Sen. Pischke moving forward with silly victim impact statements for Frye-Mueller

Senator Tom Pischke, who last week was defending the rights of sex offenders to be in classrooms with potential victims, was back fighting for the rights of harassers to be in close proximity to potential victims as today, he was leading a press conference attempting to claim Senators violated state law when Julie Frye Mueller was suspended from the State Senate while they investigated allegations of harassment of a legislative employee:

Frye-Mueller then allegedly told the staffer how “(the staffer’s) husband could ‘suck on (the staffer’s) breasts’ to get milk to come in,” according to the complaint.


In a signed victim impact statement and affidavit of senator in support of prosecution, Pischke wrote he believed Frye-Mueller’s suspension was in violation of state law by “preventing a legislator from attending or voting.” The violation is a class two misdemeanor.


“She should be embarrassed,” Schoenbeck said. “She and her bully friends need to go away and leave our workers and citizens alone.”

Read the entire story here.

If you recall, my spies provided me the affidavit Frye-Mueller was shopping around to potential allies on Monday..

.. so this comes as no shock that JFM and her allies were going to be doing this.

Meh. In speaking with people, the common legal opinion is that this dog isn’t going to hunt.

And it’s nowhere near as funny as the Julie Frye-Mueller joke told at the Hughes County Lincoln Day dinner.  Something about milk and cookies..

Because Senator Julie Frye-Mueller is more effective as the punchline in a joke than she is in the South Dakota legislature.


31 thoughts on “Sen. Pischke moving forward with silly victim impact statements for Frye-Mueller”

  1. You have to give him credit but Pischke the Perv-Defender is at least consistent in his insanity.

  2. How to win friends and influence people. By Tom Pischke.

    The trouble with many of these people is they don’t know they are insaner than most. But they do say that the less intelligent are always so much more certain of themselves.

  3. ultimately i lay blame for all of this on the gop majority of the 2005-2006 they lost to pelosi by believing they couldn’t lose – and a whole lot of dominos fell after that leading us all to here and now. what do we do about it republicans? staying in crazy town isn’t an answer.

      1. Claiming election fraud as the reason why we lost the House/Senate/White House is the laziest and dumbest argument. It ignores voter trends, the backdrop of the election, and the individuals the GOP runs.

        I’ve noticed something, wether it be in sports, politics, or anything else competitive, but whenever the loser of the event complains about cheating without a piece of evidence, they have the personality and temperament of a crybaby.

      2. the media exposed extravagant spending and “air drop” pork from key republicans, and dem house candidates campaigned against the pork and war spending, casting themselves as fiscal conservatives (like the gop did against hilary and bill in 1994). the gop ignored it all, to all of our detriment. pelosi took two years to totally stall out president bush, then under obama with reid in the senate, they did a lopsided slim-majority remodel of the whole country. a benefit for them is that the widespread tea party alarmism quickly descended into clusters of self-promoting ‘liberty’ duckspeak nut jobs. and here we are. the part where the gop was supposed to keep fighting for the party’s right to manage the country fell apart in 2005-2006, no cheating. trump’s four years were a huge squandering of valuable party-building time too. trump and his fervent admirers have only to look in a mirror to find out why trump lost.

  4. The District numbered XXV is too full of dead beat dads and sex offenders to be redeemed. All we can hope for now is divine retribution.

