Category: Law and Order

If you read Todd Epp’s story about the voter intimidation accusations coming from Gordon Howie and Annette Bosworth, and likening it to yelling “SQUIRREL” at your dog, you’re likely wondering what anyone is talking about.

What am I hearing? It’s more about unrealized expectations than any sort of intimidation, whatsoever.

If you recall in her petition foibles, which have ended up with an involuntary trip to the Hughes County Courthouse this week, there were some signatures that she (or someone) collected among the Hutterite colonies.

As I’m told, supposedly Bosworth had been providing medical services to at least one Hutterite colony, and she felt she had a close association with them. Emphasis on “she felt,” because the feeling may not have been mutual.

Why did she target Hutterites? Because they provided a solid block of Republican votes. And apparently, Bosworth may have somehow believed that she had a lock on those votes because she’d worked them as a Doctor.

But, alas, there’s always that troubling reality.

A very traditional and religious group, Hutterite leadership is quite conservative, and quite male.

If Annette thought showing up a few times and doing vaccinations was going to earn her their votes, she might be a bigger fool than anyone thinks.

But, there’s evidence that’s exactly what she thinks. In an April facebook post, her one-time paid PR person, former S&M Pornographer Lee Stranahan claimed he was had a story coming on just that:

Coming this weekend: the untold story of the voter suppression of the Hutterites by team Mike Rounds & Mary Jackley in last year’s election.

I’ll be publishing new details on how (and why) Jackley stopped the Hutterite vote and how the South Dakota media–most notably KELOland–has continued to shill for Jackley to this day.

• Lee “Pornahan” Stranahan – Facebook, April 25, 2015

Somehow this “untold story of voter suppression” that was promised nearly a month ago never materialized. I suspect because it only existed in “imaginary land,” and there are some stories so crazy that even ‘Pornahan’ won’t write them.

….And that’s when we cue up Gordon Howie. Howie is claiming that the baton of crazy has been handed off to the robocalling Peter Waldron, whom Howie claims is conducting his own investigations.  (I’m sure that’s going to be the epitome of objectivity.)

The truth is that Bosworth was not only fatally misreading the patriarchy, but among the residents of the Hutterite coloniess, she was also working against a 2-term Governor who had been very sympathetic to Hutterite’s needs, and over the course of eight years in office, was a good partner for these communities, and implemented initiatives that helped the colonies in terms of distance education, economic development, and more.

The colonies have a tendency to block vote, based on the opinions of community elders. And that fact isn’t lost on many candidates at any level. I’ve heard of it at least a couple of other times, and those that live in colony areas can probably relate several more.

Annette Bosworth wouldn’t be the first person who thought she had it all locked up, only to find out she didn’t, and she won’t be the last.

Most people don’t claim that it’s the result of voter intimidation and suppression. But then again, most people don’t falsely attest they witnessed signatures that took place while they were pictured half-ways across the planet.

Jury selection begins today in Pierre for Annette Bosworth’s criminal trial. Stay tuned for updates on the circus as they progress.

From Todd Epp at KSOO:

Whether sports or politics, if you get beat and it was fair and square, you graciously concede and congratulate the winning team, player or candidate.

And..

Apparently, however, defeated Republican U.S. Senate candidate Annette Bosworth and independent Gordon Howie skipped that lesson in campaign school.

Instead, Howie says on his blog that Sen. Mike Rounds, who received over 55 percent of the vote in the Republican primary against four other opponents and then over 50 percent of the vote in the general election against three other candidates, somehow, allegedly, intimidated voters and suppressed the vote in the primary.

Never mind the election was nearly a year ago and this is the first anyone has heard of it.

And…

In the meantime, while the Bosworth trial gets started this week in Pierre, this stunt is the equivalent of yelling “Squirrel!” at your dog. It gets their attention and drives them a little bit crazy.

Read it here.

