The top legal counsel for Workforce, Safety and Insurance says she was defamed when prosecutors filed a motion to dismiss charges against two WSI executives.

But Burleigh County state's attorneys say there is nothing to retract and stand by the wording in their motion.

Jodi Bjornson, legal counsel for WSI, has said the wording in a motion to dismiss felony conspiracy

charges against Romi Leingang, special investigations director, and Sandy Blunt, executive director, mischaracterized Bjornson's statements.

Since news of the dismissal, Bjornson retained an attorney, Lawrence King, who sent a letter asking the Burleigh County state's attorney's office for an immediate public retraction through a press conference and a press release to all media.

"I think their motion to dismiss, and Ms. Feland's comments to the press following that, mischaracterized Ms. Bjornson's testimony,"King said. "The problem that we had was the way it was characterized both in the motion and her comments to the press."

According to King's letter, the motion to dismiss, drafted by Burleigh County Assistant State's Attorneys Cynthia Feland and Lloyd Suhr, and statements to the press, implied that Bjornson changed her testimony from a deposition given on April 17 to the deposition given on Oct. 15.

In a conference call with Burleigh County State's Attorney Richard Riha, Feland and Suhr, the three maintained they have never taken the position that Bjornson changed her story, or that somehow there were inconsistencies between the two depositions.

In fact, in a letter to King, Riha wrote that, "It is the state's position that Ms. Bjornson gave consistent testimony at both her April 17, 2007, and October 15, 2007, depositions."

But King still has contention with wording in the motion.

Leingang and Blunt had faced charges of conspiracy to disclose confidential information for using driver's license photos obtained from the Department of Transportation as part of an investigation into who sent a company-wide e-mail containing salary information.

The two were supposed to be arraigned today; an arraignment is when defendants submit their pleas.

The motion to dismiss said, based on statements from Leingang and Bjornson, Leingang was acting on mistaken legal advice based on Bjornson's review of open records laws. It said that in an Oct. 15 deposition, Bjornson acknowledged that on Feb. 21, 2006, Leingang sought counsel and Bjornson recalled reviewing open records and advising that the photos were not confidential.

King says that statement is inaccurate.

Specifically, the motion said an April 17 deposition attempted to address whether or not Leingang had asked for legal advice on Feb. 17, 2006, when the e-mail had been sent. Bjornson said she had no independent recollection of the conversations, but did remember discussing the e-mail, although she gave no legal advice on it, according to the April 17 deposition.

In another deposition on Oct. 15, Feland asked specific questions pertaining to discussions that may have occurred on the following work day, which was Feb. 21, 2006.

Bjornson indicated throughout that she did not have independent recollection, and that her and Leingang worked together to "piece together as best we could what exactly happened, because Iremember segments of it,"according to the Oct. 15 deposition.

Then, later in the document, Bjornson responded to questions about a conversation with Leingang:"… She (Leingang) said that we did discuss the pictures, that she came in and asked, can I use these photos, or can I use photos, something of that nature. And I opened up my law book, looked at Title 44, the open records information, and looked at photographs as not being protected in the context of Title 44, I think, with employment information and then law enforcement purposes, as well."

King said that entire statement was in relation to Leingang's recollection.

He said the representation of Bjornson's deposition is incorrect and should be retracted from the court document. Indeed, Bjornson says in the Oct. 15 deposition that she does not recall the conversations.

"If they want to rely on that out of context, saying this is Bjornson recalling it, that's inaccurate. If you look at the entire deposition and testimony, Ithink that's clear (that it's Leingang's recollection),"King said.

Bjornson said in her Oct. 15 deposition that what she most recalled was Blunt's reaction to the situation.

"Mr. Blunt was very angry. He was very agitated. And that's what sticks out in my memory the most, was the emotion of the situation,"she said.

Feland said Suhr, Riha and herself each looked at the motion to dismiss to see if it was unclear or inaccurate, and each individually decided that it did not require a retraction.

"We just didn't see anything requiring that,"she said. "It's unfortunate when people review things and they have their own interpretation over what's happening with that."

Feland said most of the questions in the April 17 Bjornson deposition centered around events occurring on Feb. 17, the day the e-mail was sent, because that was the information they'd had at the time.

It wasn't until later on, after receiving more information, that they learned a vast majority of the events unfolded on Feb. 21,Feland said. They then did a second deposition to ask more specific questions.

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