Stace Nelson, monetary damages added to robocall lawsuit today in state court.

I heard about this earlier today without details, but then the storm hit, and I had a hot date with my wife to go out to eat.  And now I’m getting to it.

A judge has deemed it worth to add State Representative Stace Nelson to the robocall lawsuit filed by Dan Lederman against the robocallers. As John Hult relates:

Stace Nelson, R-Fulda, was named as a defendant in a complaint from Sen. Dan Lederman of Dakota Dunes alleging he conspired with conservative activist Dan Willard to produce robocalls that targeted state GOP legislators for their votes on veteran’s issues.

The newest version of the lawsuit also seeks monetary damages for those who received the calls.

Nelson, a potential primary challenger to for Gov. Mike Rounds in the upcoming race for U.S. Senate, maintained that the lawsuit and the criminal actions are political maneuvers.

Willard also has been charged criminally in Lake County for the robocalls, which did not include the names or addresses of those behind them.


Nelson says Lederman and his lawyer, Joel Arends of Sioux Falls, are “proxies for the Rounds and Daugaard folks” who are trying to silence the opposition by targeting them with little-used statutes.

“This is a page right out of Obama’s playbook,” Nelson said. “They’re using the system to target political enemies.”

Nelson’s involvement was revealed this Spring as part of the sworn testimony of Gary Dykstra, another activist named in the new complaint as a key player in the robocalls.

Read it all here.

160 Replies to “Stace Nelson, monetary damages added to robocall lawsuit today in state court.”

  1. Anonymous

    If they are using the system to target their political enemies Stace, what were you using in these calls to target yours? You have no proof Rounds or Daugaard are in any way behind Lederman. Lederman has proof you were secretly behind these illegal calls.

    1. Bree S.

      Adding him to this bogus lawsuit based on on a transcript full of “I don’t know… maybe” is no proof and in the end it will backfire.

      1. its public


        You appear to have Lederman Derangement Syndrome coupled with a severe case of Support-Nelson-at-all-Cost-itis.

        See, for those us not afflicted with these diseases…we were able to read the affidavit and here’s what it says:

        Gary Dykstra stated in his affidavit that he, Daniel Willard and Stace Nelson met on at least four occasions to plan the strategy and implementation of the robo-calls and exchanged countless emails in order to implement their plan.

        It also says that Willard paid for the calls and that Nelson’s knowledge of running campaigns was used in order to make the plan work.

        Once your apparent disease processes clear up, perhaps you will be able to read the affidavit that all of us have read.

        1. Bree S.

          That is not what the transcript says lying troll. Let me cut and paste all references to Stace Nelson from David Montgomery’s blog (see link below):

          (Page 4)

          ARENDS: What were the names of the people who worked with you to further the goals of these named —

          DYKSTRA: Dan Willard, I know I had several discussions with him. I believe Stace Nelson was aware of the fact that we were talking about that but, again, you would ask to them to get, you know, a definitive answer but that’s my understanding.

          (Page 8)

          ARENDS: So you believe you held one or two meetings with you and Daniel or Stace or two or three or you know, what do you —

          DYKSTRA: I would that that probably — probably at least three.

          ARENDS: Did you ever drive up to where Stace lives or drive to other places around town or out of town to all meet together?

          DYKSTRA: I think we met once for lunch or dinner up by — I can’t even remember the name. It was a bar up by Epiphany. I’m pretty sure we met there at least once.

          (Page 11)

          ARENDS: What was Stace Nelson’s contribution?
          DYKSTRA: I think his knowledge of how to run campaigns, I guess.
          ARENDS: So what did he — you know, he talked about how to run campaigns. What did he say at these meetings? How did he contribute?
          DYKSTRA: You know, that postcards and robocalls were cost-effective ways to get a message out obviously.
          (Page 12)

          ARENDS: Did Stace provide any money?

          DYKSTRA: I don’t know for sure, Joel.

          ARENDS: Did you only communicate about these activities at these in-person meetings, or did you communicate in other ways?

          DYKSTRA: Mostly. I think I sent like a possible script to use once or twice. I wish now I had kind of kept them so I had a better idea of what was sent and what wasn’t so —

          ARENDS: And when you say sent, you sent them via email?

          DYKSTRA: Right.

          ARENDS: And to who?

          DYKSTRA: To Dan I think, possibly to Stace as well.

          (Page 13)

          ARENDS: What did each of the other two gentlemen think about the work product that you created?

          DYKSTRA: In one instance it was acceptable enough to be used. In another situation, I think they came up with something better, and then they used that.

          ARENDS: You said they came up with something better. Who was they?

          DYKSTRA: Well, Dan or Stace… I don’t know which one.

          (Page 20, discussing a letter sent anonymously to Attorney General Marty Jackley)

          ARENDS: And so you and Dan collaborated on the writing of that letter?

          DYKSTRA: Yeah, Stace wasn’t there when we composed the letter. It was Dan and I.

          (Page 23)

          ARENDS: And just to reiterate again, you would write the scripts and then what would happen after you wrote the script? How was the script disseminated to the list of people you were sending it to? Was the list disseminated via robocalls?

          DYKSTRA: In the case of a script, typically through robocall.

