Newly convicted felon Annette Bosworth may want to choose her words very carefully between now and sentencing.
Because, according to Attorney General Marty Jackley, they could have an effect as to whether the Attorney General’s office recommends jail time for the one-time Republican US Senate Candidate:
South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley discusses the factors that will go into his sentencing recommendation…
“You know, part of that recommendation always is whether or not the defendant has accepted responsibility. And so, obviously there hasn’t been an acceptance of responsibility yet, but I want to keep an open mind as Attorney General to see whether or not in the next few weeks before sentencing there’s a change in position.”
“I also recognize that under South Dakota law for non-violent felonies such as this there’s a presumption of very limited or no actual jail time. And of course, that presumption is overcome sometimes by a defendant’s conduct.”
The Justice Department plans to move forward this year with more than a dozen new gun-related regulations, according to list of rules the agency has proposed to enact before the end of the Obama administration.
“It’s clear President Obama is beginning his final assault on our Second Amendment rights by forcing his anti-gun agenda on honest law-abiding citizens through executive force,” said Luke O’Dell, vice president of political affairs at the National Association for Gun Rights.
The Justice Department plans to issue new rules expanding criteria for people who do not qualify for gun ownership, according to the recently released Unified Agenda, which is a list of rules that federal agencies are developing.
Gun rights advocates argue it would be more effective to ban people on an individual basis, as opposed to banning all people who are mentally ill.
“A person who experienced a temporary reaction to a traumatic event or who has trouble handling household finances may well be treated the same as a violent psychopath,” the NRA wrote. “Not only is this unjust and stigmatizing, it creates disincentives for those who need mental health treatment to seek it, increasing whatever risks are associated with untreated mental illness,” it added.
Aside from these issues, some gun rights advocates have also raised concerns about upcoming ATF rules that would require gun dealers to report gun thefts, provide gun storage and safety devices, and place restrictions on high-powered pistols, among other things.
From the Argus Leader, it sounds as if Bosworth is on notice that her behavior matters, and that she isn’t guaranteed no jail time:
Her medical license could be jeopardized. She faces a maximum punishment of 24 years in prison and $48,000 in fines.
Attorney General Marty Jackley said prosecutors will review mitigating and aggravating circumstances before making a sentencing recommendation.
“Under South Dakota law, non-violent felonies such as these carry a presumption of no or limited actual jail time,” Jackley told The Associated Press. “The presumption may be overcome by the defendant’s conduct.”
Jackley said one mitigating factor would be if Bosworth accepted responsibility.
With Marty noting that there’s a presumption of no jail time, and the fact that a $48,000 fine might be chump change for someone raising money nationally, is jail time necessary to make an impactful statement that such behavior won’t be tolerated?
As we’re in Lunch mode in the middle of Annette Bosworth’s testimony, I’m a bit confused. Maybe I’m mistaken, but I was under the impression that Bosworth would be the last one to testify for the defense, as she’s the accused.
So, what happened to attorney Jeff Beck?
In his opening statement, Bosworth legal team member Dana Hanna had promised the Jury that Jeff Beck would be testifying. Then, this morning, we’re hearing about a missing witness.
Next thing you know, when it comes time for the defense to present their case, they put up the employee as a witness and move straight to Annette herself. Wasn’t there someone supposed to come in the middle of that, who was promised to back up their side of the tale?
Maybe he’ll pop up this afternoon, but this seems odd to me.
My head hurts from all “the stupid” out there on this case.
And it’s all coming as part of a campaign of disinformation on the part of Bosworth associates who if not are stretching the truth are offering utter fabrications in defense of Annette Bosworth, or in attacking the prosecution. And there’s been a flurry of activity as the trial has gotten underway.
Today’s dose of stupid is coming from Peter Waldron who has set up the “No Compromise group” in a Sioux Falls Post Office Box. We’re not sure if it’s a political group (which would require filing with the Secretary of State as a political organization) or a private business (which would require a fictitious name filing). Regardless, here’s the latest stretching of the truth from he and his allies:
Any guesses? My thought is that afterwards there will be some significant fundraising attempts from the donor list Bosworth has left over from the campaign. And that there’s a group of people lining up at the trough.
The Pierre Capital Journal has a good synopsis of yesterday’s Bosworth trial coverage, and hits the high points (without you having to sit through the hours-long cross examination:
It wasn’t his job as a notary public to review the contents of each petition or each voter signature, but merely to attest that Bosworth’s own signature actually was hers and that he witnessed it, Arends said.
But at one point Bosworth showed him a petition, he said. “Dr. Bosworth asked me, ‘Can I sign this?’ I said ‘No, you can’t, because you didn’t circulate it.’”
