Bismarck Tribune - Bismarck News - Judge denies Blunt motions

Judge denies Blunt motions

Nov 11, 2008 - 04:05:28 CST

By CRYSTAL R. REID
Bismarck Tribune

A judge denied three motions in a case against former workers' compensation director Sandy Blunt, including a motion to dismiss the charges, a motion to dismiss additional information and a motion to move the trial out of Burleigh County.

The motion to dismiss amended information centers around evidence presented by the state that allege Blunt misallocated an additional $200,000 in funds, via mispaid sick leave, moving expenses and grants.

But the initial felony charges were for the alleged misspending of a little more than $18,000 in funds; count one is for the alleged misallocation of more than $10,000 related to gift cards and party favors, and the other is for misapplication of funds exceeding $500, for alleged illegal bonuses to high-level employees.

Michael Hoffman, Blunt's attorney, said the additional expenditures presented by the state in September violated his client's right to due process, not giving them time to prepare a defense to the information. But Burleigh County Assistant State's Attorney Cynthia Feland argued at a pretrial conference last week that it was simply additional evidence that help prove a pattern.

South Central District Judge Bruce Romanick filed an order denying the three motions on Nov. 4; the trial is set for early December. Romanick denied an earlier motion to dismiss the charges on Sept. 26 and denied the motion again Nov. 4.

As for moving the trial, Hoffman argued that media attention surrounding his client would not provide him with a fair trial in Burleigh County; Romanick wrote that the court must try to assemble a jury before deciding to transfer.

"The court is aware that this case has been extensively covered by the media,"Romanick said in his order. "The court is also aware that before a case is to be moved, an attempt must be made to seat a jury. This motion is premature, and the court denies the motion to transfer as it is not clear that a fair and impartial jury cannot be found in Burleigh County."

News > Local

Printer friendly version Judge denies Blunt motions

Comments

Move it wrote on Nov 18, 2008 7:01 PM:

" With all the Blunt supporters constantly beating the drums of righteous indignation, I think the trial has to be moved. They've so tainted the jury pool we will never get a fair trial in Bismarck. Fargo's out because of Berg and Grandee. GF is out because of Hacker. Minot is Rubyville. Dickinson, well duh. I think Devils Lake should be OK. Or maybe Cartwright, ya, the Cartwrite tunnel would be a perfect place to hold this trial. "

Living It wrote on Nov 18, 2008 12:46 PM:

" I have to agree with Kimberly,all this could have been avoided if a through cleaning had been done at the beginning,but it wasn't,i also believe that blunt will receive a fair trail,thats alot more than the whislteblowers received or the injured workers,blunt brought alot of this on himself and the board stood by his side-as for some of you that complain about the cost look at how much money has been spent on audit after audit just to find one wsi liked-look at how much money wsi spends at kicking a seriously injured worker to the curb-wsi has alot of dirt and it's coming out slowly but shurely.... "

Kimberly wrote on Nov 18, 2008 8:36 AM:

" Here we go again - the conspiracy theories abound. Everyone's out to get poor Sandy. The only problem with this whole WSI issue is how it was handled in the beginning. I'm sure people would like to see this go away - for a number of reasons. While I believe that there has been too much money spent on this situation, since it's come this far, might as well do a thorough cleaning and see what else shakes out. I'm sure Blunt's chances of getting a fair trial will be much better than the treatment the whistleblowers at WSI got. "

Barney wrote on Nov 17, 2008 7:20 PM:

" Frank and I'm sure your sources are "independent" as well. I was referring to one of the last two audit reviews done by either Marsh or Connolly when they referred to Blunts managment style in his hiring of his "Ohio" buddies and the problems in the safety unit. Not my words, but the words of an outside consultant. Now the Pro-WSI said they were independent when they supported their opinions so I refer to them as independent as well "

Living It wrote on Nov 17, 2008 7:18 PM:

" Theres a lot of folks out there that don't want this trial to go forward because of the big names that are going to come out-you know as well as i do that the severance package was a hush payment,the safety grants have been going on since 2004,rick bergs company has received quite a few why??As far as cost you can't put a price on justice-blunt an the wsi board were and still are out of control-to show something else is how many folks have ever seen a legislative committee circle around anyone like this state has for blunt,more than likely some of their names are going to pop up during the trial,i'm glad that there are some good folks findly making a stand!! "