(In a release just issued by the Attorney Generals office, the AG was ruled correct in what was released in the matter of Richard Benda’s death, and reporter Bob Mercer, who sought the records, had the court rule unanimously against him. – Editor PP)

South Dakota Supreme Court Unanimously Rules the Attorney General Has Followed South Dakota’s Disclosure Law on the Benda Death Investigation

PIERRE, S.D. – Attorney General Marty Jackley announces that the South Dakota Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Attorney General has followed South Dakota’s disclosure law relating to the Richard Benda death investigation conducted by local, state, and federal authorities.

“The South Dakota Supreme Court, the Trial Judge, and the Chief Hearing Examiner, have all ruled the Attorney General has followed South Dakota’s disclosure law relating to the death investigation of Richard Benda. I am pleased that the Court has applied the rule of law, and recognized the balancing of open transparency with the privacy interests of the family members faced with a tragic situation. Although the Attorney General is allowed to receive court costs as the prevailing party, I have determined to not seek costs from the plaintiff in the interest of avoiding any potential effect it may have on open government transparency under these unique circumstances,” said Jackley.

The Supreme Court concluded that “When the Legislature enacted the South Dakota Public Records Act in 2009, it broadened the presumption of openness in regard to public records”. However, the Court went on to opine that confidential criminal justice information is specifically made confidential by state law, and recognized that “the evidence establishes that the Attorney General took into account the public’s interest in Benda’s death and weighed that against the personal privacy interests of the Benda family.”

“After today’s decision, the final remaining action is for me to publicly address my disappointment in how the federal government has handled this matter. I have expressed my concerns to the Department of Justice regarding its conduct and the appearance of political motivation associated with the handling, timing and publicity regarding the investigation from Washington. The actions of the Department of Justice’s Public Integrity Section were unfair to local federal investigators who worked in cooperation with state and local authorities to properly investigate this matter. I will certainly work with the new administration at the Department of Justice to assist them in properly addressing these concerns,” said Jackley.

On October 3, 2014, Attorney General Jackley advised US Attorney General Holder regarding his concerns associated with the Department of Justice’s handling of the investigation into the EB-5 Visa Program in South Dakota. The Attorney General specifically requested a review into the investigation that was conducted by the Public Integrity Section of the Department of Justice and a determination of whether politics had inappropriately driven decisions associated with this matter.   The Attorney General clearly stated that his “concerns neither pertained to nor are they directed toward any actions of the local federal authorities.” Attorney General Jackley provided General Holder with specific information pertaining to his concerns, including:   the Department of Justice’s aggressive tactics including but not

limited to openly serving subpoenas on cooperative witnesses at their place of employment; failing to attend previously arranged joint meetings with the South Dakota US Attorney’s Office, DCI Agents and the Governor’s Office of Economic Development private attorneys; and potential direct violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct governing attorneys practicing in South Dakota.

On February 3, 2015, having received no response, Attorney General Jackley renewed his request that these significant matters be reviewed and addressed in a timely fashion. To date, no response has been forthcoming. Attorney General Jackley’s correspondence to US Attorney General Holder is included as attachments to this release.

Benda Letters

 

 

Funny what you stumble across when doing background research.

In anticipation of Annette Bosworth’s upcoming court case involving allegations of falsely attesting that she witnessed signatures that she actually didn’t (because she might have been in the Philippines at the time), I was reviewing some of the documents involved in her going round & round with the state medical board.

And I stumbled across something interesting in this Argus Leader article by Jonathan Ellis, that I’m surprised have remained quiet until now:

This isn’t the first time that Bosworth has tangled with the board over its disclosure questions.

Now an independent physician, Bosworth worked for Sanford Health in 2010 when she disclosed that she was leaving the Sioux Falls hospital for Brookings. She said she got a notice that her license would not be renewed. After a 14-week investigation, her license was renewed. She was told she had to sign a form saying she had fraudulently filled out the disclosure and pay a $5,000 fine.

She refused. Her license was renewed last year.

Read it here.

(At the time in 2010, I believe she might have been represented by Bill Janklow or another attorney.)

The allegation from the Medical Board that she had fraudulently filled out a disclosure is eerily prescient with what she’s alleged to have done in 2014, when she signed the oath that she witnessed all the signatures on the petitions she claimed she circulated.

