and Cynthia Feland and Lloyd Suhr, assistant prosecutors who are handling the case, also could not be reached for comment.

The preliminary hearing briefs for Leingang andBlunt were filed Monday afternoon; Feland and Suhr filed their brief on the same day.

Jorgensen had asked all sides to focus on the word "disclosure."

And while both defendants' attorneys focused on disclosure, among other points, the state's brief also addressed the wording of the charge, which relates to "conspiracy to disclose."

"The defendants in the present case are charged with conspiracy to disclose confidential information not disclosure of confidential information," Feland and Lloyd wrote. "The fact that a disclosure may have occurred in this case is irrelevant. It is the agreement and the commission of an overt act that are at issue."

Hoffman's brief contended that WSIinvestigators, according to testimony of WSIinvestigator Todd Flanigan, did not show driver's license photos in the photo lineup, which was alleged to contain photos obtained from driver's licenses through a Department of Transportation agreement, as well as photos from the agency's intranet.

Flanagan's testimony said only photos of females were obtained from DOT, but no photograph or computerized image of a woman was shown in the photo lineup.

The prosecution's brief, however, pointed to testimony that said a man's driver's license photo was also downloaded.

Purdon's brief detailed two potential "disclosures" in the case:DOT's disclosure to WSI, and the alleged disclosure of the photographs by WSIemployees.

Purdon wrote in the brief that the state was unable to prove that the photographs downloaded from DOT by WSIwere actually shown to persons at the Mandan Library and Northbrook Post Office.

The evidence at the preliminary hearing was that photographs of females were downloaded by WSIemployees from DOT, but that no photographs of females were ever shown at the Mandan Public Library or the Northbrook Post Office,Purdon wrote.

He added, however, that were the photographs shown at the library and post office, it would have been a legal redisclosure of the information.

The prosecution's brief ended saying that both Blunt and Leingang committed the offense of disclosure of confidential information.

"Both Blunt and Leingang knew the DOTphoto images were confidential, yet, they used them to try and discern the identity of the sender of the JRUNNINGS e-mail,"prosecution wrote. "The DOT images were not accessed as part of a legitimate WSIinvestigation as WSI is only authorized to investigate fraud against the fund."

(Reach reporter Crystal R. Reid at 250-8261 or at crystal.reid@;bismarcktribune.com.)

News > Topnews

Printer friendly version Judge orders WSI trial

Comments

ILuvamystery wrote on Sep 13, 2007 11:28 PM:

" (quote) To How About this Thought: wrote on Sep 5, 2007 9:41 PM: " I agree! Where is the person that started all this with the email? None of this would be happening if that person hadn't stuck their nose where it didn't belong, use others and their salaries to make a dig at someone else, and sent out information that was inappropriate to use as an apparent weapon to satisfy some kind of grudge, in my way of thinking. That's just my take on it,................Even more so. Where is that person now? Gloating? Hiding? Reveling in revenge? I sure would like to know. "(end quote) This was the same kind of thinking that Blunt had, and you see where it got him. You two are of the same mind. Suppose the e-mailer thought nothing more than, “gee this is interesting,” and thought others might want to see the information for career choice/direction. No one could have predicted that Blunt would blow a cork over it. "

Online Editor wrote on Sep 11, 2007 12:37 PM:

" To Pasionatepear: Another reader may possibly be able to answer you payroll question, but I doubt any salary would be returned. The image verifier can be a pain in the neck, but it keeps some spam away from the comment section. Here are a couple of tips - there are no capital letters in the image vefier. Also, the lower case L has a straight top, the number one has a top that is angled down. I hope this helps. "

Pasionatepear wrote on Sep 11, 2007 11:57 AM:

" On-line Editor: can you find out if Blunt's and Leingang's paid temporary leave salaries will be returned to WSI payroll, if they are found guilty. Oh, and another question: why do I get the "image did not match" message almost everytime I try to post something. I don't think I "mistake" the image that often. "

state employee wrote on Sep 6, 2007 10:12 AM:

" Mike R is right state employee salaries are open records for anyone to see, they are part of a budget for that department. North Dakota is an open records state and the only employee records that are not public are those that contain private information such as social security numbers and medical information. "

smart guy wrote on Sep 6, 2007 9:11 AM:

" Sounds like they should thank Flanagan for not using the photos. Lucky he was smart enough to not do so. But the intent must have been there in order for him to have had the pictures in the first place. Why was he "investigating" this in the first place. Like many have said, it is public record. Sounds like a witch hunt that ended up burning the bosses. "

Mike R wrote on Sep 5, 2007 10:51 PM:

" How about this thought: It doesn't matter if you like it or not. It doesn't matter if the other employees like it or not. I do believe that state employee salaries are public record. I don't care who dislikes it. It is public record. You cannot retalitate against someone for disclosing public record - even if you don't like it. If you don't like people knowing what you make, get a job in the private sector. "

To How About this Thought: wrote on Sep 5, 2007 9:41 PM:

" I agree! Where is the person that started all this with the email? None of this would be happening if that person hadn't stuck their nose where it didn't belong, use others and their salaries to make a dig at someone else, and sent out information that was inappropriate to use as an apparent weapon to satisfy some kind of grudge, in my way of thinking. That's just my take on it, but that person took some liberties himself (or herself) and I think that whoever that is should be held accountable just as much as anyone else. What that person did, in my opinion, is just as wrong as what others did to try to catch him. Even more so. Where is that person now? Gloating? Hiding? Reveling in revenge? I sure would like to know. "

To "Thoughts of Logic" wrote on Sep 5, 2007 6:59 PM:

" If the point was to reveal the unfairness of the salaries....do you really think it was necessary to send all of them? If that was the actual intention, the only ones that would have needed to be sent would be the "favorites" as you call them. And speaking of the favorites. If that were really the case, don't you think the people often referred to as the "Ohio" group would have been the ones to get the "bump" and from the information provided....they weren't on that list. What's your next guess? "

Online Editor wrote on Sep 5, 2007 8:46 AM:

" To SCates: All of your details point a finger at one person and will not be published. "

Thoughts of Logic wrote on Sep 4, 2007 9:51 PM:

" Maybe the person(s) who sent the email salary wanted to reveal the unfairness in the salaries Blunt was handing out! Maybe the person(s) wanted to reveal how the repeated saying "I wish I could give you more than 3%, but I can't", wasn't practiced across the board, specifically when certain employees were getting 5, 6, & higher percentages, with no justification! Maybe the person(s) wanted to reveal how Blunt bumped up some of his favorites above and beyond what the Hayes Group market analysis indicated! Maybe the person(s) wanted to call Blunt on his lack of integrity & honesty! The question of who sent the email isn't relevant! Sure some would like to know who sent it, however, it's Blunt's actions afterwards that put WSI, as an organization, and himself right where they are today! "

How about this thought? wrote on Sep 4, 2007 8:48 PM:

" How many employees of WSI do you think wanted their salary sent to everyone else? Even the front line employees don't care to have other front line employees have their salary spread all over. I wish they would have shown the picture, got a positive ID and then that person could have been contacted by 200 people that were upset with them. Wondering what in the world they were hoping to accomplish by doing something so inconsiderate. I can tell you I sure wouldn't find Sandy and Romi guilty for trying to track this person down. In a dream world, that person would be charged with being completely self centered and ridiculously inconsiderate of people they probably treated like friends at some point. Too bad we can't find out who it is for sure. Maybe that person would like to have something from their private life made very public. "

Oh $$$$$ talks......... wrote on Sep 2, 2007 4:47 PM:

" I would just like someone to clear up a few things- Will those people whose photos were shown to various places EVER know that their photo was misused? The word is there are some women whose photos were going to be shown around town, wil they ever know who they were? How awful to use these people's photos when they had nothing to do with this situation. I do believe an apology is in order to the people who's pictures were used inconspicuously. Also, I am wondering WHY Leingang had access to these photos if she indeed was NOT one of two people authorized to use this information? Did Sandy okay her to snoop around in DOT's database - Why else would she try and access information she was not privey to ? Someone is mis-using power again - gee could it really be another...... wealthy Republican?? Big surprise!! "

Hey Who cares. wrote on Aug 31, 2007 12:14 AM:

" It's your legislature that writes the laws. You should talk to them about changing the laws. The State's Attorney is just doing his job. The job we elected him to do. Maybe you have a problem with this democracy thing. Me I'm an anarchist. Sandy Rules. "

All this? wrote on Aug 30, 2007 11:48 PM:

" All this over some pictures that certainly can't be THAT protected or confidential or they wouldn't even be available to anyone!! Really, this is nothing but a witchhunt, and me thinks, just my humble opinion, that someone has eyes for those jobs. Mark my words - this is how politics operates, and see who gets those jobs when the dust settles. I can't wait to see which political party wins. "

Who cares wrote on Aug 30, 2007 10:54 PM:

" Hopefully the prosecution has no limit on the cost for prosecution of this horrendous, stomach churning crime. I for one will feel so much safer that Romi and Blunt are off the streets and won't be able to conspire to show pictures to anyone again! I wish they would prosecute my brother-in-law for showing his vacation slides at Thanksgiving. Probably would have trouble getting probable cause though. What a joke! "

savysac wrote on Aug 30, 2007 7:12 PM:

" Sandy and pals thought they were untouchable. They are rude and arrogant and it brings me so much joy to see the big fish in the small pond get knocked down a notch or three! Maybe the rest of us can now look down on them for a change, I might not make $14k a month, but I am also not a convict, which they soon will be, yippee!!! "

wsi claimant wrote on Aug 30, 2007 7:09 PM:

" This situation really makes me wonder if other investigations of WSI were done legally or not. I know that after I had facts of their unfound investigation of me, I do feel my privacy was invaded when one of their investigators actually stood by my apartment with his ear to the door to see what he could hear. Added to that fact, the calls from them pretending to have a wrong number or hang up when I would answer. After being under the WSI "eagle eyes and ears" for nine months, they couldn't find any little thing to accuse me of being fraudalent. Yes, there are those that abuse the system, but not all do. So the fact that they checked me out doesn't bother me in the least, but in the way they did it, I feel was an intrusion of privacy, and I question all the legality of the way they did it. "

Heritage wrote on Aug 30, 2007 7:05 PM:

" Mr. Cates, why then did Mark Armstong say a "MALE" photo was downloaded and shown to library staff. Would you answer that once and for all. You keep harping about female photos, and read the Tribune story, Feland disputed that with a signed letter from M. Armstrong - if you don't believe it, here is a link to the letter (.http://www.northdecoder.com/ images/stories/ NorthDecoder001/ Confessionb.pdf)Being Sandy's friend may be admirable, but even friends have to at times acknowledge the truth. Also you will not answer why you harassed a former employee. What are you trying to do? Maybe your assumptions about this person were wrong, but you are coming at this with just one point of view, maybe its time to get others' perspectives or like many true partisians you only want to hear/see/believe your side and not the others. "

Pasionatepear wrote on Aug 30, 2007 5:55 PM:

" I have a question: if these two are convicted, will the state of ND get the "paid administrative leave" money back? We better, that's all I can say. "

Abuse of Power wrote on Aug 30, 2007 5:04 PM:

" It was the State Republican party who banned a Fargo City commissioner from a public paid rally due to a letter she wrote in the Fargo Forum against the war. Who was the head of the Republican Party at that time? The Tribune knows as they called for a interview and he did not answer the phone he left on vacation "real fast" as this was against the law to ban democrats as it was paid with tax payers money. They did not follow up and ask him why democrats were banned when he returned to his office. We never got a comment from him. Freedom of Speech was not protected. The editorial board endorsed this candidate for state office in the last election. This incident is another case of abuse of power by the Republican party. Karl Rove tactics seem to be at play here. I believe it was Vermont that had the secret service come and ask for all librarians records and they could not discuss under the patriot act with anyone that records were demanded. There is a book written about it as I heard the librarians talk about it on c-span. I'm not sure of the state might be CT however they fought a battle with the government on whether they had to sign over the records. "

MamaMia wrote on Aug 30, 2007 2:56 PM:

" To "Get Real": Who the heck are you talking to? Your blog referring to me has no meaning whatsoever to me. Please go back and take the time to read what I wrote. Have you confused me with another writer? "

OH BROTHER wrote on Aug 30, 2007 1:45 PM:

" TO "Settle Down", you sould a lot like Mary M and of course have an incredibly narrow view of this since its your job. You toss out that Sandy and Romey have families, well what about the families of the 70 people he's forced out since he arrived? What about the families of the 2/3 of the current staff who would like to see him, you and the rest of the management team fired? What about the families of the injured workers who he's mistreated? You pompously condemn others for taking glee when the arrogant CEO comes under fire, but you comfortably choose to ignore the many, many people who he's hurt and who's lives have been drastically and adversely affected. Maybe you should keep them in your prayers and let the $14,000 per month monster worry about himself. You see us as having hate, but in reality I think its you who chooses to ignore the people this guy has hurt. How can you live with such a conscience? "

To Tim from Bismarck and Settle down wrote on Aug 30, 2007 1:44 PM:

" Turning WSI over to private insurance is not the answer...you mention "frankie Wald"...HE IS AN INSURANCE AGENT!!! That would be like throwing the frying pan into the fire.. Settle down...ya...maybe his kids and families are suffering, but to the tune of a paid administrative leave monthly allowance of $14,000...i wish my kids could suffer like that....I resent WSI and state monies supporting staff who are accused of felonies... "

Get Real wrote on Aug 30, 2007 1:39 PM:

" Hey Mama Mia, I'm sorry our rationale escapes your clouded mind. As it stands now, there is no accountability with the board. They are appointed by the governor from a list of names submitted by the board itself. They cannot be removed by the governor no matter what they do. So there is no accountability to the people of the state. At least under the governor--who is elected by the people--there would be some accountability because he/she would have to face the voters. It doesn't matter if the governor is R or D, he/she answers to the people of this state. That's a far cry from this worthless board who answers to NO ONE. I hope that simplifies it for you. "

political observer wrote on Aug 30, 2007 1:35 PM:

" To SCates, yeh you are the guy I'd trust to independently look at documents and come to a valid, unbiased opinion. You author some ultra conservative Republican newsletter, you are Armstrong's best buddy and you have no qualms about tossing people's names about without really knowing what you are talking about. You get some audit papers, and without a shred of knowledge of the complicated standards and audit procedures, you have already trashed the auditor's office. You call an ex-WSI employee and threaten him over terminology in his separation agree with WSI. Who in the world do you think you are? If WSI feels someone isn't living up to the terms of a separation agreement they can put their legal team on it. It is NONE of your business. Next you find it incredulous that people think you could be influenced by your best buddy and your Republican buddies. Yet you have no problem advancing and feeding the impossible theory that the auditors, the attorney generals office, the highway patrol (you called their investigation "botched"), the out of state organization that did the second audit, DOT, and the state's attorney are all wrong and are all in some vast conspiracy to get Blunt. Even a delusional person would see the hypocrisy of your whining. Many of us do believe you to be impaired and your judgment is incredibly self serving with no facts to support it/ I'm a republican and have been all of my life. I work in the business community and I have read both audits and I'm ashamed of how fellow Republicans like you, Wald and Keiser have let this guy lead you around. Get real for goodness sakes! "

Tim from Bismarck wrote on Aug 30, 2007 1:31 PM:

" As myself and others previously mentioned. Disolve WSI and do what 42 other states do, let the insurance industry handle and write work comp insurance. The politics, Sandy Blunts, the Frankie Walds, The Georgie [when do I get my next free trip from WSI] Kaiser would all go away. "

daddy-0 wrote on Aug 30, 2007 12:44 PM:

" it will be interesting, i hope the bloggers of bismarck have the stomach when the final judgment is handed down. "

Overblown wrote on Aug 30, 2007 12:36 PM:

" Having this go to trial will make this way overblown. They should simply plead guilty. More than likely, because of a lack of priors, whatever punishment and/or fine, they will be given, will be suspended. They will serve no time, pay no fine, and it will all be done and over. "

Outsider's Perspective wrote on Aug 30, 2007 12:06 PM:

" You people are lame. Talk about a waste of time and money. On one side of your mouth you are blaming state Republicans for protecting big business, while out of the other, saying that this agency "should be under the control of the governor" who last time I checked was also a Republican. "

Deb wrote on Aug 30, 2007 11:59 AM:

" SCates said: "You people must think I am stupid, insane, mentally malleable or some combination of these intellectual impairments" - ya hit the nail on the head there pal! "

MamaMia wrote on Aug 30, 2007 11:32 AM:

" For crying out loud, SCates, when do you work? P.S. I'm surprised Cynthia Feland didn't turn around and clean your clock the other day in the courthouse. She could, you know. "

Settle down wrote on Aug 30, 2007 11:30 AM:

" I find it very sad that some people take such glee in seeing another's misfortune. Please try to remember that Blunt & Leingang have spouses and children that are suffering through all of this and that they are innocent until proven guilty. The truth will come out at trial and in the meantime, I plan to keep them in my prayers, not gloat about how I hope their lives are ruined. It makes me wonder how some of you can live with so much hatred. "

Pasionatepear wrote on Aug 30, 2007 11:07 AM:

" To Corrupt Gov: the same thing was going on when it was under Gov. Schafer. I know, because I worked there b/4 it was taken from the Gov. The Legislature took it from the Gov and created the Board. So, Workers Comp or WSI was and is corrupt no matter who is overseeing it. Something needs to be done - that's for sure. "

Doug D.Riley wrote on Aug 30, 2007 10:49 AM:

" It will be really nice and it is so far to see a judge thats not influenced by politics and big money--from what I had read in bismarckdems the audit could an should have put a few more charges in the bag--they should have seen the politicial favors being pulled in,I do'nt think blunt was ready for this judge,get ready for the finger pointing-name calling because it's coming,I just can't figure out why these poeple can't see wsi for what it is an what its doing, these poeple can't be that blind !! "