Mike R wrote on Nov 17, 2008 6:04 PM:

" By the way, I have several friends in Bismarck who are clueless about the whole WSI thing. They chose not to be informed about it, because they personally don't care about it. I think you are going to find people like that anywhere you go. Heck, I would bet you could find several dozen people in any given community that have no idea who sarah Palin is. Amazing but it happens. The fact that a few people in Fargo don't know anything about WSI doesn't surprize me at all. "

Mike R wrote on Nov 17, 2008 6:01 PM:

" OK. Then I'm all for it. Move the trial out of Bismarck. But what are the Blunt supporters going to say then when the verdict comes down and he is found Guilty? If the Blunt supporters think it is going to make that much of a difference, then let's do it. I wonder what they will complain about then? What would the next excuse be for everything being so unfair to poor Blunt? "

To Mike R wrote on Nov 17, 2008 3:45 PM:

" I have to agree with Get Real. We have many friends in the Eastern part of the state, and several of them don't have a clue about what went on at WSI or what the issues are. It just hasn't been covered there like it has here. To give Blunt a fair trial it should have been moved to GF or Fargo. "

Mike R wrote on Nov 17, 2008 2:31 PM:

" So the fact that this is a State office has nothing to do with anywhere but Bismarck? Every disgruntled injured worker has the same issues with WSI - not just the ones living in Bismarck. Look at the vote to bring WSI back under control of the Governor. It passed by a huge margin all over the state. Bismarck did not have a higher percentage of people voting yes than elsewhere in the state. Maybe Forum readers didn't think it was the "biggest" story of the year, but that does not make them oblivious to the fact surrounding it. It has been on the news and in every major newspaper in the state. To think that this is a Bismarck issue is absurd. "

Get Real wrote on Nov 17, 2008 1:17 PM:

" To Mike R: The WSI issue isn't big anywhere else besided Bismarck. In fact The Fargo Forum did a reader vote on the biggest stories of 2007, the year all this crap went on, and of the 30+ stories to chose from in 6 different catagories WSI wasn't even an option. This whole thing is just a political tool the Democrats were using to win the Senate, which as we all know didn't work, and now all we have is all this garbage to clean up with no productive results. Great work. "

Mike R wrote on Nov 17, 2008 11:36 AM:

" What I think: I am not an injured worker. I have no reason to hate WSI. I just happen to see things differently than you do. You, and many others, keep bringing up the cost factor. That is something that can NEVER play a part in the decision making process on whether to prosecute or not. What if one of your loved ones got mugged and beaten, and the states attorney told you that the cost of a trial was to much, they were going to let the guy go? How would you feel? Where do we draw the line? How much is to much and who decides that? Justice is not something that you can put a price tag on - not ever. As far as moving the trial - where would you have it moved to? WSI is a ND agency, not a Bismarck agency. It is just as high profile in Fargo or Dickinson as it is in Bismarck. It is a ND trial, so it has to stay within the state. Where in the state would you move it to? "

What I think wrote on Nov 17, 2008 10:43 AM:

" This whole mess is costing the state way too much for what's it's worth or for any outcome, really. It's a compulsive drive to wipe the egg off their faces, so the prosecution is not going to give up now, how can they? So the state pays for them saving face. I would guess a lot of bloggers here are "injured workers" who did not make millions so are resentful and want to get back at WSI and take it down. I also feel that not moving the trial is just giving the prosecution another much needed advantage, rather than evening the playing field a bit. By spending thousands and thousands to prosecute this, will that put the missplaced funds back in WSI? It's only making the state more poor. Are all the former CEO's learning anything from this? Any future ones picking up a clue? I doubt it, since the way Blunt did it was pretty much the way it had been done previously. So, if the powers to be really cared about the state, it's financial burdens and the whole reputation of ND, this would be long since buried. Who made all the noise to begin with? Who's trying to look like big time judicial reps in a small time state? This has gone on far too long. I think ND deserves better than being drug through the mud and made to look like...well a small time state. "

Mike R wrote on Nov 17, 2008 10:07 AM:

" To "to Mike R": Actually, I will gladly put my knowlege of the law up against yours any day of the week. I know a great deal about the law, and what I know is that when the attorney tells his client to not say anything and wait until trial, that means there is something to hide. Not guilty people NEVER have a reason to keep silent. Thier truth cannot be used against them if they have nothing to hide. Also, if the truth could prevent a trial and save tens of thousands of dollars, why would anyone want to keep quiet until the trial? If presenting the defense case before the trial prevents the actual trial from happening, his attorney would have to be clueless to still want to go to trial. Sounds like some people here have watched one to many episodes of Matlock. "

Frank wrote on Nov 17, 2008 8:05 AM:

" Victor, what I wrote was my opinion. I know some of the facts and I am sure there is much I don't know. But I believe innocent until proven guilty. You know some WSI employees and so do I. They have a different opinion of Blunt. So who is right? I have sources too Barney. Are your "independent sources" better than mine? Don't know but I bet their not independent if they are your sources. Where did you guys get this Blunt is god mentality and he is a cult? That just doesn't make sense. "

KK wrote on Nov 16, 2008 7:00 AM:

" I think the trial should have been moved. I don't see how Blunt can get a fair trial in this town with all the negative publicity that has surrounded him. The Tribune has been very one-sided with the case and has portrayed Blunt as a villian. I just hope he gets a fair day in court and is able to present his side. They want to nail his behind to the wall for doing what every CEO did before him. The prosecution has a weak case at best and they know it. "

Barney wrote on Nov 15, 2008 9:19 AM:

" Frank, Thank you for sticking to the old WSI script of blaming others and giving Blunt a free pass. You sir/ms know nothing of what I may or may not know. I for one will abide by whatever the court and the jury will decide in the Blunt issue, because what myself and others have been saying for awhile has been confirmed by the "indepdenent sources" about the management style of Blunt and his failings at WSI. The sooner the proBlunt crowd admits some failings on the part of Blunt the sooner they can move on.

Frank, you seem to think you know the facts but do you know the facts as Blunt and his like minded individuals have told you. Have you talked with others who may have dealt with Blunt to get all the facts or relying on one source? I'm willing to bet its the latter. "

Victor wrote on Nov 14, 2008 12:20 PM:

" To "To Mike R" as I read your writing the ant-Blunt, ones who know the truth can't win with you as well. You have bought into the Blunt is god-like mentatility much like Frank. You guys blame all the things on everyone else and don't put any blame on Blunt for his actions. I for one will accept whatever the jury decides but if Blunt is found guilty, you and Frank and others won't. Many say they want the truth, but if the truth isn't the truth as they want it, they won't be happy on either side of the issue. I know some WSI people and tend to agree with most of them on how Blunt treated employees and his actions at WSI. Plus his authorizing the hunt down of someone who sent a LEGAL email shows his true character and his paranoia. "

Victor wrote on Nov 14, 2008 12:15 PM:

" So Frank, which one are you, someone who knows little or nothing of the truth or someone who know the whole story and is speaking? "

Frank wrote on Nov 14, 2008 8:05 AM:

" Mike: These are my opinions. You have an overzealous prosecutor that has made this a personal mission. I think she has ambitions for higher office. How is Blunt supposed to enlighten all the doubters on the facts? Have them printed in the papers? The same papers that printed an ad with his picture claiming corruption? Once your charged with a crime, you don't show your hand. The press and bloggers have been skewering him for months. Do you really think having him tell his side now would sway any opinions? His attorney has tried to get bogus charges dropped but the judge denied the motions. His only recourse now is to present all the facts in court; backed up by documentation. And let the chips fall where they may. "

To Mike R. wrote on Nov 14, 2008 7:34 AM:

" Clearly you know nothing about the law. His lawyer has probably instructed him not to say anything until his lawyer does. Why present his case before hand. That's what any attorney would do. Also, if he did lay out all the facts, people would OBVIOUSLY from these postings, not believe him and rant on and on about conspiracy theories, placing blame, etc. He can't win with you. "

Mike R wrote on Nov 13, 2008 12:28 PM:

" Frank: If that is the case, why hasn't Blunt taken the time to enlighten us about the facts? They are clearly in his favor. It would let everyone know what "really" happened. It might even prevent this whole mess from going any further. At least this seems to be your position. So why wouldn't he come out with the "truth" if indeed it is so black and white? "