The charges Bosworth now face, via an indictment by the grand jury, are six counts of offering false or forged instrument for filing, and six counts of perjury. A little stronger than a license violation, but you’d think after that experience where she fought tooth and nail over the language of the form versus what she believed was accurate information, she would have been equally cautious about filling out the portion of her Senate petitions which clearly stated that as circulator, she witnessed the signatures?

Somehow in 2010, she managed to pull a rabbit out of her hat, keep her license, and not pay a fine. I’d be very interested in the resolution that did take place, and I’m continuing to dig.

But for now, as the trial date approaches, we’ll have to see if she find a lucky foot off of the same old rabbit.

Crime in South Dakota 2014 Publication Released

PIERRE, S.D. -Attorney General Marty Jackley released today the Crime in South Dakota 2014 report. This report is compiled by the Attorney General’s Criminal Statistical Analysis Center (SAC) and is the most accurate and comprehensive compilation of South Dakota criminal statistics as it reflects the actual arrest and reporting information by South Dakota law enforcement. Criminal statistics help identify trend s in criminal activity that assists in crime prevention and enforcement efforts across South Dakota.

“Our criminal statistics reflect a 1% increase demonstrating that over all, South Dakota remains a safe place to live as a result of strong community involvement, law enforcement efforts, and supportive lawmakers. The criminal trends identify reductions in the areas of drug and alcohol offenses, as well as offenses involving juvenile offenders. The trends further identify the need to further strengthen crime prevention efforts for financial crimes, and sexual offenses against children,” said Jackley.

South Dakota law enforcement agencies reported a total of 37,857 arrests involving 65,093 offenses in 2014, a I % increase from 2013 (63,332). The more serious offenses included a total of 16,799 arrests and involve the following: homicide/negligent manslaughter- I 3, sex offenses-! 1 1, assault-4,328,
larceny/theft-3,420, fraud-441, drug/narcotic-5,577, prostitution-41 , kidnapping-29, robbery-63 , arson-27 , burglary-329 , motor vehicle theft- I 46, counterfeiting-79, embezzlement-36, stolen property-91 , destruction of property-579 , pornography/obscene material- I 9, solicitation of a minor- 31 and weapon law violations-163. Less serious offenses totaled 21 ,058 arrestees, involving the following, but not limited to DUl-6,182 (6,535 for 2013), liquor law violations-3 ,524 and disorderly conduct-2 ,362.

Some examples of the South Dakota numbers included a decrease in juvenile arrests 4,888 down from 5,583 in 2013 accounting for 12.9% of the total arrests and an increase in thefts totaling more than $23 million worth of property loss reported. Addressing our juvenile offender concerns needs to involve substantial cooperative efforts from parents, educators, and law enforcement.

The sex offenses and child pornography arrest categories do not include enticement/solicitation of a minor. An additional chart for this category can be found at the end of this release.

For comparison purposes note that some statistics reflect arrest statistics and other identify incident reports.

You can obtain a copy of this year’s Crime in South Dakota report from our website.

(Or you can read it below – PP)

2014 Crime in South Dakota

Eighth Circuit Court Enters Order Holding Same Sex Appeals in Abeyance

PIERRE, S.D. – Attorney General Marty Jackley announced today that, on its own motion, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals entered an Order deferring oral argument and consideration of South Dakota’s same sex case Rosenbrahn v. Daugaard. The Eighth Circuit entered similar orders in the Nebraska, Missouri and Arkansas cases. The Eighth Circuit deferred the cases pending the United States Supreme Court’s decision in same sex cases Obergefell, et al. v. Richard Hodges, etc. The Eighth Circuit’s Order was entered one day following the Supreme Court hearing oral argument in the Obergefell same sex cases. It is anticipated that the Supreme Court will decide the cases prior to the Court’s adjournment at the end of June.

“Based upon the oral argument at the U.S. Supreme Court, it appears the Supreme Court may well decide the issues that South Dakota and the other states have appealed. In the event there are any issues left to be decided, the Eighth Circuit will still have the ability to consider the pending cases,” said Jackley. “It remains my position that the decision whether South Dakota should permit or recognize same sex marriages is a question for our citizens and state legislature, not the federal courts.”