          ARENDS: And then who would handle that portion of this collaborative effort?

          DYKSTRA: I would assume Dan or Stace. Which one actually did it is just for them to answer I guess.

          (Page 24)

          ARENDS: Did you have any discussions with Dan or Stace or anybody else about how any robocall phone vendors or any automated systems would be used to disseminate these messages?

          DYKSTRA: Well, I would assume that they probably had access to those through their previous campaign experience.

          ARENDS: So the answer to that would be no?

          DYKSTRA: As far as I know, yeah.

          (Page 28)

          ARENDS: … who did you transmit (the recording) to via e-mail or with the flash drive?

          DYKSTRA: I think to Dan or Stace, and I can’t remember if it was one or both.

          ARENDS: Who put that (postcard) together?

          DYKSTRA: I don’t know for sure. What I do know is I made maybe like a slight change to it in terms of, you know, some of the text and some of the lines and stuff so I don’t know for sure.

          ARENDS: Who sent it to you?

          DYKSTRA: I believe Stace did but I don’t have the record to know for sure but I believe it was.

          (Page 36)

          ARENDS: And then did Stace and Daniel help out? They helped disseminate Exhibit A and C via robocalls?

          DYKSTRA: I believe so.

          (Pages 36-37)

          ARENDS: Let’s go down to Exhibit E… Did you know it was going to go out before it went out?

          DYKSTRA: I had a pretty good idea that it might.

          ARENDS: What’s that idea based on?

          DYKSTRA: Based on discussions that were had.

          ARENDS: And those discussions were with who again?

          DYKSTRA: Dan and/or Stace.

          (Page 37)

          ARENDS: And when you say we had a discussion (about Exhibit G, a robocall), you are referring to — are you referring, again, to Dan and Stace?

          DYKSTRA: Me and Dan for sure. Stace, I can’t remember for sure if he took part in that discussion, but it’s possible.

          (Page 39)

          ARENDS: And then who did you send the spreadsheet (of phone numbers) to?

          DYKSTRA: I think Dan or Stace. I don’t recall.

          (Page 41)

          ARENDS: Is your assumption (about how many people received the robocalls) based upon conversations you had with Daniel Willard or Stace Nelson or informed by it?

          DYKSTRA: Yeah, I mean, it — it may have been. It seems — I seem to recall that there was a conversation…

          (Pages 42-43)

          ARENDS: The phone calls you submitted to Daniel and Stace, did you know that they were going to do a robocall to them?

          DYKSTRA: I figured that that was probably what they were going to get used for.

          (Pages 43-44)

          ARENDS: And to your knowledge, the only people that reviewed these scripts before they went out were yourself, Stace Nelson and Daniel Willard?
          DYKSTRA: Yes.
          (Pages 55-56)

          ARENDS: Did you ever have any conversations with members of the media about this effort?

          DYKSTRA: No.

          ARENDS: Do you know if Stace or Dan did?

          DYKSTRA: That I don’t know. You would have to ask them.

          (Page 58)

          ARENDS: In your conversations with Daniel Willard, did he lead you to believe that he was sending out the robocalls? And the same question for Stace.

          DYKSTRA: I think my understanding of it was that one or both of them was involved in doing it. As to who finally did it, you know, I don’t know.

          1. cell phones

            That’s what a jury will call…quitting time!

            Case closed. That’s not vague…that’s finger pointing with particularity.

            1. Bree S.

              Dykstra said:

              I believe..
              I would that that probably-probably..
              I think.. I can’t even remember.. I’m
              pretty sure..
              I think.. I guess..
              I don’t know for sure..
              I think..
              I think, possibly..
              I think..
              I don’t know..
              I would assume.. I guess..
              I would assume.. probably..
              As far as I know..
              I think.. I can’t remember..
              I don’t know for sure.. I don’t know for
              I believe.. I don’t..know for sure.. I
              I believe so..
              I can’t remember for sure.. it’s possible..
              I think.. I don’t recall..
              It may have been.. it seems.. I seem to
              I don’t know..
              I think.. I don’t know..

              Wow. What a great witness! Case closed!

        2. Bree S.

          (Page 66)

          ARENDS: Did Daniel ever share or Stace ever share how they were funding these efforts other than what you already told me? You know, did they say, I’m going to go down to Wal-Mart and use my Visa? I mean, did they share anything?

          DYKSTRA: No, nothing like that.

          (Page 68)

          ARENDS: Have you discussed anything with (Daniel Willard) or Stace Nelson that you have also discussed with your attorney?
          DYKSTRA: I don’t think so.

          Now tell me where Dykstra definitely says that he’s positive Stace Nelson was involved because all I see is a bunch of hemmin and hawing. And then explain why Dan Lederman was despicable enough to file this lawsuit after the law he used to go after Willard was changed by the legislature in order to stop such petty lawsuits in the future.

          1. cell phones

            ARENDS: And to your knowledge, the only people that reviewed these scripts before they went out were yourself, Stace Nelson and Daniel Willard?
            DYKSTRA: Yes.

            That’s a slam dunk. Scripts used for robo calls to cell phones…which is a violation of federal law.

            1. Bree S.

              “ARENDS: Did you only communicate about these activities at these in-person meetings, or did you communicate in other ways?