Bosworth told a radio talk show host last year she thought because the signature collection was done under her direction, she was the circulator even though she didn’t witness every signature. It’s one of the mistakes she made as a rookie candidate, Hanna told the jury. The bigger mistake was relying on Arends’ touted expertise on petitions, Hanna said.
But Arends said he saw Bosworth demonstrate impressive knowledge of petition-gathering rules at a Lincoln Day dinner for Republicans in Pierre in February 2014. As early as January 2014, Bosworth was able to explain the rule that the person collecting signatures has to witness each signature, under South Dakota law, Arends said.
Supporters for Bosworth in court Thursday include some from Iowa and a Chicago cabdriver.
“She’s a ‘super tremendo’, fantastic leader,” said Fred London, who said he took time off from driving a taxi in Chicago to attend the trial Thursday and Friday. He learned about Bosworth from radio talk shows, London said.
“She’s everything a person could want in a U.S. Senator.”
When asked if anyone from Bosworth’s camp was paying his expenses, London, who said he’s staying at the Super 8 motel, referred questions to Bosworth’s parents.
So, we learned that the prosecution and the defense disagree. And that Bosworth’s parents might be footing the bill at the Super 8 for those easily swayed by what they hear on the radio or internet broadcasts.
In between running to Lowe’s and listening while painting my deck, I caught the lions share of the Bosworth Trial coverage on KELOland’s live feed.
My reaction? Much of the first hour or so was predictable – opening statements, etc. Moving into testimony, it was a review of procedure from Former Secretary of State Chris Nelson, who reiterated what people had heard from Secretary Gant all along during the process – that the Secretary of State was a filing agency, had set procedures in place, and had no authority to contest the validity of signatures.
Nelson laid it out very concisely, and even critics of Gant had to begrudgingly admit in on-line chatter that it was handled as it was supposed to be. This was followed up by more SOS related testimony, as well as those who had signed petitions being called as witnesses, noting how the petitions in question had been circulated to them.
The testimony later moved to Bryan Gortmaker with DCI. And here the trial moved from very mechanical yes and no information to what was difficult to listen to.Especially for the defense.
After presenting evidence that she was in the Philippines during the time the petitions were being circulated, they introduced the April 17, 2014 Greg Belfrage show from KELO-AM. To say this was devastating to Bosworth’s case for all watching or listening is an understatement. It was bone-crushing. In her own rambling wandering manner, through the radio program Bosworth’s radio confessional to Belfrage, she seemingly painted her as anything but sympathetic, and did nothing to bolster the credibility and sympathy her attorney attempted to imply in his opening statement. If anything, it eroded it, while Bosworth listened, and at times visibly appeared on the verge of tears.
It was like she was testifying live without the benefit of her attorney imploring her not to say anything stupid.
It was commented on-line that this would be a good time for the prosecution to drop the microphone in triumph. Because as things wrapped up, the general impression is that this was a bad, bad day in court for Annette Bosworth.
Otherwise, today’s Winners & Losers?
Winner: Ben Dunsmoor and KELOland’s coverage. Second to none, especially with cameras being allowed in the court room. This was incredibly well done in the cramped space, and they deserve tremendous credit for letting the story tell itself.
Loser: Argus Leader. Where the hell were you and your “Real Reporters?” Probably watching KELOland with the rest of us. Sorry guys, but you whiffed this one.
Winner: Twitter. Second only to KELOland, Twitter was reasonably active today on the court case. Ken Santema did a good job covering things, while we had to pick through Cory Heidelberger’s self-aggrandizement to find what was worthwhile.
Winner: The State of South Dakota (As prosecutor). See Above.
Loser: Team Boz. Again, see above. It was a bad, bad day.
This evening, Gordon Howie is teaming up, yet again, with the forces of silliness swirling around Annette Bosworth as the time to pay the piper is arriving on the evening before the trial.
Tonight, he’s acting on their behalf and publishing a missive from the man with the dyed hair, Peter Waldron, who is calling his PO Box at the UPS Store a Suite, and lashing out at Mike Rounds & Marty Jackley by filing complaints with the FEC and DOJ.
The problem? The complaints significantly lack merit. And a factual basis.:
The complaints are very straightforward, and represent serious allegations that include Senator Mike Rounds and Attorney General Marty Jackly.
One complaint is under the consideration of the Federal Election Commission, the other with the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice.
If you read through it, just like other charges coming from the Bosworth allies, it’s a lot of innuendo, and a lot of stuff being rehashed, over and over.
But at the risk of giving it undue attention, just a few points. Three easy ones to get right, but…. they fall short in playing their games.
