This morning, Gordon Howie, who might just have schlepped himself out to Pierre for one of Bosworth’s free hotel rooms that she was offering is writing this morning without the benefit of information, accuracy, or a brain to guide him as he makes his daily excuse for Annette Bosworth’s poor judgement:
As I sat watching, it was hard not to wonder about the intensity with which the Jackley team attacked Bosworth in their attempt to convict her of 12 felony charges over petition errors which her defense maintain were “honest mistakes”.
It was also hard to wonder where Jackley was when then Republican Speaker of the House Brian Gosh purposely violated the law by notarizing his own signatures on his own petitions. Nothing. No consequence. The Attorney General did not marshal a team of lawyers and engage the director of the DCI to launch an investigation. There was no consequence whatsoever, even though Gosh is an attorney himself and should reasonably have known better.
Why this obvious double standard?
First off, as Howie should have noticed by the testimony yesterday, there are distinct and separate parts of the petition. The Declaration of candidacy. The portion where voters sign, and the attestment of the circulator (The part Bosworth is in trouble for).
Howie is mewling & trying to say “but..but…but… Brian Gosch did it too” – a statement which is completely and utterly false.
For the petitions that Brian Gosch had circulated on his behalf, he had filled out the top portion, where he declared his candidacy. Someone else circulated the petitions, and returned them to Gosch, signing in his presence. What Gosch did was to notarize the petitions, which is an attestment to the fact that the person signing the oath that they were circulator appeared in his presence, which he confirmed.
A completely, and utterly legal act…. as Stephanie Strong found out to her detriment when she tried to use the court system to gin up the issue. It had been legal, and was quite legal at the time when he did it. The legislature has changed the law since, but at the time, it was just fine.
But, don’t bother getting Gordon Howie to try to accept troubling little things like facts.
Gordon,
Boz has been treated with kid gloves. In no way could you construe this as political retribution. She was and is no threat to any Republican in our state. It has been a long drawn out sideshow. She raised 2.1 million dollars and didn’t get very far into the single digits. During the primary of 2014, ALL the powers-that-be wouldn’t touch any of this with a ten foot pole. Only after the election did we learn most of her scams and financial schemes were not prosecutable and the best they could do was prosecute obvious petition fraud. The media and most alternative media sources treated her through the entire primary with kid gloves. During the primary last year one reporter told me they had a stack six inches high on Boz – the craziest stuff imaginable. Yet they, the SOS, the AG, the Rounds campaign, the Stace Nelson campaign, the Rhoden campaign all were basically silent.
Boz still owes Hildebrand $23,000. She owes a Sioux Falls man $50,000 for his work on a book. People who worked for her and with her have told me her faith is fake and she’s a master manipulator and her husband is far worse; how they ruined lives in Utah; how their polyamorous friend Joey scrubbed the history of Chad Haber from the internet, their raffle scams here and unpaid employees, etc., etc.
At some point, Gordon, it’s hard to turn a blind eye – their $5000 medical mission trips to Haiti that I can do for $2000 per person. Particularly aggravating to me was how an auto mechanic in my district was delayed payment and leaned on with guilt trips by Annette that spring during the campaign to fix her car for little to nothing. She was a DOCTOR running for US SENATE and it was outrageous to this District 9 small businessman that she couldn’t pay him. Beyond the pretty face, theirs is a very bizarre and crazy world and one with such bad judgment, instability, and a long history of exploiting others for personal gain has no business with a medical license.
Believe me I tried to get Marty Jackley to do something. The answer was no.
If the Gosch notary “scandal” is as you describe it in the last couple paragraphs (I’m taking it you’ve done your homework) Howie’s comparison to Bosworth’s transgressions makes him look very, very foolish and ignorant of the facts; his query, “Why this obvious double standard?” is very revealing of his inability to think clearly, and another reason to thank our lucky stars, and the voters of South Dakota, that he is not representing our state in an already idiot-filled DC.
Explicitly illegal for someone to notarized a document in which they have interest. It was before Gosch did so. Establishment doing then what Howie is doing now, defending the indefensible.
That’s generally true in a financial situation, but in nominating petitions this has been common & allowed in previous South Dakota elections.
Chris Nelson denied them previously if they were notarized by candidates and Democrats’ petitions were denied that year.
The Gosch scandal effectively cost Jason Gant his position as SOS.
Actually, you’re wrong. When this came up, it was checked. There were a couple of other legislators who had previously notarized the the affidavit of circulation for others who had circulated their petitions.
I know, because I saw it with my own eyes.
Actually.. Gant cited Mitchell notarizing his own petitions as grounds for denying his petitions which is when the Democrats pointed out Gosch had also done so without repercussions: http://m.rapidcityjournal.com/news/dispute-over-gosch-petition-notarization-headed-for-state-legislature/article_5274c072-407d-544d-9a49-c08663cd855d.html
Pat,
Prior to the law change, it went to the legal definition of interest and still would be allowed without the change.
Those who claim Gosch did anything wrong are ignorant, unwittingly or intentionally.
Or they know the law and standard and are just being dishonest.
Nonsense. Notarizing a document that the notary has an interest in has always been forbidden across the USA and by the bonding agencies. The appearance of impropriety attacks the very reliability of the office of notary.
Gosch’s actions were indefensible then and now. Just as Bosworth’s misconduct.
Article II (page 8) has long been in effect and shows it is prohibited and improper for notaries to notarize anything they benefit from: http://www.nationalnotary.org/file%20library/nna/reference-library/notary_code.pdf
Claiming Mr Gosch’s actions were mainstream is either ignorant or extremely dishonest.
How many times have we seen the Democrats do the same thing with Obama? Now we have Republicans making excuses for misconduct by Gosch, Bosworth? It’s the reason so many are seeing the SDGOP as more and more corrupt.
Every, every, every decision ever defines “benefit” to mean personal financial gain directly derived from the document. Paralegals may notarize documents their law firms are paid to draft, loan administrators may notarize loan documents their banks earn interest on, and on and on and on. You can pull snippets from all the standards you want to “prove” your point, Gosch’s actions were entirely mainstream.
“Totally mainstream?!”
BS. If it was acceptable? Then why did the legislature explicitly outlaw it..
I wouldn’t sign my man me to my posts if I were as incredibly stupid as you or as intentionally deceptive as you.
I said it earlier. Let me repeat.
Gosch did absolutely nothing out of the mainstream with regards notary law or standards. As mhs said, it is totally mainstream. Your accusation is now appearing to be intentionally deceptive or you are incredibly stupid.
The legislature didn’t change standards with regard to notary law. They changed ELECTION law.
Please read slowly until you understand. Stupidity is only a defense so long.
Nevermind about this Mr. Gosch business or the things that got Mr. Gant all sideways with the world, is Mr. Howie selling “Free Dr. Bos” T-shirts yet?
“Interest” is a defined word according to notary law. If Gosch violated the law with regard to interest, it would be with regard to notary law (not election law) and he would have lost his notary. If that didn’t happen, nothing was improper. State Election Law didn’t prohibit with regard to notarizing a petition at the time.
There are three standards for assessing potential wrong-doing (in order of standard).
1) Clear and convincing evidence. Nearly automatic charge.
2) Preponderance of evidence. Likely charge.
3) Credible evidence. Insufficient for charge.
Appearance of impropriety is a lower standard than “credible evidence.”
That said, I think the change in the law was prudent as it removed the appearance of impropriety or potential accusations of impropriety, but neither rise to the level of illegality. Period.
P.S. I’ve heard over and over prior petitions have been denied. However, including the trial over this issue, not a single example has been produced. Do so or the accusation is without basis. Period.