Press "Enter" to skip to content

Bosworth Violates Medical Ethics Asking Patients to Sign Petitions in Office, Breaks HIPAA at Trial

With closing arguments this afternoon, the verdict on Annette Bosworth’s perjury on her 2014 Senate nominating petitions is nigh. A felony conviction for violating her circulator’s oath could put her medical license in jeopardy again. But whatever verdict our peers render, the defense team itself has presented evidence of Dr. Bosworth’s disrespect for her medical oath and her patients’ privacy that should put her medical credentials in question.

South Dakota has adopted the American Medical Association’s Code of Ethics to govern physicians’ actions South Dakota Administrative Rule 20:47:08:01 copies the AMA’s Principles of Medical Ethics verbatim; SDAR 20:47:08:03 directs the state medical board to refer to refer to the AMA’s opinions and annotations for further guidance on applying the Code of Ethics to judge unacceptable conduct among physicians.

Principle #8 of the AMA Code of Ethics says, “A physician shall, while caring for a patient, regard responsibility to the patient as paramount.”

In testimony Friday, Dr. Bosworth’s receptionist, Melissa O’Connell Galer testified that when Dr. Bosworth was walking patients out of her exam room to the door, the doctor would ask her patients to sign her nominating petition.

The AMA’s online opinions elaborating on the Code of Ethics do not directly address doctors’ soliciting petition signatures from patients. Opinion 10.018 does address doctors’ soliciting “contributions” from patients:

Donations play an important role in supporting and improving a community’s health care. Physicians are encouraged to participate in fundraising and other solicitation activities while protecting the integrity of the patient-physician relationship, including patient privacy and confidentiality, and ensuring that all donations are fully voluntary. In particular:

(1) Appropriate means of soliciting contributions include making information available in a reception area and speaking at fundraising events. Physicians should avoid directly soliciting their own patients, especially at the time of a clinical encounter. They should reinforce the trust that is the foundation of the patient-physician relationship by being clear that patients’ welfare is the primary priority and that patients need not contribute in order to continue receiving the same quality of care.

(2) The greater the separation between the request and the clinical encounter, the more acceptable the solicitation is likely to be.

(3) When physicians participate in solicitation efforts as members of the general community, they should seek to minimize perceptions of overlap with their professional roles… [“Opinion 10.018: Physician Participation in Soliciting Contributions from Patients,” American Medical Association, downloaded 2015.05.27].

Opinion 10.018 cautions doctors not to abuse their power in the doctor-patient relationship even when soliciting donations intended to promote community health. We may reasonably assume that the AMA would urge even greater caution in soliciting patients for assistance in a political project that is much further removed from the doctor’s responsibility to care for the patient and promote community health. Yet Bosworth’s employee testified that Bosworth directly solicited patients for political help in her office, at the time of clinical encounters, with no effort to minimize the overlap between her political role and her professional role.

The South Dakota Board of Medical and Osteopathic Examiners could look at this testimony, easily conclude that Dr. Bosworth behaved unprofessionally by exploiting the doctor-patient relationship in her office for her own political gain, and revoke her medical license.

Dr. Bosworth’s own lawyer drew Bosworth into another violation of her professional responsibilities. The attorney (and I apologize for not keeping track of whether it was Robert Van Norman or Dana Hanna) displayed one of the contested petition sheets, one on which she hadn’t actually witnessed all signatures, and asked Bosworth if she had signed it as circulator. Bosworth said yes. The attorney asked if she thought it was o.k. to sign that sheet because she knew the signers. Bosworth said yes. The attorney then asked if she knew them because they were her patients. Bosworth said yes.

Ever hear of HIPAA, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act? HIPAA says that a doctor cannot release a patient’s medical information without the patient’s prior written consent, even in a court of law when a lawyer asks the doctor a question. If I were a patient of Dr. Bosworth (pause for alternate-universe fear and trembling), I would consider the mere fact that I was her patient one of the most basic private pieces of medical information. Bosworth stated on the stand Friday that she focuses on treating addicts; naming me as a Bosworth patient could hurt my reputation by raising suspicion that I suffer from an addiction.

Unless Bosworth has a stack of written authorizations from her patients, she violated HIPAA on the stand Friday. The South Dakota Board of Medical and Osteopathic Examiners could look at that testimony, easily determine that Bosworth willfully betrayed a professional confidence, and revoke her medical license.

None of these points are material to the guilty verdict jurors should render this week for Annette Bosworth’s perjury on her nominating petitions. But her ongoing exploitation of her patients and disrespect for their privacy should form the foundation of the state medical board’s next disciplinary action with Bosworth.


