That Sioux Falls paper reports that political scamster, convicted felon, and potentially defrocked doctor Annette Bosworth and her underemployed husband Chad Haber face another lawsuit from another employee who claims they didn’t pay him for his labor:
Mitchell Olson says he was hired by the Dr. Annette Bosworth Legal Defense Fund in June 2016 as a consultant. He was paid $4,000 a month from the fund, working primarily from the home of Bosworth and her husband, Chad Haber, who is also named in the lawsuit. Olson said he wasn’t paid for work he performed in May, June and July of this year. He says he is owed $24,000 for work that included scripts and video for movies [Jonathan Ellis, “Former Consultant Sues Annette Bosworth Legal Defense Fund,” that Sioux Falls paper, 2017.09.18].
A day after the Supreme Court’s decision – and after many calls and text messages of congratulations – Bosworth said still feels shaken by the ruling. She recounted how when she filed to run for the Senate, she was living in a trailer near downtown Sioux Falls, frustrated as a physician by the debate on health care [Christopher Vondracek, “One-Time Senate Candidate Dodges Perjury Convictions in South Dakota,” Courthouse News Service, 2017.07.21].
Bosworth filed her nominating petition with the South Dakota Secretary of State on March 25, 2014. She listed her principal residence address as 909 East 14th Street, Sioux Falls. That is the location of the Carmel Estates apartments.
The Court acknowledges that the same 2002 law that put the words “proceeding” and “action” in the main perjury statute also created a new statute, SDCL 22-29-9.1, that makes it perjury to lie on a petition oath, which Bosworth did. But if I’m reading the Court’s ruling right, because Jackley charged Bosworth under SDCL 22-29-1 and not SDCL 22-29-9.1, and because the Court rejects the Attorney General’s argument that the Legislature intended the latter statute to expand the range of the former, the Court is throwing out the charges.
In other words, Bosworth lied and broke the law, but not the law that Jackley charged her with breaking.
Jackley did prosecute Bosworth under the correct statute, SDCL 22-11-28.1, for filing a false instrument. The Court blew through Bosworth’s smoke about not forging any signatures and submitting what she honestly thought were “petitions signed by voters nominating a candidate for public office” and sticks with the basic fact that “contrary to Bosworth’s verifications, voters did not sign the petitions in her presence.” The Court reaffirms what observers have said all along about Bosworth’s crime—oaths matter:
Prohibiting the knowing filing of instruments containing false statements of fact also comports with SDCL 22-11-28.1’s vital purpose of ensuring that filings with state offices are truthful.6 The presence of false facts in publicly filed documents poses serious concerns regarding the integrity of public records and legal processes. The regulations governing nominating petitions exist to ensure “the integrity of the circulation process, and in turn, the political process.” Cunningham v. Schaeflein, 969 N.E.2d 861, 876 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012). Further, SDCL 22-11-28.1’s purpose underscores what its text suggests: that fraud upon the government may be perpetrated by knowingly filing false instruments as well as forged instruments, and that both types of documents are nongenuine and not properly filed with the State [South Dakota Supreme Court, State v. Bosworth, 2017.07.19].
The Court also rejected Bosworth’s attempt to shift the blame to her campaign manager Patrick Davis for submitting the petitions. The Court held that directing Davis to submit the petitions (which Bosworth admitted she did) “was sufficient to show she offered the petitions for filing.”
Annette Bosworth famously posed for a cheap campaign photo with a gun and a Bible in her hands. Ehab Jaber walked into the anti-Muslim propaganda fest in Sioux Falls with a Koran in his hand and a gun on his hip (and possibly in a sock holster). Hickey isn’t cutting Jaber slack (he labels Jaber a terrorist when the evidence does not support that conclusion), but…
I’m not all that convinced what he did is all that different from what a lot of flag/gun waving Christians do. This meme illustrates the point.
If the book the gal on the left is holding up says don’t kill the other person, why is she holding that gun? Here’s why? Because since Constantine, the Church has embraced a grave heresy to find justifications to do the very opposite of what Jesus taught. The gal on the left believes her book gives her justifications to kill the other JUST LIKE the gal [referring to another meme] on the right believes her book gives her justifications to kill the other [Steve Hickey, “Our Opportunity to Love on Our Local Terrorist,” The Other Cheek, 2017.04.26].
Neither Bosworth nor Jaber actually made any threat to kill anyone. However, Hickey seems to support my basic contention that carrying and displaying a gun is in itself an expression of a willingness to use deadly force. And Hickey and I agree that such an expression does not fit with the teachings of the Nazarene carpenter.