              DYKSTRA: Mostly. I think I sent like a possible script to use once or twice. I wish now I had kind of kept them so I had a better idea of what was sent and what wasn’t so —

              ARENDS: And when you say sent, you sent them via email?

              DYKSTRA: Right.

              ARENDS: And to who?

              DYKSTRA: To Dan I think, possibly to Stace as well.”

              You’re cherry-picking. Your analysis doesn’t stand up in context. Also, that was a setup question because logically Dykstra can answer “Yes” without knowing for certain that Stace was involved. And we know he doesn’t know for certain because he said “possibly” Stace reviewed the script earlier in the transcript.

              1. farmhand

                Does Lederman realize how this is hurting him? Nelson is a Tea party favorite in SD and nationally they are taking note of him. These are the same people who ran Rounds’ campaign manager Dick Wadhams out of Colorado. They are creating the perfect storm around Nelson that will only gather him more supporters in SD and nationally while Lederman’s name ia being passed around on people’s black list.

          2. cell phones

            ARENDS: Is your assumption (about how many people received the robocalls) based upon conversations you had with Daniel Willard or Stace Nelson or informed by it?

            DYKSTRA: Yeah, I mean, it — it may have been. It seems — I seem to recall that there was a conversation…

            Sounds like coordination of the highest order to me. They call that civil conspiracy…that’s open and shut.

      2. Anonymous

        I agree Bree. There have been a few times in the recent past to politically take out Stace. It always backfires, more people learn about and admire Stace, and a few more rinos get marginalized by their own traps.

    1. cell phones

      He, like many of us, were called on our cell phones. Which is prohibited under federal law. Case closed. Sounds like settlement time…

      1. Bree S.

        Even if that’s true (unlikely from anonymous on this blog) it has nothing to do with a political fishing expedition against Stace, one I’m sure they already know will turn up dry.

          1. Bree S.

            All I see is Stace Nelson getting his name in the paper again fighting the Establishment in an anti-Establishment political environment. Probably he should thank Dan Lederman for his Obama-style dirty Chicago politics.

            1. cell phones

              Looks like the self-professed conservatives are taking a page out of the Jesse Jackson Jr. and Rod Blagoivich playbook.

              1. Bree S.

                Yeah, try to pin the obvious Chicago-style tactics of the Establishment on Conservatives. Yawn.

              2. Anonymous

                If you’re going to throw around a dirty Chicago politician’s name, the least you could do is spell it correctly.

  2. Bud Green

    Might be fun to watch how the SDGOP establishment will recover if Rep. Nelson trounces some other Republican in a statewide race.

  3. Young Republican

    Wow Dan Lederman, thanks for acting like an adult in showing how you deal with people you disagree with.

    1. its public

      Yeah…instead we should just trash people in the newspaper or beat the hell out of people. How dare the courts be used to adjudicate disputes…

      1. Bree S.

        Yes, I think it’s entirely appropriate for a Republican State Senator to sue a Republican State Representative because a transcript says “maybe.. I don’t know… possibly.. I don’t remember..” that said State Representative is rumored to possibly have been involved with robocalls informing the voters that their legislators voted to cut state educational benefits to National Guard members while they were on tour.

        Dan Lederman has made himself Enemy #1 of Conservatives in South Dakota.

        1. cell phones


          the transcript is almost 70 pages long containing precise details regarding the interaction between Nelson, Willard and Dykstra and how they plotted, schemed and paid for robo calls to be made to people’s cell phones in violation of federal law.

          What conservatives are for breaking federal law? You are definitely not a conservative if you think people should be able to break federal law….sad.

          And the so called conservatives…you numbers in the dozens that agree with you…sad and pathetic that you advocate for breaking the law.

          1. Bree S.

            I read the pertinent parts of the transcript on Political Smokeout because David Montgomery went through the trouble of sifting through the entire transcript for any references to Stace Nelson. All references were vague and correctly labeled by Stace as “contorted hearsay,” Rounds supporting troll. You can check that transcript here:


            Perhaps the vociferously law-happy Dan Lederman should also sue anyone who drives too fast in front of his house, and then he can also sue the friends of the driver who may have been in the car based on vague transcript.

            1. cell phones

              Gary Dykstra stated that stace nelson met with him and willard on at least four occasions to plan and implement the robo-calls and post cards and exchanged countless emails to make the robo calls happen and that they all agreed to not use the name of a real organization and instead made the name up.

              Doesn’t sound vague to me…sound like…case closed.

              1. Bree S.

                Read the transcript at the top of the thread that I cut and pasted from Montgomery’s blog because amazingly dishonest trolls like you think you can lie unless historical evidence is right under your nose (you would probably still try even then).

    2. Anonymous

      Words is Mr Dykstra told the grand jury in Madison a total differenant story and may be in hot water for that. Also the judge said Lederman’s whole case is barely hanging on and may still be dismissed.

    1. farmhand

      Word has it that Nelson is entering the US Senate race, or making a lot of inquiries that are leading people to that belief. Lederman was holding Rounds’ bags when he announced last year and is a hanger on. This stunt clearly comes straight from Mike Rounds.