  1. Deb Geelsdottir 2015-05-27 15:41

    Tara bait. Very soon the alternate universe Tara and Bos inhabit will come calling!

  2. Douglas Wiken 2015-05-27 16:12

    I think you are stretching a bit here, Cory. Asking a patient or any business client of any business, medical or otherwise, may be an irritant at the time, but it does not appear to me to violate patient confidentiality. If patients or others believe it is an invasion of their privacy, they can say, “No, Thank you, I am not able to sign your petition.”

  3. Bill Dithmer 2015-05-27 16:13

    To Tarabait. Any action or document deemed nagative towards Dr Annette Bosworth.

    Tarabating. What Cory does.

    Tarabation. Wanting to Tarabait over and over again.

    Debs right.

    The Blindman

  4. Robert Behrend 2015-05-27 16:24

    Well written Cory, as always. Thank you for keeping us posted on the trial and testimony. Thank you for reminding all of us why this matters. Although it is tempting to follow all of this with morbid curiosity, it is important to realize that very important principles are being illustrated in this trial.

    You have done an excellent job of pointing out why a physician asking a patient to sign their petition for public office during their office visit is such an ethical violation. Most health professionals would not even remotely consider doing something like that. Also, if a physician tells a third party that an individual is his or her patient without their consent, that is a violation of their Physician patient confidentiality.

    Keep up the good work, Cory. Sorry I haven’t posted for so long!

  5. caheidelberger Post author | 2015-05-27 16:58

    Douglas, two separate charges here. Asking for a signature in the office doesn’t violate confidentiality. Asking for the signature in the office, at the end of a medical visit, violates the code of ethics. It’s an example of the doctor using her special position of trust and authority for personal gain, as surely as I would be if I brought my petitions to school and asked my 18-year-old seniors to sign in my classroom after I’d finished the lesson and handed back their graded tests.

    The HIPAA privacy charge rests entirely on Bosworth’s revelation of patient names on the stand on Friday.

    Separate charges, but same root cause: Bosworth views her patients as tools to exploit for her own gain.

  6. Barbara 2015-05-27 16:59

    As you correctly point out Cory, the boundary violations that came to light in this trial are concerning and could lead to a formal complaint/investigation. This is not because the system is out to get this physician. It is because the Board exists to protect patients from physicians, including protecting their privacy and their autonomy in making decisions to contribute signatures or funds to a physician’s cause without having to worry about whether either doing so or declining to do so, will impact their relationship with their physician in the future. Physicians are not allowed to exploit the inherent vulnerability in our doctor-patient relationships.
    Revoking or suspending a license is not the only (or even necessarily the best) outcome for violating laws or regulations however. The Board may choose to give the physician an opportunity to come into compliance with the regulations. This brings into play an admission of violation, a commitment to change and compliance with any conditions for retaining licensure. While we all have our opinions, this is a decision the Board must make.

  7. caheidelberger Post author | 2015-05-27 16:59

    Robert! Glad to have you drop a line! I’m glad you found the explanation worth reading.

  8. Roger Cornelius 2015-05-27 17:18

    As I understand it, Dr. Bosworth works in the field of addiction recovery, for those not familiar with AA the anonymous is a critical part of a patient care. They should never be asked to sign anything that maybe a part of the public record other than what is relative to their care.
    I worked as a chemical dependency councilor for a number of years and ethics are important, just as they are important with mental health experts.
    Even after you leave the field you take with you the importance of those ethics and protections of your client.
    Even today, if I should encounter a former client I will not engage them unless they engage me, the client should not have explain to those with him how he knows me.
    For a person enduring addiction recovery, they should not feel compelled to sign or endorse anyone.

  9. Nick Nemec 2015-05-27 17:24

    The “yes” answer to the line of questioning by Bosworth’s attorney in which she confirmed the signers on a particular petition sheet were her patients is a clear cut violation of HIPPA rules. Not only can a provider not release particulars of a certain patient’s case to any unauthorized person they can neither confirm or deny any particular person is or is not a patient. Bosworth should know this, it’s basic first year med school training.

  10. caheidelberger Post author | 2015-05-27 17:31

    Roger, you make a good point about the addiction side of this story. Would it be fair to say that patients dealing with addiction issues are generally more vulnerable than patients presenting with other health problems?

  11. Douglas Wiken 2015-05-27 17:32

    Such a disclosure would not have happened had this not been brought into court as a felony. What would have happened if she refused to answer or answered “no” falsely?