    1. Get your facts straight bud, the movement is more about changing state law to allow Fathers who actually take responsibility for their children, wanting to be part of their child’s life, than promoting those parents who want nothing to do with their children. It is about changing state laws that punish Fathers, or better terminology, the lessor parent, to not reward child support where both parents are equally responsible in sharing the expenses of their children. Courts have long refused to grant fathers the right to be the custodial parent mainly cause they see it as easy revenue for the state, mostly cause in predominant cases, the father is the breadwinner of the family, makes more income, and that alone rewards the children to the mother, while the father despite the fact he wants ot be equal partners in their children’s lives, get stuck with being punished by having to pay child support, despite the fact they agree to provide back to their children a second Home, Food, let alone provide for them clothing, education and healthcare. But yet, the State is so money hungry, that they slap the father with child support of up to 25% of their net income, all despite the fact they chose to provide for their children regardless. It is not make them deadbeats where they provide a home, food, clothing, pay for 50% of their education and healthcare costs. The shared parenting concept is a movement by Proud Fathers who want to be a part of their children lives, providing for them, an equal opportunity to be with their children, let alone providing to their own kids a second home, food, clothing, and helping to split the cost of healthcare and education equally. However, the public welfare system depends on the child support payments, and the management of, that the law allows the state to collect a % of the total payments for administration. Get your facts straight.

      1. yeah we got our facts straight: the shared parenting issue is about dads trying to get out of paying child support. They had a facebook group (maybe still do) where Mad Dads would post rants. First sentence would always be about not getting enough time with their kids. And then the rest of the rant, line after line, was about money.

        If you want shared parenting, get married and stay married. Otherwise, the judicial branch steps in and doesn’t give a shit about your happiness: the state’s interest is solely about providing for the physical needs of the kids. In other words, the state doesn’t care how much time they spend with either parent, as long as they don’t go on the welfare rolls.

        Family court judges have seen this over and over. The dads always want time with their kids until they get married again, and then they dump the kids on their new wives. (I have known women who were abandoned by men who skipped out leaving them with the stepchildren. I’m sure family court judges love hearing those stories, as do the mothers who lost custody in the first divorce.)

        If the dads who preceded you all had dutifully paid child support, The Child Support Recovery Act would not have been passed in 1992. By then, the failure of fathers to support their children had become a national crisis. It was easier for a single mom to go on welfare than to pursue a deadbeat dad for non-payment, especially if he was living in another state. The federal government had to get involved.

        It became a focus of study: why don’t men pay child support? I remember reading one which determined that it is a control issue: the men can’t control how their ex wives spend it, and they don’t think that’s fair. In other words, the overly-controlling behavior which led to the divorce in the first place continues after the divorce.

        The family court judges see this behavior over and over.

        1. So you admit, you are a welfare recipient. You love the system cause you profited from the system. You do not know what you are talking about. I grew up in a family of divorced parents where the court rewarded my mom child support, plus granted my father over other weekend, despite the fact he provided me a home, clothes, food, and paid half if not more of my education and medical costs. You are a welfare bum who knows nothing. You sound like a female who got picked on in college.

          1. my marriage ended when my kid was two. i found the court system wise and geared to the child’s welfare at all turns. i paid my child support, i kept the peace with my ex. i have no pity for people who couldn’t figure out how to do these easy things themselves, but instead declare the court biased and antagonistic to the rights of men. bah.

            1. So you were happy to pay 50% of all the costs of your child on top of the child support tax to boot. Good for you. People have rights, and the right to avoid a tax is the number right of which we fought for to become a country. You are a dutiful house wife, glad to pay a tax in addition provide for your own home, your child, education, and medical care to boot. You are a sheep. You failed to stand on your rights then you made a claim how I supposedly attacked the court? The only thing I said was the court acts in a corrupted manner to produce revenue for the state itself. It would sell its soul to reward child support even where two willing parents are agreeing to each provide equal amounts of income to their children. Again, Shared Parenting is not about dead beat dads, it is about helping those dads who want to be a part of their children lives by equally providing to their child a home, food, clothing, education, and medical care the same as the other parent. In shared parenting there 50-50 Partnership and child support is not needed. I am sorry that you slept with the first person you saw, and then when a child was born, decided to beg for a divorce, but you cannot strip away a parents right to equally be part of their child’s life.

              A woman does not have the right to end her marriage cause she found a better looking man, only to punish the father of her kids, then beg the court to tax the father, where the father agrees to provide for a home, food, clothes, pay for 50% of Education costs, 50% of Healthcare costs,. The mother does not deserve to profit from her ex- anymore than the father tries to be part of a child’s life.