      1. Tired of Liars

        This claim that Rounds has anything to do with the lawsuit is absurd. Isn’t Lederman’s lawyer- Arends also working for Bosworth? Rounds has never attacked Republicans… He actually follows Reagan’s 11th amendment unlike Stace who ironically calls himself a “Reagan Repulican”. I have never seen anyone attack Republicans more than Stace. The guy is a hypocrit. Rounds was elected in 2002 because he took the high road. I am glad to see is is still taking the high road. If you listen to his speeches- Rounds never speaks ill of another Republican. Whereas, Stace can barely speak without attacking Republicans.

        1. Bree S.

          Telling the public the truth about a politician’s record is not “attacking.” A functioning Republic requires an educated populace – which includes knowledge of how a legislator votes. I could care less what Rounds says in his boring speeches. I’m interested in what he did as Governor – and I am not impressed as a Republican with his record of nepotism and cronyism, his war against open government policies, nor his policy of running structural deficits as Governor.

          You could be correct that Rounds had nothing to do with this lawsuit – but circumstances are suspicious. Regardless of the truth of that matter, are you also upset about this frivolous lawsuit and baseless despicable petty legal attacks against Stace Nelson? Because if you are not upset at the Liars in the thread lying about Stace Nelson then you are the hypocrite.

    1. Bree S.

      If Stace Nelson has a “Baseless Political Attacks Legal Fund” I’d like to contribute.

      1. cell phones

        You better…because he’s possibly facing 1.5 million dollars in fines for potential violations of federal law.

        1. Bree S.

          Lol. Right. Now you sound like Dykstra.

          “possibly.. potential..”

          I don’t know.. I’m not sure.. possibly.. it seems..

        2. Anonymous

          cell phones, you should have stopped posting after your first comment on this topic. The transcripts speak for themselves.

    1. cell phones

      So investigating sexual assault now means that Nelson has a free pass to violate federal law?

      You are now an Obama loving liberal….go back to bizzaro-liberal world.

      1. Bree S.

        “Contorted hearsay” of Dykstra’s hemming and hawing is hardly evidence he violated federal law (and last I heard the lawsuit was regarding a state law that was changed to stop future petty lawsuits).

    2. cell phones

      Are you going to answer the question Bree? Is it ok to violate federal law as long as you previously investigated sexual assault in the military or not?

      You are obviously not a law and order conservative….but what kind of conservative advocates for violating federal laws? You are probably the post modernist neo-deconstruction kind of conservative that wants to tear down all institutions and rebuild them in your minds eye…but you vote republican.

      I think we call them Jesse Jackson Jr. or Rod Blagoievich.

      1. Bree S.

        I can only type so fast “cell phones.” Provide evidence that this lawsuit is regarding federal law because my understanding was the lawsuit was regarding no longer valid state election law (changed to avoid future petty lawsuits). I’m not saying you couldn’t be correct.. but given the number of times trolls fabricate things on this blog I need to see evidence that contradicts my current knowledge.

        And of course we’ve already discussed above the non-evidence of Dykstra’s “testimony.”

        1. Bree S.

          Nevermind, I can answer my own question. From the Argus article:

          “Judge Stuart Tiede ruled Friday that the amended complaint can go forward, brushing aside arguments that the new complaint improperly asked for damages under a federal statute that ought not apply in state court.

          Willard’s lawyer, R. Shawn Tornow, had asked that the lawsuit be thrown out and re-filed due to an overbroad expansion of claims.

          Tiede told Tornow that his concerns about overreach and the improper application of federal law in state court could be addressed without starting from scratch.

          ‘I do think there are parts of it that are subject to challenge,’ Tiede said.”

          Apparently Dirty Lawyer Arends thinks that the rule of law can be twisted any which way he likes. Obviously whatever federal nonsense they’ve tried to add will be thrown out of this lawsuit (and probably the whole frivolous pile but we’ll see how long this judge drags this out at taxpayer expense).

    1. Bree S.

      I can’t wait to see the ads that get unleashed against Mike “Glass Jaw” Rounds once he has a viable opponent in the Senate race. I might tape them for posterity.

      1. true grit

        true grit ght this on himself. Nobody to blame but the big man in the mirror. Honor in this? Integrity in this? I think not.

        Your argument is a pile of ($+-*) horse manure.

        1. Bree S.

          I can barely comprehend your “pile of ($+-*) horse manure” statement. Please rewrite it in English if you expect a response to whatever you were trying to say.

  4. Anonymous

    Meathead Nelson… before you start throwing grenades at everyone else, you should poke around a little and realize that Arends is behind the Dr. Boz candidacy.

    1. Bree S.

      Anybody who thinks Rounds looks suddenly more palatable in comparison to Bosworth is desperately grasping at straws.

        1. Bree S.

          Explain how my comment proves I am “nuts.” Does it also prove I’m a whack job? lol.

  5. anon

    Bree, the way you defend Stace makes reasonable people wonder if there isn’t more to your relationship than meets the eye. Why do you monopolize this blog whenever there is a mention of Stace? Why do you defend him so vigorously? Is there something else going on between you two?

    1. Drew Dennert

      Stace Nelson is a great Legislator who works hard for all South Dakotan’s. he deserves to be defended from childish attacks like this one.