    Anybody who went to her as their doctor must have known she was running for the senate as well.

    I am not at all impressed with her ethics nor her politics nor her apparent disregard of election law, but I also view Jackley’s refusal to remove her from the ballot before the election as a more serious violation of ethics. He certainly cannot plead ignorance.

  12. caheidelberger Post author | 2015-05-27 17:38

    Good question, Douglas. I would think Bosworth and her attorney would have covered that earlier and not gone there. They didn’t need to make the point they made with that information. The lawyer could simply have asked, “Do you know these people are real voters?” taken her yes, and left it there.

    Even faced with the question from her own attorney, Bosworth could have said, “I cannot answer that question. She could have asked for a sidebar with her lawyer and the judge, explained the HIPAA situation, and asked her lawyer to withdraw the question.

    There are only two possibilities on the HIPAA charge: Bosworth has that stack of written authorizations from the patients that I mentioned above, or Bosworth ignores the legal obligations she has to her patients’ privacy.

  13. CD 2015-05-27 17:52

    Ok this is actually a focus of mine. It does constitute a violation of HIPAA. Not only because of court but also because everyone who signed had access to the names before them. On the addiction side, the rules and code of conduct are even stricter. The issues related to her care of her addiction patients (confidentiality, exploitation, swindle-like behaviors, and dual relationships) is why I threw my keys directly at them and left.

  14. Roger Cornelius 2015-05-27 17:54

    As I recall, Jackley consulted with U.S. Attorney Brendan Johnson about removing Bosworth’s name from the ballot and they both agreed that her name should be on the ballot and the voter should decide her eligibility for the general election.
    What would the fall out have been if Jackley/Gant removed her from the ballot? Lawsuit after lawsuit would have endured.

    And yes Cory, people in addiction recovery maybe more vulnerable than other patients, clients and doctors/therapist/councilors need to develop a mutual trust in order for treatment to be successful.

  15. CD 2015-05-27 17:54

    She should’ve refused to answer and her attorney could’ve asked for a court order for her to disclose the information, which is in the CFR42-Federal Regs for confidentiality.

  16. Roger Cornelius 2015-05-27 18:00

    If I were to take the time (which I won’t and hope not else does either), I could scrutinize the Bosworth petitions and probably easily identify those that signed in her office. I would be easy to out them for their addiction problems and let their families, friends, community and employers know they are alcoholics.

  17. caheidelberger Post author | 2015-05-27 19:33

    Roger, on your fallout question: I would hope that Jackley and Johnson decided not to remove Bosworth from the ballot because they weren’t confident they had the legal grounds to remove her from the ballot. If they had the legal grounds, I would argue that the integrity of the ballot is worth however many lawsuits the cheating candidates are willing to wage.

    CD, thanks for the professional/legal perspective! Your comment tells me that a conscientious professional knows exactly how to respond in the situation under discussion here to protect her patients.

  18. caheidelberger Post author | 2015-05-27 19:37

    KDLT reports jury has come to a verdict, waiting to assemble all parties in courtroom to announce… KELO will webcast live here:

    KDLT’s Anndrea Anderson says the jurors notified they have a verdict “less than 20 minutes after jurors had dinner (Pizza Ranch) delivered to deliberation room.” Clearly the jurors were just stretching things out for free pizza… and after the smoke they had blown at them by the defense, they deserve some taxpayer pizza.

  19. caheidelberger Post author | 2015-05-27 19:53

    Wait! No verdict yet! Jury has sent note to judge asking what happens if they have decided on some charges but are “hung” on others. After consulting with counsel, Judge Brown says he’ll just send the jury a note saying they should keep deliberating.

  20. grudznick 2015-05-27 19:55

    Mistrial. Do it all over again.

  21. Roger Cornelius 2015-05-27 19:57

    KDLT reporters need to learn the difference between a note from the jury and a verdict note.

  22. caheidelberger Post author | 2015-05-27 19:57

    KSFY’s Brian Allen sent out this tweet when Bosworth and Haber returned to the courtroom for what turned out to be a false alarm:

    Brian Allen tweet showing Bosworth, Haber returning to courtroom 20150527

  23. owen 2015-05-27 19:58

    what kind of reputation does Joel Arends have? anybody know?

  24. Roger Cornelius 2015-05-27 19:59

    Will cleavage help Bosworth an acquittal?

  25. larry kurtz 2015-05-27 20:02

    orange is the new mauve.

  26. caheidelberger Post author | 2015-05-27 20:05

    Roger, I’d like to believe a jury of our peers could see through such a ploy.