The part where Waldron alleges that Rounds benefited from the investigation by Jackley, who was appointed by Rounds long, long ago, he makes the allegation that Marty sent out “DCI agents to intimidate Candidate Dr. Annette Bosworth’s family, employees, and landlord from exercising their right to vote……. some of these visited by SDDCI did not vote as a result,” and he proceeds to name Peggy Craig, Angela Callahan, and Rodney Fitts specifically as those visited by DCI and intimidated.
Well, the problem with alleging that they were intimidated not to vote and as Waldron claims “some of these visited by SDDCI did not vote as a result?” I pulled the voter history records I have at my little fingertips. And in looking, all three of them voted in the primary. Without fail.
So, when he’s naming the three, and claiming that some did not vote… He is completely inaccurate. He is bearing false witness against his neighbor. He is not telling the truth. There’s his first strike.
Now, we visit the part about selective prosecution, where he claims that Marty made a decision to “initiate a very public investigation, and to impanel a Grand Jury” before the primary and “it contributed significantly to Dr. Annette Bosworth’s final vote totals.”
Let’s look at that further in a press release issued Thursday, June 19th…
Attorney General Marty Jackley confirms that on Tuesday June 17th a Hughes County grand jury issued an indictment charging Annette Bosworth, 42, Sioux Falls.
Bosworth was originally charged by complaint on June 4th, 2014, for election law violations. Bosworth has now been indicted by the grand jury on six counts of offering false or forged instrument for filing, class 6 felony punishable by a maximum sentence of 2 years imprisonment and/or $4,000 fine and six counts of perjury, class 6 felony, punishable by a maximum sentence of 2 years imprisonment and/or $4,000 fine.
So, someone explain to me – how does a grand jury’s indictment on June 17th affect an election taking place two weeks earlier? And trust me, if anyone would have said or known anything about it, it would have been all over the place, starting here.
Again with the whole thou shalt not bear false witness thing. Strike 2.
So, four Hutterite colonies were “raided” by DCI who “arrived in a convoy of official state vehicles?” Does anyone have any evidence that anything of this nature took place? Are there pictures of the alleged “convoy?” And when one uses the term ‘raid,’ one assumes that a warrant was used to gain involuntary entry. Again, any evidence of anything like that?
I didn’t think so.
Any interviews with agents of DCI would have likely involved a phone call ahead of time, asking if the would be willing to talk to them, and where it might work for them to sit down. If they came directly to the colonies, it would have not just been voluntary, it would have been by invitation, as they would have had the right to decline the interview.
So, the Hutterite colonies were raided by DCI? Again, complete and utter bullsh*t.
Now for god’s sake would someone take this guy out of the game? He’s embarrassing himself.
Apparently pot proponent (briefly Libertarian PUC Candidate) Ryan Gaddy filed, withdrew, and today once again filed a proposed ballot initiative to decriminalize the possession and use of one ounce or less of pot, and mandates that the use of pot can’t be considered a violation of parole or probation. So DUI offenders, instead of drinking, can instead get high, and there’s nothing a judge can do about it.
After glancing at it, I suspect that this measure is going to get pulled and refiled again.
Section 13. SDCL 22-42-6. Possession of marijuana prohibited–Degrees according to amount; needs to be amended to include Class 1 misdemeanor to possess more than one ounce but less than two ounces of marijuana. All other laws stand as is.
Somehow, I don’t think that looks like ballot language as much as a suggested correction. (No comment on what the measure sponsors were doing when they wrote it.)
From the Capital Journal, it sounds like there’s still plenty of room available at the Inn. And that Boz is refusing any deal that doesn’t involve things being pled down to a misdemeanor:
But last week, a county employee said there had not been serious discussion or expectations of a large crowd in town for the trial, expected to begin Wednesday after a jury is seated.
A cursory survey of motels in Pierre and Fort Pierre found no clear indication of Bosworth supporters reserving rooms.
Evangelical groups across the nation have rallied to Bosworth’s cause, saying she’s being singled out for uber-prosecution because of her openness about her faith. Other evangelicals have countered with criticism of Bosworth for not being honest.
Many have questioned why a deal hasn’t been struck.
“There’s no deal that will take away any of the felonies, so of course it’s going to trial,” Bosworth said.
She has posted regular appeals for donations and prayers on her Facebook page.
Hickey posted recently on a blog thread about Bosworth, in a reply to Howie’s attacks, on why he is adamant that she should be prosecuted: “As a Christian in the public sphere it is maddening to me that you and Boz – the most overt in displaying your Christianity – morning devotions put on Youtube – are known as the most unscrupulous. It’s a horrible witness. Boz in particular. She isn’t being persecuted for righteousness’ sake, as your recent post said. That’s ridiculous. She’s getting off easy.”