      1. true grit

        Stace is a pretty decent guy, except for the severe lack of judgment in cases like this, but a ‘great legislator’ I’m not sure I follow?

        1. Bree S.

          Provide evidence of his “lack of judgment.” Are you referring to Lederman’s frivolous lawsuit managing to get hemming and hawing admitted as evidence in order to further waste taxpayers’ money and court resources?

    2. Bree S.

      Are you now accusing Representative Nelson of having an affair because a conservative Republican defending him against untrue political attacks on a blog happens to be female? You should be utterly ashamed of yourself for this disgusting baseless mudslinging. I happen to know that today is Stace Nelson’s Wedding Anniversary because he tweeted a very sweet message to his ” beautiful bride.” Politics needs more men of character like Stace Nelson who clearly still love their wives and their families.

  6. Young Republican

    Dan Lederman should be ashamed of his actions, all in order to please the Republican establishment. Dan if you had the record of public service and the honesty of Stace Nelson, and were the one attacked by the robo calls, you may have grounds to file this law suit but until then please respectfully drop the law suit.

    1. Anon

      The funny thing is no one in leadership probably wants Leaderman doing this. He’s grandstanding, no surprise for those of use who know him. That being said, I love Bree, Stace and the like that think they represent my party because of their self righteousness. Keep squawking, you are an irritant, not a movement that is temporarily empowered by a lack of alternatives in this one party state.

      1. Bree S.

        I love people who hate the Second Amendment and support anti-gun RINOs for office and think they’re more Republican because they “carry water” for the GOP. You want to be Republican, move to Massachusetts where you belong.

        Tell Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Jim DeMint, Chris Chocola, etc. that they are a “temporary movement.”

        1. Anon

          You make my point, those you identify are temporary characters or fringe players at best. Nothing more no matter what you believe. They are simply loud and make wild assertions or claims the media likes to cover which feeds the beast (the beast being you and that rabid 20%).

    2. Anon

      The funny thing is no one in leadership probably wants Leaderman doing this. He’s grandstanding, no surprise for those of us who know him. That being said, I love Bree, Stace and the like that think they represent my party because of their self righteousness. Keep squawking, you are an irritant, not a movement that is temporarily empowered by a lack of alternatives in this one party state.

  7. Deny and accuse

    When accused of something, fight back. Do not naively accept responsibility. Show that you are very unhappy at being thought to be the wrong-doer. Things you can do include:
    Accuse the person them of not trusting you.
    Angrily deny the charge, accusing them of persecution.
    Counter-accuse the person of some other action, perhaps dragged up from the past.
    Demand to know why you are being accused.
    If you can create an argument, keep it going for as long as possible until the other person gives up.
    Why do you always think it’s me? You’re so biased! Can’t you think of others? What about Tom?

    That’s a very poor argument. Can’t you do any better?

    Yes. I know that I did it. So what? Is it such a big deal? Picky, picky, picky.

    The underlying purpose of the counterattack is to take the topic of conversation off you and onto other things, such as other people and relationships.
    A common message in a counter-attack is that the other person is being unfair and may have a personal bias or grudge against you.
    When you are personally attacked, this is the ‘attack the person’ fallacy, which can be a central plank of your counter-attack (which, paradoxically, may use the same method).
    Attacking back is sometimes called the ‘tiger response’. The principle is that the other person discovers that it is dangerous to accuse you and thinks twice before doing so again in the future.

      1. Anonymous

        Because it’s only a “little used statute” as Stace suggests, does that mean that law doesn’t count, Bree?

        1. ANON

          If Bree was a law enfocement officer she would let her friends get away with murder. Thankfully she sits at home on her computer collecting $6 million in farm subsidies commenting on this blog.

          Imagine what kind of a terror she would be to society if she were to do something productive with her life…

          1. Bree S.

            I have collected absolutely no farm subsidies, which we have already discussed lame troll. Will there be any more interesting arguments coming from you in the future, or are you merely an intellectually challenged broken record?

            Did you miss the posts above that clearly demonstrate that federal law isn’t properly applicable in state court as well as all the references to Stace in Dykstra’s “testimony” none of which demonstrated certain involvement by Stace? You do realize this is a frivolous civil suit? Do you commonly pull the word “murder” out of your rectum and throw it around when things aren’t going your way?

            The only law enforcement officer in this conversation is the topic: former NCIS Investigator Stace Nelson.

            1. Anonymous

              You live on the farm. You don’t work. You feed your face and buy goods from gov money derived from the farm. Yep, you’re a ward of the feds who doesn’t comprehend her own diluted standing in life.

              1. Bree S.

                I don’t live on the farm, I live on the river next to it.

                You clearly don’t comprehend the size of my in-laws’ farm. If it makes you feel any better, whatever subsidies my in-laws get from the government don’t cover the cost of excess benefits to their employees, several of whom live in three and four bedroom homes for free with all utilities paid.

                I see that we’ve gotten back into an inappropriate discussion about my family’s business that is none of yours. There clearly needs to be a change in the political culture in South Dakota.