    Owen, Arends reputation beyond this courtroom won’t matter to this jury. I’m not sure they even mentioned Arends’s reputation. The closing arguments focused (rightly so) on the testimony in this trial. Arends has worked for Bosworth, Dan Lederman, and for the folks fighting the southside Walmart in Sioux Falls. Arends also challenged a typo on a Sioux Falls city ballot in April 2014, arguing that voters deserve perfection in their election documents.

  27. Joan Brown 2015-05-27 20:07

    The Bible “thumping” Christians that I know would never wear clothes that low cut. In my 75 years I have known a lot of them. Some of them were decent in that they didn’t try to force their religion down my throat, but then there were the other kind.

  28. larry kurtz 2015-05-27 20:10

    arends and lederman would look fetching in that dress.

  29. caheidelberger Post author | 2015-05-27 20:20

    Jury finds Bosworth guilty on all 12 counts.

  30. Jackilope 2015-05-27 20:27

    Kudos to Cory and those vigilant in the crimes pulled by the Bosworth Habers. The story broke with Madville Times and Cory at the get go.

  31. owen 2015-05-27 20:36

    Thanks Cory. I wasn’t defending Bosworth-God forbid-I was curious if he was known for making mistakes. I could see Bosworth’s lawyer’s using this.
    But you’re right the emphasis should be and was on this trial.

    Anyway she’s guilty and no surprise.

  32. SDBlue 2015-05-27 20:37

    Guilty on all counts! I am doing a little happy dance. Is that so wrong? ;)

  33. Roger Cornelius 2015-05-27 20:41

    Happy dance is earned SDBlue, enjoy.

    Am curious about how much of Bosworth’s history of the raffle scams and not paying here employees and service providers will be allowed in at sentencing.

  34. SDBlue 2015-05-27 20:50

    Thanks Roger! After sentencing, I hope she fades into oblivion. I would be very happy to see the end of this train wreck once and for all.

  35. grudznick 2015-05-27 20:57

    I expect she will get 1 month of litter-picking and have to give some speeches to low income people who could use her services, then she’ll be back in the limelight again, bigger than ever. It was all part of the plan. I’m just sayin…

  36. Roger Cornelius 2015-05-27 20:58


    The state republican party likely agrees with your sentiments.

  37. caheidelberger Post author | 2015-05-27 21:24

    Still a good question, Owen, about Arends’s reliability and legal skill. I’ll bet we could dig back through some old blog posts and find more on Arends’s record. He doesn’t work for a firm, does he?

  38. Bob Newland 2015-05-27 21:33

    There is no question in my mind that Dr. Bosworth violated laws pertaining to petition circulation several times. The fact that the sort of violations she committed have been violated in hundreds of nominating petitions prior to hers, albeit most often in less flagrant manner, is no defense.

    I’ve spent some time with Dr. Bosworth. She did not ask for off-the-record privileges. My assessment of her is that she is a sweet woman, truly concerned about some injustices being perpetrated within the medical-industrial complex.

    She’s also an enigma. I don’t understand how she seems to have handed her well-being to the care of a series of less-than-admirable characters.

    I don’t have a way to assess her competence as a physician. I trust my assessment of her intent. Sometimes good intentions lead us on an ever-less-comfortable path.

    I am sorry I had to witness the events integral and surrounding this legal case. I wish Dr. Bosworth the best. I hope she continues to be able to help those who come to her.

  39. Donald Pay 2015-05-27 21:46

    Boy, that wasn’t even close, was it?

    Thanks to Cory for his research and dogged reporting on this petitioning fraud. I think this sort of fraud has been quite common over the years on candidate petitions. This conviction will help put a damper on candidates cutting corners.

    Just as an aside to this case, I have to wonder how many times candidates have gone into the colonies to get forged signatures.

  40. tara volesky 2015-05-27 22:43

    Congratulations Republican and Democrat elites. The Democrat party no longer fights for the little guy. Cory or Pat, didn’t see you in Pierre today. Why don’t you get some comments from Professor Myers, Dr. lars Aanning, the former Dean of the USD Medical school Dr. Talley or Dr Dean. I would have thought you would have showed up and would get an interview with the Felon herself. Plus you might want to interview her 3 young sons and ask how it feels to have a felon as your mom. While your at it, ask them if they will visit this evil woman in prison. Plus ask the Hutterites how it feels to have to find another Dr. Ask the homeless and Indians what they are going to do now since they are probably going to find another DR who will see them for free. I never thought SD could stoop so low. This is why smart people leave.