But then Hickey preaches some real radical Christianity and recommends local Christians love Jaber by bailing him out:
Second, I think it is high time Christians start acting like Christians and that means we start acting like Christ. That means we figure out a way to love this enemy. Missionaries do it all the time… they reach out to those who are hostile to them and who have even tried to kill them. That’s when the Gospel is most powerful. That’s when we are most like Christ. As is this guy is sitting in jail thinking hundreds of local Christians at an event hate him. I hope that is not true. He needs to know Christians love Muslims even though they take issue with Islam.
So how do we love on our local (alleged) terrorist? My suggestion is that we post his $2500 bond and I’ll put forth the first $250. He needs to know there are people who care about him and that they are they very people who he views as enemies. This gesture would send this guy a message in a way that sending him a Bible wouldn’t. It would send him am important message that so far we have failed to communicate to him and others like him.
…But I really ONLY want these donations to come from people who are “friends of Jesus” and preferably Conservative Christians only – it needs to come from us. Mr Jaber needs to think about the fact that he was bailed out by friends of Jesus [Hickey, 2017.04.26].
Now I still have a problem with Hickey’s exhortation to love. He’s still stuck in some contractual love—bail Jaber out, and maybe he’ll realize the Christians at the anti-Islam rally are really great people and Christianity is a superior religion. The truest, most radical Christian loves for love’s sake, with no thought of recompense.
But Hickey’s call to spring Jaber is a more coherent and confident expression of Christian love and faith than any of the Trumpy fearmongering offered at the April 9 anti-Islam event that Jaber found so appalling.
Jaber, like Bosworth, isn’t a terrorist. Jaber, like Bosworth, is just a bit nuts. Hickey isn’t perfect, either, but his Christian advice is worth considering.
Convicted felon Annette Bosworth has completed her community service. According to time sheets filed October 13, the scandal-plagued doctor and former fake Republican U.S. Senate candidate performed the last 19.5 hours of the court-prescribed 500 hours of community service by preparing for and participating in an addiction-treatment seminar for the Great Plains Tribal Chairmen’s Health Board and offering other presentations and training to non-profits in Rapid City on October 10–12.
One would think that, after being convicted of twelve felony counts based on conflicting dates on paper, Bosworth would be more careful about the numbers she writes on official documents. But a review of the time sheets shows at least one double dip on hours when Bosworth tells the court she was doing two things at once.
Sheet 6 reports that on May 17, 2016, Bosworth served four hours, from 12 to 4 p.m., conducting “PD Officer Training” signed off on by Richard Jensen. Sheet 5 reports that on May 17, 2016, Bosworth served four hours, from noon to 4 p.m., at Oglala Lakota College, signed off on by either Tatewin Means or Favran Kennedy (I cannot decipher the signature, but it is clearly not Richard Jensen’s).
Sheet 4 reports that on July 13, 2015, Bosworth served four hours, from 8 a.m. to noon, preparing and coordinating a “Seminar Education on Brains Addiction & Healing/Repair Process.” Sheet 8 reports that on July 13, 2015, Bosworth served eleven hours, from 9 a.m. to 8 p.m., working on “Addiction Programs.” However, this discrepancy appears to be simple reporting mistake by Bosworth: she wrote “7/13/15” on Sheet 4, but Jennifer Giroux signed off on it on 9/9/2016. The seminar mentioned appears to be the seminar Bosworth presented to the Great Plains Tribal Chairmen’s Health Board in Rapid City on October 11, 2016 (which presentation also counted toward Bosworth’s community service).
If the May 17 conflict is real and would disqualify both four-hour entries from the count, Bosworth is still to the good on hours. On Sheets 7 and 8, she undercounted her hours. When I add up all hours on the ten sheets, I get 513.25 hours. Subtract the May 17 error, and Bosworth still has 5.25 hours to spare. Thanks for the bonus, Annette!
Bosworth showed early enthusiasm for completing her sentence, putting in over two thirds of her hours (343.75) in the six months immediately after her sentencing. Then Bosworth’s enthusiasm waned: after eighteen hours of service at the end of January, Bosworth waited until May to put in any more hours and then worked in dribs and drabs into October to finish her sentence.
Now if she can just get those $11,945.10 in court costs paid back to us. At $50 a month (per the court payment agreement filed on October 13, 2016), we should see our final check for the bad doctor in 2035.
Members of parliament in the UK, Iceland, Canada and Australia have reported that they are being inundated on their official government emails accounts with fund-raising pleas from the Trump campaign – some from the candidate himself and others from his sons.
…On Tuesday Conservative MP Sir Roger Gale took to the floor of the House of Commons to complain about what he called “intemperate spam” from the Republican standard-bearer.
SNP MP Natalie McGarry tweeted a copy of an email signed by one of Donald Trump’s sons and offered her own, sharper reply.