In November 2006, South Dakota voters approved a constitutional amendment making marriage valid only between a man and a woman. South Dakota voters approved this amendment by a vote of 172,242 to 160,173. South Dakota Constitution Article XXI, Section 9 defines only marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid or recognized in South Dakota. In addition, SDCL 25-1-1 defines marriage as a personal relation between man and a woman.

-30-

US Supreme Court Upholds Ban on Personal Solicitation of Campaign Funds by Judicial Candidates

PIERRE, S.D. – Attorney General Marty Jackley announced today that the United States Supreme Court upheld a state ban on personal solicitations of campaign funds by judicial candidates. Petitioner Lanell Williams -Yulee mailed and posted online a letter soliciting financial contributions to her campaign for judicial office. The Florida Bar disciplined her for violating a rule prohibiting such personal solicitations.

Recognizing that public perception of judicial integrity is a “state interest of highest order,” the Court rejected Yulee’s claim that her First Amendment rights were violated by the ban. The Court found that a personal appeal for money by a judicial candidate, rather than a campaign committee, inherently creates an appearance of impropriety that may cause the public to lose confidence in the integrity of the judiciary.

“Today’s decision affirms South Dakota’s law permitting judicial candidates to establish a campaign committee to solicit and accept campaign contributions, but prohibiting direct solicitation of campaign funds,” said Jackley.

-30-

Have you registered for the “Do Not Call List?”  And did you receive the “Peter Waldron/Annette Bosworth” robocall?  If so, there may be a recourse for you:

Before you file a complaint regarding a telemarketing call, please read about the types of calls exempt from the Do Not Call law.

• Calls from or on behalf of political organizations or candidates, charities and telephone surveyors are allowed.
• Calls from companies with which you have an existing business relationship (collection agencies, credit card companies, Internet service providers, etc.) are allowed.
• Additionally, a company may call you for 18 months after you make a purchase or three months after you submit an inquiry or application.
• Calls from companies you have given permission to call are allowed.

You may file a complaint with the PUC online or by phoning 1-800-332-1782. You must know either the name or the phone number of the telemarketer that called you. You must also provide the date the telemarketer called and your registered phone number.

After receiving a complaint from a South Dakota consumer, the PUC will research the complaint. After completing its research, the PUC will contact you with the results and will discuss any further action that may be taken. If the telemarketer appears to be in violation of South Dakota law, the matter may be brought before the PUC for enforcement action. A telemarketer can be fined up to $5,000 for each occurrence.

Read that here.

Since to my knowledge “No Compromise Group” is a private and not political entity, and not registered as a political organization, and I don’t have a business relationship with them, nor bought anything from, or given permission to call me……  I’m kind of thinking they’ve broken the rules.

If you recall yesterday’s pro-Bosworth Robocall (Which you read first at SDWC, of course) made by Peter Waldron representing the made up organization “No Compromise,” which I’m assuming also means “no accountability,” someone raised the question asking “who is all behind this latest scheme? are they registered somewhere?”

And unfortunately, the response is likely “No.”

Because unlike a political campaign, there’s little or no accountability regarding who has donated, or how the money is spent. In fact, if you look at one of the fundraising letters from the Annette Bosworth Legal Support Fund (See page 9, specifically):

Bosworth Appeal December 2014

“This Legal Defense fund is not a campaign contribution, and is not reported to or regulated by the Federal Election Committee.” Whatever that is, since it’s actually the Federal Election Commission. And it continues… “Contributions to this legal defense fund are not tax deductible. There are no limits to the minimum or maximum amount contributed to this Legal Defense fund contributions go directly towards the personal support of Dr. Annette Bosworth.”

If this was a political campaign, we’d have reasonable assurances of how the money was coming in, and how it was going out. Same thing if this was a non-profit organization organized under certain IRS rules.

But it’s neither. It’s a legal defense fund. And with activities such as Lee Stranahan’s active media campaign against the Attorney General and Republicans, as well as yesterday’s robocall in support of Bosworth side of the upcoming trial, it begs the question of how much money came in, and how is the money is being spent?