  41. CD 2015-05-27 22:51

    Tara, you seem to think you’re very smart… So, bye!

  42. Dave Baumeister 2015-05-27 22:55

    Good work, Cory. And good work to all Madville/DFP folks. We won the day! Only an idiot would say otherwise. Democrat or Republican doesn’t matter, I was lots of people work together to keep someone from acting like the law did not apply to her.

  43. Dave Baumeister 2015-05-27 23:05

    This could have all been avoided if she just said, up front, what she ended up having to say in court: “I’m a novice; I screwed up and made a mistake.” But her “narcissistic tendencies” kept that from happening. If she had owned her mistake, this would have been done last November. She would have gotten a slap on the wrist and it would have been over. But how much of our tax money was wasted as this case was delayed time after time. And for what? To hear her admit what she should have said six months ago.

  44. Roger Cornelius 2015-05-27 23:07

    Dr. Bosworth and Tara, et al, will likely forever blame Cory and Jackley for her own recklessness and lies. Well, Cory and Jackley didn’t lie, 12 men and women that comprised the jury validated Cory’s allegations and agreed with him.
    If Mike Myers, Dr. Lars Aanning, Dr. Talley or Dr. Dean could have offered something relative and significant to the perjury charges, Bosworth defense council had a responsibility to call upon them to testify.
    Bosworth, Haber, and Tara can now blame Van Norman and her defense council for her lies and conviction.

  45. tara volesky 2015-05-27 23:08

    Hey Cory, see if you can get an interview with Bosworth’s young sons and ask them what’s it like living with a felon and having a felon as your mom. Also ask her Mom and Dad how they feel about raising a felon. Ask her patients why they would go to a convicted felon as their Dr. Ask those Hutterites what they were thinking choosing a felon as their Dr. Also, why your at it, don’t forget to sent Marty Jackley a thank you note for continuing to make SD a one party rule, thanks to the Democrat Party of SD.

  46. TJ 2015-05-27 23:19

    Isn’t it funny on Tara’s post at 23:08, you can substitute Bosworth with Duggar and it pretty much sums up both cases.

  47. caheidelberger Post author | 2015-05-27 23:25

    Tara, the jury has spoken. Nothing you are saying changes the facts or laws on which 12 of our peers ruled tonight. Don’t let Bosworth drag you down with her. Move on to a real crusade.

  48. Richard Schriever 2015-05-27 23:26

    Hey there cousin Robbie, think anyone will bring charges?.

  49. Roger Cornelius 2015-05-27 23:48

    Dr. Bosworth has little over a month to get her act together before sentencing. The first thing she needs to do is stop listening to her husband Chad Haber and supporters like Tara. They don’t help her case, they encourage her lies and recklessness based of irrelevant drama.

    It is Dr. Bosworth that needs to accept responsibility for the actions that got her convicted, if she does that with a sincere amount of repentance she may lessen the severity of her sentence.

  50. Joe K 2015-05-28 00:54

    Her own attorney summarized it well. She was an amateur playing a professionals game. By the time she submitted those petitions, she should have been aware that any mistakes would be discovered. After the raffle scam, the “stolen” document drama, employees not being paid, and so on – she should have known she was under a microscope. Everything she did was being watched closely. But no, she continued to ride that flaming crazy train straight to oblivion. Then, throw Stranny into the mix – well, you have pure SD political comedy gold, that will be talked about for years.

    To place blame on CAH, Jackley, or the “elites” is pure ignorance. This was a bumbling, mishandled mess of a campaign, and the fault lies on only one person – Annette. After all, she stated herself she was the leader. The conviction was deserved, and to try and blame anyone else is just silly.

    She should of thought of her kids, and how her decisions would affect them. It is her fault that she needs to explain to her kids she is now a convicted felon. It is her fault her parents raised a convicted felon. Time for her to own up to her mistakes, figure out where she was led astray, and adjust accordingly.

  51. tara volesky 2015-05-28 06:20

    Don’t ever criticize the Republican machine again, because some of you people are part of it. This wasn’t about a few signatures, if it was, this would have been settled months ago. This was about Bosworth pushing up against the medical machine of SD. Referring patients outside the system, being an Independent Doctor who wants to practice medicine as a calling. They made a good example out of her. I am in a state of shock. I have never witnessed anything like this. Like Mike Myers said, Joel Arends should have been the one on trial. This should have never gone to trial. I think I might just have to wash my hands from politics because this is a one party state that will remain a one party state. And, people are comfortable with the way things are run.

  52. tara volesky 2015-05-28 06:39

    The people have spoken, Republicans and Democrats alike.

