Say Anything Blog

The answer to that question is “No,” since I haven’t actually spoken to anyone with WSI about the controversy surrounding that agency.  But Chad Nodland makes that charge anyway, I suspect because he’s a bit bitter about the case he’s been flogging against Sandy Blunt and Romi Leingang falling apart right before his very eyes, thus making him look like the agenda-driven fool he is.

The link above represents a “rebuttal” of sorts to my post of yesterday (if you can call childish word games with the title of my blog a rebuttal), and while it’s mostly just angry keyboard banging he did manage to raise a few points worth addressing.

First up:

Rob suggests the journal taken from WSI is Mark Armstrong’s “personal journal.” I have requested that journal in an open records request.  I expect WSI’s response is going to be that the journal is Armstrong’s “personal journal.” This is what we call a “talking point.” I suspect this is a journal Mark Armstrong wrote on paper purchased with public money, using a pen paid for with public money, while he was being paid a salary with public money and is written about things he was doing in his capacity as a public employee.  Since I haven’t seen the notebook, I’m just guessing.

Nodland shouldn’t guess.  I can tell you with certainty that Armstrong’s personal journal was a stenographer’s-style notebook purchased with his own money.  He may or may not have used a WSI pen to write in it and more than likely did write in it about his job.  Most of us who have personal journals tend to do that sort of stuff.  Now, personally, I don’t have a problem with Armstrong’s journal being seized.  If it contains evidence of wrong-doing on the part of Armstrong or anyone he’s associated with it should be gone over.  The authorities have it now, so we’ll see what comes of it.

Second:

Rob makes a lot of assertions he can’t possibly back up.  They are written like they came right out of Mark Armstrong’s mouth.  Things like his suggestion that “the explicit intent” of the sender of the JRUNNINGS e-mail was “to disrupt business at the agency.” I think that’s bit of a leap.  The word “explicit” usually means something.  What it would mean in this context is that the e-mail says something like this:  “I, JRUNNINGS, am sending this with the intent that it disrupt business at WSI.” I have to admit that I haven’t seen the e-mail, but I doubt it says this.

I haven’t seen the email either, but for what other purpose would a person be emailing salary data to WSI employees if not to disrupt even if that data is public?  I’ve worked several places in my life, and in many of those places employees were forbidden from talking to one another about how much they make.  Why?  Because it causes problems.  If Nodland wants to pretend like he doesn’t see the clear intent here, then fine.  That is what’s most convenient for his agenda in this, so that’s what he’ll do.  But to any honest observer, the intent of the JRUNNINGS email was clear.

Third:

* Rob suggests “prosecutors allowed the matter to get all the way to trial.” Rob writes about how Armstrong was helping Blunt while Blunt was “on trial.” Rob is in over his head.  He clearly doesn’t have any idea what he’s talking about.  It’s as if Rob hasn’t even been reading what’s been in the newspaper stories about the charges against Blunt and Leingang.  Not only did the case not “get all the way to trial,” but it didn’t even get to an arraignment.  Look it up, Rob.

Well, according to this news report, a trial date for Blunt and Leingang was set.  But really that headline should have referred to the arraignment date.  That’s what I based my “allowed the matter to get all the way to trial” comment on.  Now, technically, the arraignment is not part of the trial, so Nodland has a point.  But still, given the weakness of the case (it fell apart because Bjornson either changed her story or, as she’s claiming, wasn’t thoroughly interviewed) it shouldn’t have even gotten to an arraignment.

Score one for Nodland, I guess, but it isn’t much of a point.

Finally, Nodland says that I’m wrong on two of my last points which I made in this paragraph of my previous post:

They’re afraid that they’ll be fired for not being entirely forthcoming with the prosecutors who were pressing charges against Blunt and Leingang (it would seem that Bjornson is someone who may especially be wary of this), so they’re looking for protection. I’m also being told that these three people may have entered Armstrong’s office and read the journal in question before a search warrant had been issued.

Nodland’s response:

If it weren’t illegal, I’d be willing to bet Rob $100 that he’s absolutely wrong on both of these allegations.  Not because I know everything about what all these people did or didn’t do, but because Rob says he is basing his writing on things he’s “being told” by these “people in the know.” I have absolutely no confidence in Rob’s WSI sources.  If they told him the sun will come up in the East tomorrow, I’d consider betting the other way.

One can almost picture Nodland plugging his ears and going “lalalala I can’t hear you.”

Now, am I wrong about the people filing for whistleblower protection being afraid of termination because they weren’t entirely forthcoming with law enforcement?  Maybe, but it’s just my opinion of their motivations.  Nodland feels differently, so whatever.  He clearly isn’t an objective source of analysis in this.  Am I wrong about people entering Armstrong’s office and reading his journal before it was seized by the police?  Not at all.  Jim Long is one of the WSI employees applying for whistleblower protection, and this is what he had to say in his letter to the Attorney General requesting that status:

I have read an employee log detailing a plan to gather 50 signatures to oust Riha. It is apparent in this information that Mark Armstrong was using his position as a Burleigh County Commissioner to assist Steve Cates (Dakota Beacon) in ousting Riha.

The “employee log” he read was Armstrong’s journal.  Now how did Long manage to read Armstrong’s journal?  Did the police let him look on it while it was on its way down to the State’s Attorney’s office?  Not likely, so it’s pretty clear that Long entered Armstrong’s office and read it before the warrant was executed.

So, basically, Nodland couldn’t be more wrong.

I should note that Steve Cates, who is my editor at the Dakota Beacon, is someone I’ve been talking to about this matter.  He has been following it for months now, and I’ve drawn information from many of his articles about this matter.  Now, in these recent allegations against Blunt and Armstrong, they are being accused of conspiring with Cates to replace Burleigh County State’s Attorney Richard Riha, whose office was pushing the case against Blunt.  But really, the “conspiracy” in question was Cates’ desire to collect the fifty signatures from Burleigh county resident’s required to request an investigation into Riha’s handling of the case.  Which is hardly a conspiracy at all as the last time I checked that sort of public activity by citizens was perfectly legal.