        2. Bree S.

          If Lederman wants to frivolously sue people based on state statute that has been changed by the legislature to stop future petty legal attacks, he can. However, he has no evidence of Stace Nelson’s involvement.

          What I want to know is this – is Gary Dykstra named in the suit filed by Lederman?

          1. Anonymous

            These are called SLAPP lawsuits and they are illegal in some states.

            What the press & SDWC has missed is Arends and Lederman have abandoned their original lawsuit and this is a whole new one as a result of amending their suit.

            Interesting to also note, Dykstra could still be in major trouble if this suit was ever successful as anyone who is considered liable can go after him.

            1. Bree S.

              I hope Stace sets up a legal fund to fight this despicable political attack because I will definitely contribute.

                1. Bree S.

                  Keep droning those blatant lies, anonymous troll. Say it often enough and you’ll make it true right?

  8. Troy Jones Post author


    You currently have 23 of the 52 comments. If you make seven in a row without anyone else commenting, you will get to 50%. Let me help you get there. You may use multiple posts to answer the following:

    You seem to be an expert on this whole thing. I have some questions.

    Has Stace admitted or denied he met and advised Dykstra/Willard on these robocalls?

    Has Willard confirmed or contradicted Dykstra’s assertion this was a three-person effort?

    Is there some hard evidence that ties these three together on this matter?

    Is it against the law to make anonymous candidate attacks a certain period before an election?


    1. Anonymous

      “You seem to be an expert …”

      Funny, I think that exact same thing about you. You know everything. Say, are you part of the Egotistical Old White Men’s Club downtown that has lunch everyday at various restaurants? What a charming group.

    2. Bree S.

      Your disapproval of the quantity of my posts in a thread is irrelevant to me as I have no interest in your opinions, Troy Jones. I will exercise my rights to free speech just as often as I like and the owner of the blog allows.

        1. Bree S.

          The sum total of what I know about this lawsuit is what has been reported in the news and the blogs. I have never met Stace Nelson, Daniel Willard, or Gary Dykstra. I voice my opinion on what I know not what I don’t know and I also have no interest in Troy’s smoke and mirror attempt to change the direction of the conversation to irrelevant side questions.

            1. Bree S.

              There is enough evidence on this lawsuit in the press and the blogs to refute the weak lies of childish anonymous trolls.

  9. Anonymous

    I have to go on record and say that my respect for Gary Dykstra has grown 20x today. That took guts for him to tell the truth about the robo calls.

    Gary Dykstra is an honest guy who got carried away listening to Daniel Willard. Willard is the one who needs to learn a lesson.

    1. Bree S.

      The only person in this who needs a lesson is Dan Lederman. Giving $150 to the campaigns of all the legislators won’t keep him in office.

        1. Bree S.

          He’s wasting taxpayers’ money and court resources in a frivolous civil suit against his conservative Republican colleagues. There is nothing I detest more in politics than corrupt self-serving RINOs and their petty attacks on principled conservative public servants.

          1. Anonymous

            Isn’t that exactly what Stace Nelson did by attacking his fellow colleagues? I guess it’s different for Stace because he concealed his involvement while throwing stones.

            1. Anonymous

              Stace is all about transparency except when it comes to campaigning against Republicans. Then, not so much.

            2. Bree S.

              Are you referring to Stace Nelson’s supposed involvement in robocalls informing the voters that their legislators voted to end the state educational benefits of National Guard while they were on tour? Even if this was true do you think the voters would disapprove? Stace Nelson has openly condemned these votes by Republican state legislators. I wouldn’t call that throwing stones from concealment. He has a documented history in the press of direct and valid criticism of Republican colleagues.

          2. cell phones

            Judge Tiede disagreed with you and made the statement in open court that the tcpa claim had merit and that he was going to allow it to move forward.

            1. Bree S.

              And that has what to do with “contorted hearsay” from Dykstra regarding Stace Nelson?

              Interestingly other people are stating the lawsuit most likely will be dismissed. Provide a quote where Judge Tiede stated that the “TCPA claim has merit.”

  10. Who was the woman on the robo call?

    One of the early robo calls had a womens voice on it. Who is that person? Certainly not Stace, Willard or Dykstra. Who was the women who recorded the call?

        1. Anonymous

          I bet money Bree is the voice on the call. No wonder she wants the lawsuit to go away so bad. Maybe we should start calling Bree Samantha.

  11. Scooter

    Mike Rounds is going down. Mike Rounds couldn’t carry Stace Nelson’s jockstrap! His supporters can’t even come up with fake names for blog comments. Pathetic.

    1. Anonymous

      I doubt he’d want to touch Stace Nelson’s jockstrap but Mike Rounds will win Hanson County and that is why Stace Nelson is not man enough to run for US Senate.

      1. Bree S.

        We’ve heard this ridiculous claim of liberal Mike “Glass Jaw” Rounds winning Hanson County several times. This Troll Tactic of repetitively droning lame nonsense is so fabulous and effective I’d like to learn how to do it. Is there a Broken Record Political Debate School where I could earn my Certificate in Second Grade Arguing?

          1. Bree S.

            I happen to be in District 24. My full first name is Briana. Everyone calls me Bree. What is the point of these constant references to my full name and my in-laws’ farm? I don’t get it – are you merely trying to be annoying or is this an attempt to be threatening? Are you going to expose me? lol.