  53. caheidelberger Post author | 2015-05-28 09:17

    Give up, Tara. The jury was not an arm or expression of either party. Contrary to the defense’s insinuation in the closing argument, Bosworth’s prosecution was not political.

  54. Rita 2015-05-28 09:45

    As I watched this train wreck (her ill-advised press conferences, etc.), it became abundantly clear that she wanted to try this case in the court of public opinion instead of a court of law where everything you say can and will be used against you. Strip away all the distractions and attempts at justification and you have several documents that she falsely signed. No matter how much they tried to make this about Jackley and state politics, the bottom line is she put herself in that position.

    Twelve people who saw to heart of the issue convicted her of a felony. I don’t believe she’ll serve any time in prison. Her children have a felon for a mother now, guess what I bet they love her anyway.

  55. tara volesky 2015-05-28 10:01

    If it wasn’t political than why wouldn’t MJ settle? Ask Professor Myers how political the Medical Board is. His number is..605-659-4681. Anybody else is sure free to call him too. He use to run big hospitals.

  56. Barbara 2015-05-28 10:14

    Just one final comment on the medical ethics violations by this physician – her felony conviction is sufficient to revoke her medical license for professional misconduct. And although such a hearing would be confidential, one would hope her argument would not be the same as Joe K reports her attorney using in this trial: She was an amateur playing a professionals game.

    But maybe it would. The victimhood posturing is tedious. Dr. Bosworth is not the only physician to buck the system or to care for addicts, recovering addicts, the poor or other vulnerable patients. As physicians, we are a self-regulating profession and our work depends on knowing and following the law. Physician advocacy can lead to policy change. Physician misconduct generally does not, and in fact can set it back.

    But as I alluded to in a previous comment, medical boards often seek to redeem violators, especially when physician misconduct is not directly related to patient endangerment as in this case. Disciplinary action is meant to force recognition of the misconduct and the need for education, treatment, supervision or other action to end it.

    And in SD, there are instances of opportunities for felony convictions to be removed from the record – Janklow, Craig Guymon – so the stigma of convicted felon can be mitigated. It is time for Dr. Bosworth to decide how she will proceed for herself, her family and those who care for her. Hopefully she will do this as privately as possible. And hopefully her political supporters will allow her that privacy. There are still endless opportunities to fight the problems of one-party rule in SD for those with the passion to refocus their energies.

  57. Daniel Buresh 2015-05-28 10:31

    “If it wasn’t political than why wouldn’t MJ settle?”

    Bosworth wouldn’t settle. She wanted everyone to know her innocence and I doubt she was willing to plead guilty to a lesser charge with a plea agreement. Quit posting this bs line unless you have something to back it up. A case will never go to court for such small crimes if someone is willing to take a plea deal. The less cases that go to court, the better. Everyone involved with the system knows this. This is all on Annette.

  58. tara volesky 2015-05-28 10:33

    Excellent summary Barbara. The blogs should not interfere with the Medical Board and Dr. Bosworth. Keep it confidential and professional.

  59. tara volesky 2015-05-28 10:42

    Daniel, she wanted to settle but MJ wouldn’t drop the felonies to misdemeanors. Do you really think she wanted to go through all this hell???? Those are the facts. Plain and simple, they want her license.

  60. caheidelberger Post author | 2015-05-28 10:45

    Tara, you have no evidence for that assertion. It’s hearsay, and I reject it. Bring Annette here, get her to put that statement on the record herself.

    And even if Bosworth herself verifies your assertion, does it matter? Is the state ever under an obligation to offer a deal instead of prosecuting a crime as is?

  61. caheidelberger Post author | 2015-05-28 10:46

    And Tara, none of us disagree about proper procedure for the state medical board and the need for professionalism and confidentiality. Barbara’s larger point seems to be the same as mine, that Bosworth’s lack of professionalism and respect for confidentiality is exactly what could land her in hot water again with the SDBMOE.

  62. tara volesky 2015-05-28 10:54

    Twisting words again Cory.

  63. Barbara 2015-05-28 11:05

    Exactly, Cory. Hot water or more effective help – whatever works. Just leaving the state and becoming another jurisdiction’s problem in the future is not an ideal solution. Oh, wait…

    (btw, thanks Tara for the kind words.)

  64. Roger Cornelius 2015-05-28 12:43

    We need to hear from a more credible source than Tara on whether or not Dr. Bosworth wanted to settle.

    There are contradictory stories of Dr. Bosworth wanting to settle, but Jackley wouldn’t, according to Tara.