Frank wrote on Nov 13, 2008 8:19 AM:

" Inside WSI: "I hope it let's the truth be known." That's been my point the whole time. Everybody knows a little but no one knows the whole story. The people who have condemned Blunt don't know the whole story, if they even know a little of the story. There are only a handful of people who know the whole story and they aren't talking. "

Inside WSI wrote on Nov 12, 2008 9:51 PM:

" Those who have graced the halls, and been inside the walls of WSI know some of the situations that went on there. People have stories and experiences that the public and media will never know. They are not good stories and they verify much of the ugly truth brought out in audit reports, media stories, and even blog posts. We have to ask ourselves how did that agency get so off track. To clarify, I guess I must say that it wasn't the agency that got off track, but rather how did leadership get so off balance and misaligned when leading the employees of that agency and directing the operations of that agency? The magnitude of the WSI problem is very scary. Let the trial bring out what it will. I'm sure if things heat up, we all will learn things we never knew about the inner workings of WSI and the people who worked or still work at WSI. I hope it lets the truth be known. "

Frank wrote on Nov 12, 2008 8:08 AM:

" Gotta agree with monal. We all know Barney thinks he knows the facts and has a grudge against WSI and Blunt, so it's easy to see his point of view. I just hope Blunt gets a fair trial. If not it will make ND look even worse in the eyes of outsiders who may consider wanting to work here. "

Come on Monal wrote on Nov 12, 2008 8:07 AM:

" 6 people took the time to write, some might not even be form Bismarck (the internet is a pretty big place). I don't think they will have a hard time finding a fair jury.

No one cares about Blunt anymore. "

Pauli wrote on Nov 11, 2008 11:54 PM:

" Thank you Judge Romanick! It's time for people who serve their own interests while holding a position that is supposed to serve the public interest be recognized and held accountable for their actions. With any luck this trial will go a long way to opening the eyes of those who are in positions of responsibility to the state they represent so that they may become better stewards of the money generated by state institutions and then used for their own agendas. In these money tight times it's refreshing to see someone stand up to the occasional misuse of power of the elite of state appointees. "

monal wrote on Nov 11, 2008 11:37 PM:

" after reading these comments I can see why the poor man and att. wanted to move the trial to another location.....looks like everyone has found him guilty before the case is presented?????agree??? "

Barney wrote on Nov 11, 2008 1:23 PM:

" Blunt following the rules is the same as what he expected IW's to do, so why should he not have to follow the law either? Why was he trying to skip the step of trying to seat a jury? Does Blunt once again think he is above the laws (in my opinion he thinks he is)?

So Blunt and his attorney were premature on their motion, now if an IW had wanted to skip a step in their claim procedures when Blunt ran WSI, he would have not allowed it, so Blunt needs to learn to play by the rules much like he expected everyone else to.

Blunt did all these things to himself and only has himself to blame. "

Barb wrote on Nov 11, 2008 12:39 PM:

" I do have to say that Bismarck Has great Judges!! I found that out personally. Thank you Judge Romanick. They stick to the facts and that is the way it should be... "

To Peter Schultz wrote on Nov 11, 2008 11:43 AM:

" Maybe if we start making the Sandy Blunts in this world accountable people would think twice before they feel they can get away with breaking the law. Thanks Judge Romanick! "

Peter Schultz wrote on Nov 11, 2008 10:55 AM:

" The intellectual and monetary cost of this trial is too high for what little good it'll actually do for anyone. I just don't see this as ultimately having any affect on the Sandy Blunts of the world. "

Living It wrote on Nov 11, 2008 10:36 AM:

" Thanks Judge Romanick -it's about time to start holding these folks accountable for their actions-i'm glad that there are still people out there willing to make a stand for justice-to me it doesn't matter if your white-black-purple-or green-republican-democrat or independent -rich or poor-the law is the law-i'm not allowed to take your money and give it away and the same is for blunt-just maybe this kind of mass unjust spending will start to open some eyes an show that they can and will be held accountable for their actions because nobody and i mean nobody is above the law or shouldn't be.. "

Mandanite wrote on Nov 11, 2008 10:01 AM:

" Welcome back Judge Romanick! Thank you for what you do. "

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.