SCates wrote on Aug 30, 2007 10:34 AM:

" It is simply amazing. I am under the spell of 1) Mark Armstrong, 2) Sandy Blunt, 3) ND Republicans to the point that I will spent a lot of time and money to investigate this entire WSI issue. And these people are rewarding me how? You people must think I am stupid, insane, mentally malleable or some combination of these intellectual impairments. I though like to believe that I have rigorously studied many documents for many hours, tested the coherence of that information, and arrived at the conclusion that this is a miscarriage of justice. Believing this to be so, I like to believe that justice is paramount. I must be delusional! So, please enjoy the pointless rantings of a madman. But, remember, eventually the truth always prevails. "

Good work wrote on Aug 30, 2007 10:17 AM:

" Judge Jorgenson made a good ruling here. SCates' comments don't make a lot of sense. He's basically defending a malicious witchhunt of a WSI employee. Another question here is: What was Leingang and Blunt doing investigating this person on official business? "

Cates is wrong wrote on Aug 30, 2007 10:01 AM:

" SCates doggedly supports his Republican buddies. This includes Mark Armstrong at WSI. SCates needs to realize WSI is corrupt and needs to be fixed. They have a huge budget surplus and are shortchanging injured workers. Cates obviously doesn't care about that. He just cares about politics. "

Corrupt government wrote on Aug 30, 2007 9:57 AM:

" We need change in North Dakota. Republicans support WSI because of big business interests. This agency needs to be under the control of the governor. "

To Scates wrote on Aug 30, 2007 9:53 AM:

" A law officer is working for a licensed law enforcement agency and that is part of their duties. Correct me if I'm wrong WSI is not a licensed law enforcement agency. They are given the authority to investigate claims fraud, employer fraud and medical fraud cases. To my knowledge they are not allowed to do criminal investigations other than that. Also I know 2 of the SIU people are former sworn officers but not sure if they still are in their capacity with WSI. So from what I understand NO they are not allowed to use these photos for purposes of a criminal investigation of the type they did. My understanding was WSI was given access to these DOT photos and other information in regards to security concerns not for use in this type of investigation. "

Sunshine wrote on Aug 30, 2007 9:44 AM:

" I have to agree with Heritage ! Put the blame where it belongs. He knew exactly what he was doing- maybe now we will find out the reason for Blunt's actions . Blunt supporters have to quite blaming the wrong people. "

SCates wrote on Aug 30, 2007 9:11 AM:

" Downloading NDDOT images are a part of many WSI investigations. That is why WSI has access to the database. If for instance, a law enforcement officer of another agency takes a NDDOT image for the purposes of investigation, and without the person who's images is being used, that image is shown during the course of an investigation, is not that person who's image being shown having their confidential information disclosed? Is every agency using the NDDOT database disclosing confidential information as a matter of routine operation? "

POLICE STATE wrote on Aug 30, 2007 8:52 AM:

" Hey where are you "to Pharisees...."? Isn't it going to be difficult when your Chosen One is found guilty and sentenced to prison? Maybe you will call for an investigation of the judicial system too, afterall it must be fixed or biased if your master is convicted. Maybe you should have considered he wasn't the one to follow when you heard he came from Sodom and Gomorahh! "

LETS BE BLUNT wrote on Aug 30, 2007 8:46 AM:

" Isn't it refreshing when a judge actually looks at the facts of the case when deciding if it should go to trial rather than checking which political party the defendant belongs to? Great job Judge Jorgenson, at least you restored a little faith in the judicial system in this state. Once Judge "Over turn Me-fald" has his ridiculous ruling overturned by the Surpreme Court things will proceed without politics. You expect that at least to happen when a judge is involved. My only question now is that if you are to be tried by a jury of your "peers" where are they going to find 12 arrogant jerks to decide Blunt's fate? They may have to go to Ohio to find them. "

MamaMia wrote on Aug 30, 2007 8:21 AM:

" This should be interesting. "

Heritage wrote on Aug 30, 2007 6:39 AM:

" If they didn't plan on showing/using the photos why did they download them in the first place? Whether or not they showed them is not the issue, the intent was to use them, thus the conspiracy to disclose. There are many questions Blunt supporters won't/DON'T answer. Please tell us what they planned on doing with the photos? Why download them? What was the plan? Of course they won't admit their golden boy is to blame, they will blame others like they have all along. "

Post Your Own Comment

All online comments are limited to 350 words total.
Comments are reviewed for taste, tone and language before posting.
Some comments may be used in the Tribune's print edition.
We value and respect your privacy, but The Bismarck Tribune might
disclose certain information to governmental entities if served with subpoena.