              You are a lost soul, very unchristian of you to take advantage of our ex-spouse.

                1. I am not mad at all. Look in the Mirror. You are a mad little one. You are seriously mad at Fathers wanting equal time with their children without paying child support. Facts, when a father provides for a Home, Buys his kids clothes, buys food, pays for 50% of the education costs and medical costs. Why do you want the state to over charge him for the same expenses he is already paying? You are a welfare supporter, and encourage women to get divorced to scam the system.

          2. Young parent, you are delusional, believing that the courts are biased against one parent over another, the courts don’t care about the welfare of either parent, all the judges see are two people who don’t get along. Nobody cares if either of them is happy, the only thing the judicial branch of government cares about is that the children are provided for. If that takes so much of a parent’s income that he or she has to move into the grandparents’ basement, that’s okay with the people the judges work for, the taxpayers, who have their own children to support..

            The fundamental problem you have is your failure to solve your own problems, which got you into divorce court in the first place. Once you go into divorce court, you are at the mercy of a system which doesn’t give a shit about your happiness.
            The judge will take into consideration which parent has been providing most of the care and which parent has been providing most of the money. And guess what? The parent who has been providing most of the care gets custody of the kids, and the parent who has been providing most of the money will continue to provide most of the money. If you didn’t like the arrangement when it was just between you and your spouse, you’re going to like it even less when it’s court-ordered.

            And THAT is what happens when you ask a judge, who works for the taxpayers, to decide who gets custody and who pays child support. Don’t be surprised when getting a divorce puts you into a situation even worse than the one you got out of, because that’s how it works.

  5. I feel many in the Senate are offended to be bull-ringed into railroading a fellow Senator.

    The manner of conduct was quite undignified whereas the beauty and majesty of images of motherhood and family were tested.


    Does the capitol need a new painting about the reverence of motherhood – father, mother, child?

    Perhaps consider putting away the alligator tears.

    The mass lament in the South Dakota Senate is beyond embarrassing for a so-called conservative Republican dominated Senate. Senator Frye-Mueller’s language was family-appropriate for adults already willingly engaged in a conversation about child rearing. Senator Frye-Mueller’s choice of words is immaterial once the topic of conversation was mutually agreed upon.

    Perspective: Dear South Dakota Legislature; Please target the anti-family pipeline of online sex services preying on young people, promote actual family values and appropriate family-supportive sexual behavior among young people. — Sincerely, On Behalf of Dakota Fathers

    What the Senate has done here is damaging to family values. It weakens the biological sexual bond between men and women. Shame on the Senate, and shame on the bureaucrat who didn’t simply express her disagreement and move-on. Shame on whomever continues to promulgate such a non-issue in my view.


    That is all.

    1. “The beauty and majesty of the images of motherhood…”

      Now I know you are trolling. I am beginning to think John isnt as true a believer as he puts on. Given your complaint about people costing you money recently, your grift is becoming more clear.

    2. agreed with anon 7:44. that is a made up pile of whatever word they use in spearfish for crap. we are nothing if not honest with you mr. dale. please return the favor to your best ability.

    3. Well said John Dale, this whole feminist movement to promote the whole Gay and Lesbo lifestyle, the whole transgendered lifestyle, and the whole rewarding of mothers with child support despite the fact that good fathers want equal access and time with their children is a whole political ploy to destroy the family structure. Rewarding childsupport to one parent despite the fact the father shares equally in the cost of housing, food, clothing, education, healthcare is a crime on nature itself. On top of that, this whole movement to defame men by stripping them of their parental rights is a further crime. It is simply child trafficking in itself, allowing for mothers to beg for divorce, push the kids further away from their dads, by punishing the dads with child supports, and they want to know why dads get upset. The state has profited off the punishing of fathers for more than 3 decades now, every since the 1970’s. The republican establishment here in South Dakota is just as bad as the far left outside the state, in it is literally trafficking children by keeping them away from their fathers, only to profit off the scheme. A look at the 2023 budget, shows clearly, the state is pocketing millions off child support, let alone taking possession of young lads themselves. I often wonder what really was the truth behind the story regarding the young girl that disappeared from the state foster home a fear year ago.