    And than there is Dr. Bosworth and her Facebook postings saying she wants to fight these charges to take on the republican machine, the medical boards, etc.

    Here’s the one I believe, Dr. Bosworth wanted to fight the charges because Chad Haber saw some free money by her playing the victim and this would be a wonderful fund raising opportunity.

    Wasn’t there another option in a plea that Bosworth could have used? Wasn’t pleading nola contendre a viable plea in which she could have asked for mercy from the court?

  65. Lynn 2015-05-28 15:45


    ” I think I might just have to wash my hands from politics because this is a one party state that will remain a one party state. And, people are comfortable with the way things are run.”

    Are you going to abandon your run for a seat on the Mitchell School Board June 2nd? :)

  66. Deb Geelsdottir 2015-05-28 16:43

    I’ve never enjoyed watching anyone have a mental crash. Although my past landlord cost me $500, I didn’t like watching her breakdown. Same is true with Bos and Tara. When Tara began commenting here she had some very interesting and helpful things to say. But she’s become all-Bos all the time, full of conspiracies and devoid of simple, factual understanding.

    All in all, the entire Bosworth saga has been mired in losses. Sigh. I’m ready to never hear about it again. (“Make it so.” Captain Picard)

  67. tara volesky 2015-05-28 17:01

    Ok Roger and Cory, Call Van Norman, or Dana Hanna and they will tell you they tried to settle with MJ many times. You guys are going to believe what your going to believe. I have in my possession some documentation for some nice libel and slander lawsuits.

  68. Douglas Wiken 2015-05-28 17:16

    Just curious, but my guess is the HIPPA? laws have some exception for releasing patient names in the event of lawsuits, investigations, etc. If the information should not have been released in court, the judge should have said that the information will not be made available to the public. My other guess is that the reason the patient signature petitions were discussed at all was to indicate that Bosworth’s patients respected her enough as a doctor to sign those petitions. Juries tend to go along with the tribal instincts and cultural lines.

    It is time juries started saying something like this, “The prosecutor has overcharged and as a result we find X not guilty on all charges.” The laundry list prosecutors use and then use them to get a plea are an insult to justice. Also, there is no excuse to give any person convicted any penalty more severe than that offered for a plea bargain. The game otherwise, becomes and I will show the bastard not to take me seriously. It becomes an ego trip for prosecutors and former prosecutors who have become judges.

  69. mike from iowa 2015-05-28 17:28

    I’m guessing Tara bases all her inside info on her magic 8-Ball. Just shake it and read whatever pops up. Word of advice,Tara-for you and Bos-silence is golden,duct tape is silver.

  70. Lynn 2015-05-28 17:38


    Threatening libel and slander again? Brought by who? Who is going to be sued for libel and slander?

    Come on Tara. Sentencing is next and afterwards it’s time to move on to other things.

  71. bearcreekbat 2015-05-28 17:53

    Doug says, “The laundry list prosecutors use and then use them to get a plea are an insult to justice.”

    I have to agree. Dr. Boswell apparently faces 24 years in the state penitentiary plus $48,000 in fines. Somehow that seems a bit extreme to me. Twelve class 6 felonies were charged, while one seems more than enough for her improper signing of documents. But prosecutors have the power to overcharge and use this to beat defendants into submission. I am not particularly sensitive to Dr. Boswell’s specific defense, yet I do see a circus atmosphere with 24 years in prison hanging over this defendant’s head. Somehow, such a picture does not make me feel any safer.

  72. Roger Cornelius 2015-05-28 17:55

    Why do you persist with the “call so and so”? I am not going to call Van Norman, Mike Myers or anyone else just to hear their opinions.
    You make the calls Tara, you call Van Norman, Mike Myers and maybe Chad Haber and have them comment here on a public and open forum. I’m not fond of secondhand/hearsay evidence and that is what for the most part all you offer.
    As far as the documentation and related evidence you have in your possession, post it, we would all like to read it.
    Tara has learned well from Stranahan, as always threatening more to come and it never does.

  73. tara volesky 2015-05-28 18:22

    Are you or Cory afraid to make those phone calls? I don’t rely on hearsay. Here you have an expert witness from Bosworth’s hearings with the Medical Board. Go for it. Mike Myers. You won’t make that call because it’s not what you are going to want to hear.

  74. bearcreekbat 2015-05-28 18:30

    Tara, you might not understand that a defense attorney is ethically restricted from making any public statements that might be contrary to the interests of the defendant. None of Dr. Bosworth’s defense attorneys can comment about objective facts that might harm their client’s chances of leniency. Hence calls to her attorneys cannot support your arguments.