“Given his rhetoric on migrants, refugees and immigration, it seems quite extraordinary that he would be asking foreign nationals for money; especially people who view his dangerous divisiveness with horror,” she wrote.
At least three Icelandic politicians have received emails condemning “crooked” Hillary Clinton and pledging to match any contributions to his campaign, according to Iceland Monitor.
In February, [Annette] Bosworth discovered that the state of South Dakota had listed her license as revoked with the [National Practitioner Data Bank]; the result of her conviction last year on 12 felony counts of perjury relating to nominating petitions for her failed 2014 U-S Senate bid.
The NPDB handbook says if a license revocation has a legal stay, it should not be reported as revoked.
…Being listed as revoked in this federal database means Bosworth is not recognized as a legally practicing doctor by insurance companies and federal programs like Medicare and Medicaid.
In court filings, attorneys for the South Dakota Board of Medical Examiners say they followed proper procedures in their reporting. But from September of last year until February of this year, Bosworth’s data base status was ‘revoked’ before being updated with the stay information [link added; Brian Allen, “Bosworth Readies for New Court Fight,” KSFY-TV, 2016.06.23].
Funny: this doctor shut down her clinic last summer following her felony conviction, so it’s hard to say whose treatment she would be billing to Medicaid or Medicare. But since it’s been fixed, if the doctor does resume practice, it would appear there should be no problem… at least not until the court finally hears the appeal and rules that felony convictions, on top of past erratic behavior and concerns about her mental fitness brought before the South Dakota Board of Medical Examiners, justify the board’s revocation of her license.
Bonus Co-inky-dink: The lawyer representing the Board of Medical Examiners is Craig Kennedy of Yankton. Kennedy happens to be running for District 18 Senate as a Democrat. Expect the doctor to claim that Republicans and Democrats are conspiring to punish her for her political activities in 2014.
Has the Bosworth precedent kept a municipal referendum off the ballot in Watertown?
Glacial Lakes Energy in Watertown wants to build a four-track rail loop that will allow them to load more train cars without backing trains up and blocking traffic on Highway 212 to the north.
According to data presented at the March 7 meeting of the Watertown City Council, since the construction of the South Bypass (from Highway 212 at Sharp Auto and the Prairie Stop southeast to Broadway, Glacial Lakes, and Highway 81) in 2012, daily traffic along that 2,500-foot stretch of South Broadway has decreased 44%, from 2,033 vehicles to 1,139.
The City Council thought vacating South Broadway was a great idea and approved it March 7. Jon Dagel, the owner of the Little River City c-store at South Broadway and 212, former city alderman Mike Davis, and others* did not. Obviously not wanting to lose business from Glacial Lakes workers taking Broadway to and from work, Dagel, Davis, and friends took out a petition and collected 1,004 signatures to put the road vacation to a vote. City Finance Officer Rochelle Ebbers validated the necessary 703 signatures last week, and Watertown’s off to the polls—
—Not so fast, said Glacial Lakes Energy. CEO Jim Seurer came to Monday’s council meeting and demanded that the city reject the petition based on irregularities uncovered in its circulation. Specifically, Seurer alleged that circulators did not witness the signatures on their sheets. Mayor Steve Thorson said law enforcement officers had confirmed that allegation, and the council declared the petition invalid, thus forestalling any referendum vote.
The Watertown City Council has taken a very different approach to this petition challenge from Secretary of State Jason Gant’s approach to my challenge of Annette Bosworth’s nominating petition in 2014. I made the same argument that Seurer did: circulators did not witness signatures, therefore those signatures and all signatures gathered by those circulators were invalid. Secretary Gant rejected my challenge, saying his office had no authority to go beyond a facial review of the petition and that a challenge based on the evidence I presented had to be resolved in court.
If Secretary Gant had taken the initiative shown by the Watertown City Council, Annette Bosworth would never have made the 2014 primary ballot. If Secretary Krebs adopts the Watertown stance with respect to my pending challenge of Lisa Furlong’s petition, the fake 18% rate cap won’t make the ballot.
The Watertown City Council is right: oaths matter. We have a duty to protect the integrity of petitions and elections. As much as I love initiative and referendum, if people don’t do petitions right, their measures should not make the ballot.
However, there is a statutory argument that the city, just like Secretary Gant, really does lack the authority to reject the South Broadway petition. Rules 05:02:08:00 and 05:02:08:00.01 lays out the requirements for accepting petitions and counting signatures. None of them specify that the office accepting petitions should investigate circulators for violating their circulators oath. That was Gant’s argument in 2014. More importantly, SDCL 9-20-4 appears to say that once the city finance officer has validated a referendum petition, “The governing body shall submit the petition to a vote of the voters….” Shall submit.