      1. We need more JFMs, John Dales and Tom Pischke’s in the SDGQP and legislature. The more extreme and more fringe the better. We had a spirited debate about this at the Conservatives for Common Sense breakfast. Gravy and taters were flying as some of the meeting attendees were talking with their mouths open and accidently knocked Grudznick out of his chair. All good Talleys.

    4. John Dale, sit down and shut up: you are a liar. “Senator Frye-Mueller’s language was family appropriate for adults already willingly engaged in a conversation about child-rearing.”

      No, the staffer was not willingly engaged in the conversation and you would know that had you bothered to read her testimony.

      Furthermore, the language used was only the tip of the iceberg. JFM yelled at the staffer for not breastfeeding her child. The staffer said she wanted to but couldn’t. The staffer’s medical condition was redacted from the published testimony, but apparently during the pregnancy something happened or she was diagnosed with a condition, and she was lucky the child survived. And now, possibly due to the undisclosed medical condition, she is unable to breastfeed. It’s nobody’s business what the medical condition is.

      So the staffer is following her pediatrician’s advice about immunizations, and JFM, who gets her medical information, as you do, from Dr Robert-“I-deserve-a-Nobel-Prize-for-inventing-a-vaccine-that-doesn’t-work”-Malone, told her the baby is going to die. Questioning someone’s parenting decisions is best left to meddlesome mothers-in-law. It’s still unwelcome to a new mom, and completely inappropriate from anybody else. We cut grandmothers some slack, but not very much, and certainly not THAT much. A grandmother who said the things JFM said would probably not see the child again until high school graduation. That’s how bad it was.
      Saying it was just friendly advice is disgustingly dishonest.

    5. Mr. Dale would you be able to have someone drive you to Talleys’ Silver Spoon for our next Conservatives for Common sense breakfast and you could do a live podcast? Bring your guitar? Will your co-host be joining you? He usually has a table at Talley’s with a chair that is against the wall close to a door for a quick exit. He keeps an eye out for law enforcement.

  6. “Meh. In speaking with people, the common legal opinion is that this dog isn’t going to hunt.”

    Which people are these that you spoke with?

    The same ones that said the vaccine prevents covid?

    1. the vaccine stimulates the body’s ability to fight covid. the only aspect of covid response that borders on prevention is when others mask and prevent their body fluids from floating in the air i breathe, and i mask to pay them the same respect, until the numbers of vaccinated persons are sufficient to cause the relaxing of mask mandates. i apologize if that sounded too darn scientific and logical.

        1. Vamos Brandon, here’s the trouble with natural immunity, acquiring it can kill you.
          When Inoculation with smallpox was the only known way to prevent it, both John Adams and George Washington were advocates, even though some people died of the inoculation, and others who had been inoculated had to be quarantined for about 2 weeks to prevent them from spreading it to other people. Even so, it was worth the risk.
          When I was a child we were deliberately exposed to rubella to get it over with before entering our child-bearing years. Again, it was believed that natural
          immunity, induced under controlled conditions, was better than any alternative.
          Reliance on natural immunity with its attendant risks of complications or even death, is not a risk most of us are willing to take any more..

      1. hmm. so, if it doesn’t just kill you outright, actually contracting and surviving covid makes you slightly more immune to a second bout, than being immunized against it in the first place, which doesn’t actually have a death risk for some demographic groups, like contracting covid would have. interesting. thanks.

        1. The word vaccine came from the practice of inoculation with vaccinia (cowpox) to prevent variola(small pox.) But unlike that practice, what we call vaccines today are actually made from the same viruses they are designed to trigger immunity to. So the shots won’t do anything to you that the virus itself won’t do worse. You are more like to survive a shot than a infection.

Comments are closed.