            I really don’t understand why you’re trying to annoy me. Do you comprehend that most legislators don’t spend more than $10,000 on their races in South Dakota? Your short-sighted harassment of me is almost amusing.

  12. Anonymous

    Why does Stace Nelson attack others and then play the victim? Isn’t that a Tom Daschle/Democrat tactic?

  13. Oldguy

    If Stace and his supporters really believe all this why doesn”t he just run for senate against Mike and let the people decide.i am only guessing here but I would bet Governor Rounds would crush Stace. Bree could be his campaign manger. Talk is cheap go for it

  14. Anonymous

    It will be interesting to hear what the marine has to say under oath when they take his deposition. Ollie North?

  15. Anonymous

    Don’t you know this is all a big conspiracy against Stace Nelson. Those Rinos forced Stace to do robocalls against them so they could sue him. It’s so simple.

    1. Bree S.

      There is no credible evidence Stace Nelson was even indirectly involved in the robocalls, lying anonymous troll.

    2. Bree S.

      And if he was somehow involved in informing the voters about their legislators voting to end state educational benefits for current military combatants, it will only further endear him to the Republican base.

        1. Bree S.

          “Hit Piece” = factual information regarding a legislator’s voting record? Interesting definition.

      1. Anonymous

        Don’t your last two comments sorta contradict? You need a job or something to fill your time.

        1. Bree S.

          No, they don’t – and if you comprehended logical statements a little better you would realize that. Read them again.

  16. Anonymous

    “megalomania” is a psycho-pathological condition characterized by delusional fantasies of power, relevance, and/or omnipotence. People suffering from this condition typically experience an over-inflated sense of importance, or in other words, Stace Nelson’s defense.

    1. Bree S.

      “Delusional fantasies” of course more appropriately applied to the nonsense spewed by lying trolls in defense of Lederman’s politically motivated frivolous lawsuit.

      “A strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) is a lawsuit that is intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.

      The typical SLAPP plaintiff does not normally expect to win the lawsuit. The plaintiff’s goals are accomplished if the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism. A SLAPP may also intimidate others from participating in the debate.”

    2. Bree S.

      Could a Megalomaniac be someone who “grandstands” like Dan Lederman? Sounds like an accurate description to me.

  17. Scooter

    There sure are a bunch of scared Rounds staffers going by the name Anonymous on here. Your boy is going down. Patriot and liberty lover Stace will show him how a real man handles himself on the campaign trail.

  18. Oldguy

    I am all for a primary so go for it Stace and Bree. All this talk is meaningless. All of you that slam anybody who you don”t like , disagree with, and have the desire to make diffence should run too so we, the voters, can choose.

    1. Bree S.

      We’ve already heard from you how we need to raise taxes and how Stace Nelson is only interested in furthering his political career (despite clear hesitation on his part regarding further campaigning). Apparently liars don’t like it when you point out the truth regarding vague transcripts and bogus lawsuits. It seems when things don’t go their way its time for the RINOs to whine and play the victim about the meanie Conservatives “slamming” people.

  19. Bud Green

    Nelson’s brand of dystopianism would lead to perverted excesses of the already heavy-handed so-called Patriot Act and would end civil rights for women.

    1. Bree S.

      Provide evidence that Stace Nelson supports the Patriot Act. I’m pretty sure he’s not in favor of the domestic surveillance programs of the NSA. And where did you get this nonsense about ending civil rights for women?

      1. Anonymous

        Prove that he doesn’t. He has voted repeatedly to restrict access to critical medical procedures for women: why would he not take those radical chilling effects to DC?

        1. Bree S.

          Oh, you mean abortions. Murdering children is not a civil right. I strongly support these “radical chilling effects.”

  20. Bud Green

    Lederman’s actions suggest involvement by a frightened short guy with ill-gotten proceeds wielding lawyers like mass shooters employ firearms.

  21. Oldguy

    Bree I really would like a primary. I want to hear why I should vote for somebody not why I shouldn’t . I would even change from a independent just vote in the primary.

  22. grudznick

    Having been prostrated by the agonies for some time I returned to find that young Mrs. Bree is singlemittenedly defending Mr. Nelson’s use of anonymous annoying phone calls and I righted myself and thought “hey is this right”?

    And it is. Mrs. Bree is probably the woman that Mr. Nelson has hired to run his campaign and in no way is that bad. People think Mrs. Bree is insaner than most and I am here to tell you she is not. She is just very adamant.

    Mr. Nelson doesn’t need a young woman to post hundreds of blog defenses, he can defend himself just fine and will. He would probably have made those calls himself, in person, if he was involved.

    1. Bree S.

      grudznick, I have never met Stace Nelson, and I have no experience in running campaigns. It’s pretty clear from the evidence available that Stace Nelson did not make those robocalls, and I don’t even see credible evidence of indirect involvement (which is in no way illegal anyway) so where do you get off saying he made the calls?

      By the way, Stace Nelson is a better candidate for the Senate race than Bill Napoli.

      1. Bree S.

        To correct a fallacy – I have no experience running campaigns at that level, and minimal experience running campaigns in general.