Who is there to ensure fair dealing for legal defense funds set up to defend criminal charges arising from political campaigns? Well, in South Dakota, no one. Because it really hasn’t come up. Until now.

I posed the question to Attorney General Marty Jackley, who in addition to prosecuting Annette Bosworth would likely be called on to enforce any laws surrounding murky Legal Defense funds. I specifically asked Marty “are “legal defense funds” such as the one Bosworth is using to raise and spend money for her defense subject to any state reporting for receipts and expenditures?”

Jackley noted, “The appropriateness of legal defense funds is really fact specific and can fall into a gray area of the law.  Depending upon the circumstances it may give rise to or fall under State Deceptive Acts, Federal Election Law issues, Tax issues, and the Rules of Attorney Professional Conduct.  South Dakota does not have specific laws that regulate Legal Defense Funds such as other states like Michigan and North Carolina which regulate Legal Defense Funds as they pertain to public officials brought into court in connection with their official duties.”

The Federal Election law issues that Jackley brings up potentially opens up a can of worms for sitting members of Congress. But Bosworth is anything but. So, what are the Federal Election rules her legal defense fund IS required to follow?  According to opencongress.org and Public Citizen:

Here are the main features of a legal defense fund for members of Congress:

• The fund must first be approved by the respective body’s ethics committee.

• The individual must appoint a trustee to manage the account.

• All the funds must be used to pay only for investigative, civil, criminal or other legal proceedings relating to an officeholder’s election to office, official duties while in office and administrative or fundraising expenses of the trust.

• Contributions to the fund are limited to $5,000 per year in the House from any single source, and $10,000 per year in the Senate. House rules prohibit contributions from lobbyists and foreign nationals; Senate rules prohibit contributions from lobbyists, foreign nationals, corporations, unions and any member’s principal campaign committee.

• Campaign funds may be transferred by any officeholder into a House member’s legal fund. [Federal Election Commission, Advisory Opinion 2000-40, 2003-15] The use of campaign funds by a legal defense fund, however, must be strictly for legal and administrative expenses associated with the fund and not for personal expenses. Contributions to the fund do not count toward a donor’s limits on campaign contributions or gifts to officeholders. An individual and the individual’s immediate family may make unlimited contributions to their own fund.

• Quarterly financial reports must be filed with the Legislative Resource Center in the House or the Secretary of the Senate. House and Senate reporting requirements are substantively the same but differ in some technicalities. For example, in the House, the filings shall disclose all contributions and expenditures of $250 or more per year, including the full name and street address of donors and recipients of expenditures. In the Senate, the reporting threshold is $25 per year.

While most legal expenses related to election contests for candidates who are not officeholders must be subject to the limits and reporting requirements of federal election law, members of Congress thus far have been permitted to finance their legal expenses with either surplus campaign funds, legal defense funds established under ethics rules, or both.

Read it here.

So, how does that apply to Dr. Bosworth? If you’ll note, it indicates “most legal expenses related to election contests for candidates who are not officeholders must be subject to the limits and reporting requirements of federal election law.”  Which in an initial reading would make you think that there could be reporting required to be done. That’s IF the Senate Select Committee on Ethics asserts authority over former candidates.

A search of opensecrets.org failed to indicate a Bosworthian Legal Defense fund being operated as a 527 or other entity. (I’m currently awaiting a return call from the US Senate Select Committee on Ethics regarding the question if whether Bosworth is actually required to report or register a Legal Defense fund).

So, currently, there’s no information available to determine who has donated, and how it has been spent. And other than peripheral issues such as federal tax liability, and Federal Campaign Law which may or may not apply, there’s not much information out there.  And in South Dakota, the law simply does not address it.

Which begs the question – “Should it?”

I asked Attorney General Jackley if he would support legislation to increase the transparency of such funds to prevent fraud and abuse in both the raising and expenditure of proceeds?  He noted that “as Attorney General I would support reasonable legislation that would increase transparency of funds in order to prevent fraud and abuse in raising and expenditure of these funds so long as it does not affect the Constitutional rights of defendants.”

So does there need to be a law regarding the use of murky legal defense funds in court proceedings?