  75. Roger Cornelius 2015-05-28 18:33

    Seriously Tara?

    You want Cory or me to call Van Norman or Hanna who just happen to be Bosworth’s attorney’s. Does the word “ethical” ever enter your mind?

    Dr. Bosworth would have to give her attorney’s permission to discuss her case with me or Cory, will she call them and give that permission.

    No, I will not call Mike Myers or anybody else for that matter, if Myers has anything to say, have him post it here or call Cory and ask for an interview. Myers is like the rest of us, he has an opinion, but is afraid to publicly post it.

  76. Roger Cornelius 2015-05-28 18:35


    OOPS! I was writing and posting at about the same time you were, your comment supports mine.

  77. owen 2015-05-28 19:40

    Pretty easy to understand Tara. Bosworth was given a fair trial with 12 jurors of her peers who convicted her of crimes. Calling them corrupt is BS
    Republicans, Democrats, Jackley nor anybody else but Bosworth is at fault.
    You can go ahead and support her Tara but calling everybody else either crooks or stupid doesn’t make you look good.

    The sad part to this story is what she’s put her kids through.

  78. grudznick 2015-05-28 20:31

    Ms. Volesky, I am surprised you have not brought forth what you must be thinking. This trial was in Hughes County and the jurors had to probably be from there. I bet 8 of the 12 were in the back pocket of the powers that be there in the county seat of Hughes county. So what I am asking, Ms. V, is, was the jury rigged full of political minions of the enemies of young Dr. Bos?

  79. Bob Newland 2015-05-28 21:47

    As a matter of fact, grudz, the jury was stacked in favor of the enemies of Dr. Bosworth.

    To survive voir dire, the jury-stacking phase of a trial, a juror must know less than most about the case, must demonstrate ignorance of the criminal justice system, and appear to be ready to salute the flag and kiss the Bible whenever prompted.

    That makes it easier for the prosecution to obtain unanimous verdicts in criminal trials. At every stage, the jury is indoctrinated into the fiction that the judge will adequately explain the law, even though the defense is not allowed to promote its belief that the law just might be bullshit.

    Whenever a person is accused of a violation of criminal law, the assumption is that law enforcement would not have charged someone without cause, and the accused is punished from that point forward until an eventual adjudication of some sort. Wrongful prosecutions are hard to pursue.

    The prosecution was, by definition, an enemy of Dr. Bosworth. The jury pool, in general a friend to the forces of law and order, was further winnowed to a few survivors chosen largely on prosecution-oriented criteria.

  80. grudznick 2015-05-28 21:51

    Bob, I have heard that at least 10 of the jurors were employees of the government itself. Is that not about as heinous as can be thought up? I feel bad for Dr. Bos having the odious feelings she must have had walking into a court room all fancied up with tax dollars and filled with minions of The Man.

  81. Bob Newland 2015-05-28 21:53

    So do I.

  82. tara volesky 2015-05-28 22:12

    Bob, did you get the letter?

  83. caheidelberger Post author | 2015-05-28 22:13

    What? A stacked jury? Bob, you appear to be making a general observation about your believe in an inherent flaw in the American justice system, not a specific, targeted effort against Bosworth based on the specifics of this case. Am I reading you correctly?

  84. Bob Newland 2015-05-28 22:17

    I am saying that the rules of voir dire contribute to the formation of a jury more inclined to convict than to adhere to “reasonable doubt” gray areas.

  85. tara volesky 2015-05-28 22:29

    Bob is right.

  86. Cody Johnson 2015-05-28 23:32

    Tara Volesky is the Pam Geller of South Dakota. Yes, everybody is entitled to their 1st Amendment right, but what part of STFU do you not understand. The only difference is Pam is 1 Year, 4 Months and 15 days (or 504 days) older then Tara.

  87. caheidelberger Post author | 2015-05-29 07:14

    Cody, Tara does not spew the same sort of paranoid hatred from a platform built on feminine objectification as Pam Geller. Tara is just really, really wrong on this issue

  88. caheidelberger Post author | 2015-05-29 07:15

    Thank you, Bob, for a general observation on the nature of the courts that goes well beyond the tired excuses the Bosworth propaganda team will offer. If we accept your general argument, how would we go about unstacking our juries?

  89. Bill Fleming 2015-05-29 09:01

    Bob, if you’re saying that a jury of your peers is basically a puppet show, I tend to agree with you. But of course so are most (if not all) social functions.

Comments are closed.