  23. RINO Mike

    RINO Mike is running an amazingly inept campaign for someone who should have all the advantages. He’s so similar to DewCrist it’s incredible. Go, Stace!

      1. Bree S.

        RINO Mike is not from D.C. I think his website makes that obvious. But you love to repeat the same lame lies, don’t you?

    1. Anonymous

      There you go Stace, this famous lawsuit coupled with Rino (DC) Mike, Bree (I live off farm subsidies) and grudz….and you’ve got a team. Time to get in the fray and show the people what you’ve got.

  24. Troy Jones Post author


    I know you think my question is a “smoke and mirror attempt to change the direction of the conversation to irrelevant side questions.” Since this is about something before the courts, and the essense of the issue, please explain why these are not relevant.

    Has Stace admitted or denied he met and advised Dykstra/Willard on these robocalls?

    Has Willard confirmed or contradicted Dykstra’s assertion this was a three-person effort?

    Is there some hard evidence that ties these three together on this matter?

    Is it against the law to make anonymous candidate attacks a certain period before an election?

    But, anyway you pretty maintaining your 40% posting rate on this thread. 50% is out of the question. You’d have to do almost 30 in a row to get there. But, don’t be ashamed with 40%. We are just grateful for whatever wisdom comes from you.

    1. Bree S.

      I have no idea about your first two questions (I’ve never met Stace nor Willard). However those questions are irrelevant because providing free advice to people on campaigning isn’t against the law. If advice made someone liable for other people’s minor mistakes this whole country would burn in a pile of frivolous lawsuits. On your third question, I would say its highly unlikely there is hard evidence because if there was Stace would be party to the criminal suit rather than Lederman’s bogus SLAPP suit. Also, if there was hard evidence I’m sure Lederman would already have waved it in front of the press rather than counting on Dykstra’s ridiculous testimony. So this makes your fourth question irrelevant because the evidence I see points to no involvement by Stace Nelson and a politically motivated attack by Dan Lederman.

      The question I would like answered is this – if Dan Lederman is interested in justice, why is he willing to trade Gary Dykstra’s name on this frivolous lawsuit in return for incredibly vague testimony that he thinks maybe possibly perhaps Stace might have reviewed some scripts and maybe gotten some emails (but he doesn’t have those records he says which is suspicious, I mean what cruddy email service is he using that deletes emails randomly?) Gary Dykstra clearly was involved and he’s not a party to the suit. And his lame testimony says maybe (perhaps.. I don’t know.. I’m not sure..) he sent emails to Stace – but he doesn’t have those records (?!). And apparently he gave different testimony in the criminal case.

      And let’s not forget what this is about. Someone (Willard?) made robocalls informing the public that their legislators voted to end state educational benefits to National Guard members (while they were fighting in the Middle East). And that person forgot a web address in the robocall that provided the voters with factual information about their legislators’ voting record. Lederman sued under state law about the lack of a web address – and the state legislature got rid of the statute he sued under. Now they’ve changed the entire suit attempting federal claims in state court. And Lederman probably doesn’t even have standing to sue because he’s not the Attorney General.

      1. anon144

        WHAT?? You’ve NEVER MET Stace Nelson? Are you serious??? You’ve been the head cheerleader and you’ve never met him?
        Well I have met him. He’s big, loud, and immature. Anybody who disagrees with him is a liar. If he doesn’t get his own way he pouts about how he’s only a humble servant and everybody’s being mean to him. He does not work well with others, even those who agree with him.
        He lacks experience and maturity. I believe you are an intelligent person, and if you had ever met him, you would have figured it out by now. The revelation that you have never met him explains a lot.

        1. Anon #1

          Thank you for your political opinions “Anon144.” You give yourself away as a jealous politician who nobody would recognize your name or give 2 seconds to your tantrum. We can understand how it must feel to be bypassed for statewide attention because of your record of voting with the Democrats with the rest of the RINO herd! It must really make you angry that SD does not revolve around the coniving Pierre politic epicenter. 😀

  25. Anonymous

    Troy Jones putting down a woman because she strong opinions and isn’t afraid to state them. No surprise here.

  26. Anne Beal

    I received 2 of those phone calls, one about Russell Olson and one about Hal Wick. Both were AWFUL, both were timed just before the general election, well after the primary. There is absolutely no excuse for those calls, none at all. What those men did was terrible. If Stace even knew about the plan, knew about the content of the scripts, and didn’t do anything to stop it, he’s complicit. Stace now has 3 strikes against him: (1) got involved in a local matter, the dairy issue, which he should have stayed out of and left to the county commissioners to figure out (2) created an embarrassing situation in the state house which established his reputation as a bully, and (3) got mixed up in the robocall debacle. He’s out.

    1. Huh!?

      Please explain this. How was he a bully and how is he responsible for anyone expressing their disatisfaction with any of our elected officials?

      So he wasn’t supposed to get involved with something that affected him personally, as well as his county, but he was supposed to go out of his way to oppose voters from other districts reporting out politicians’ voting records on veteran issues? Huh!?

    2. Bree S.

      Oh yes it’s just AWFUL when the good ol’ boys are exposed for the dirty corrupt self-serving liars that they are.