The Watertown City Council’s action this week runs counter to Secretary Gant’s (in)action on the Bosworth petition violations in 2014. The Bosworth trial (and her hubby Chad Haber’s plea bargain) established that muffing the circulator’s oath can result in criminal charges. The press surrounding Bosworth’s sensational trial may have motivated Seurer and the council to take the position they have, but the Bosworth trial did not provide clear legal precedent for rejecting a petition based on felonious circulator activity. If Dagel, Davis, and their fellow circulators go to court, Watertown’s rejection of this road referendum could provide such a precedent.
Correction 12:08 CDT: A Watertown neighbor corrects me: Jon Dagel owns Little River City; Mike Davis is a former city alderman. I originally misread KXLG’s report and listed Davis as the c-store owner.
Lawyer Dana Hanna continues to wage public war on behalf of his client Stacy Phelps, one of the three defendants named this week in criminal cases stemming from the GEAR UP/Mid-Central corruption scandal. After accusing Attorney General Marty Jackley of opening the Wednesday press conference announcing the charges against Phelps and others with an Establishment Clause-violating prayer to “manipulate the public,” Hanna sharpens his point and says exactly what I said he was saying in my initial analysis: Jackley is trying to distract the public from his own failure to catch the GEAR UP crooks sooner—
The defense attorney for a Rapid City man facing felony charges from a financial investigation of South Dakota’s GEAR UP grant program argued Thursday that his client is a political scapegoat for a state and an attorney general that allowed taxpayer dollars to be stolen.
…Phelps’ defense attorney, Dana Hanna, said his client is not accused of theft, adding that the charges for falsifying evidence are “groundless.”
“The guy who did this is dead,” Hanna said. “Now they’re looking for scapegoats to take attention from the fact that the state was sleeping while Westerhuis stole $1 million from the taxpayers” [James Nord, “Defense Attorney Fires Back Against GEAR UP-Related Charges,” AP via Rapid City Journal, 2016.03.18].
Hanna has some practice bashing our Attorney General over the head with charges of politically motivated prosecutions. Hanna also represents Annette Bosworth, who is currently appealing her conviction on twelve felony counts related to falsifying her nominating her petitions. Hanna sprinkled court arguments with Team Bosworth’s guiding smokescreen that the charges against Bosworth were driven by the politics of Republican and Democratic opponents (what do they call that when someone thinks everyone is out to get her?).
But in Phelps’s case, accusations of political distraction and cover-up may have more legs. Hanna is asking the question we all should ask: why did it take so long for the Attorney General to notice the theft of huge amounts of taxpayer money in Platte? Why were state contracts being issued to an educational cooperative whose books didn’t line up for nine years? How does the Secretary of Education notice “incompetence” in bookkeeping at Mid-Central in 2012 but not connect the dots to recognize, report, and cut off criminal corruption until three years later?
If I were an investigator and I’d failed to ask questions and identify a pattern of corruption this big and this long-standing, I’d feel pretty sheepish. I’d certainly want the public to focus their outrage on the criminals and not pay much attention to the questions defense attorney Hanna could ask about my own sleeping at the switch.
If I were defense attorney Hanna, facing what looks like another uphill climb against strong evidence finally collected and presented by the state, I’d throw this charge and ask why out of all the state officials who made the corruption at Mid-Central possible, the only one Jackley is gunning for so far is one Indian who had a little entrée into the GOP establishment before Governor Daugaard set him up on the firing line last fall. I wouldn’t feel nearly as silly making that charge in this case as I would have in Bosworth’s case.
If I were Dan Guericke and Stephanie Hubers, the Mid-Central officials now on the firing line with Phelps for GEAR UP crimes, I might be asking why my lawyers aren’t pushing back as hard as Hanna… but if I were the rest of us (wait! I am! Sorry—parallel subjunctive overload!), I might read that lack of pushback as a sign that Guericke and Hubers plan to sing and let others do the hard time.
I’d wear that shirt for fun, although my real sentiment is, “You’re wrong, but don’t just sit there; speak up, expose your wrongness, so I can help cure you of it. Then you can sit there and be right, which I can tell you from personal experience, is very satisfying.”
Dang—gonna need a bigger shirt.
Oh, speaking of awesome t-shirts, I’ll bet Annette could probably sell that shirt on eBay for a hefty sum, oh, say, $11,645.10.
After an opening payment in August of $150, Bosworth has been paying down her $12,095.10 court balance for her sentence for felony perjury at $50 a month. If she keeps up that pace, she’ll make her final payment 233 months from now, in June 2035.
Don’t just sit there and be wrong, Annette: auction off the Che shirt. Not a raffle, Annette—an auction.