Press "Enter" to skip to content

Freedom Caucus Rolls Goss into Vast Conspiracy Against Free Speech, Ignores Leah Anderson’s War on Petitioners

The right-wingnuts of the South Dakota Freedom Caucus have not weighed in on fellow conservative Leah Anderson’s attempt to crush free speech in Minnehaha County. But they sure are making a fuss over Austin Goss’s guilty plea, which they view as a result of some conspiracy to silence reporters:

The right to speak truth to power is quickly being diminished in today’s world where we see some of our country’s top reporters and commentators being silenced, such as Tucker Carlson who was recently removed from his FOX Network television show after an expose on the events from the January 6th protests in Washington D.C. or previously, under the Obama Administration, the Department of Justice seizing phone records from investigative journalists.

South Dakota investigative journalist Austin Goss was forced to plead down to a Class 2 misdemeanor of disorderly conduct for a private, prank phone call to former Republican party Chairman Dan Lederman last year, after numerous investigative reports into the Noem administration, the Republican party and other powerful players in the state.

Now more than ever, we at the South Dakota Freedom Caucus believe the right to free speech and the right of the press has never been more important, when faced with being silenced in the onslaught of ever growing authoritarian control over our individual lives. And we can only hope that such voices, like those of Austin Goss, are not discouraged in the aftermath of such persecution, but only grow louder.

We stand with you today in solidarity, and your pursuit of the truth [South Dakota Freedom Caucus, press release, 2023.05.11].

The Freedom Caucus dubiously asserts that Goss “was forced” to plead guilty to disorderly conduct. How so, Freedom Caucus, and by whom? Goss could have gone to court with his well-connected Republican lawyer Jason Glodt and made a strong case that the original charges against him were bogus. Instead, Goss chose to curtail his legal hassle and public scandal and plea to making trouble with a prank call that he himself acknowledges was a dumb idea.

Goss also hasn’t been silenced by any “onslaught of ever-growing authoritarian control”. Private businesses KSFY and KOTA fired him because he showed a lack of judgment and violated company policies and standards of journalistic integrity. Even if the state had filed no charges against Goss, if he’d gone to his bosses and said, “Hey, guess what? I sent the former chairman of the state GOP a prank call and disguised my caller ID with the Governor’s personal cell phone number!” his bosses could well have responded, “You used contact information that you obtained through your professional journalistic activities to play a stupid joke? You’re fired!”

And like Tucker Carlson (not a likening any responsible journalist should crave, but the Freedom Caucus started it), Goss hasn’t been silenced. A week after his arrest, he’s out there in the media, apologizing for his knuckleheadery and averring this is all part of God’s plan (to which I would respond that God is a crappy planner, but do we really want to turn Goss’s canning and the Freedom Caucus’s struttery into a theological debate?).

And as SDGOP spin blogger Pat Powers usefully (!!!) notes, Freedom Caucus members Reps. Tony Randolph and Tina Mulally (both R-35/Rapid City) sponsored the 2022 bill that made using another person’s number for caller ID without that person’s permission a crime, and all of the Freedom Caucus members, including leader Rep. Aaron Aylward (R-6/Harrisburg) voted for it. So if there was some government plot to fry Goss (and I’m not rejecting the idea; I’m just trying to emphasize that it had nothing to do with coastal liberal media elites or Barack Obama and everything to do with the corruption of the South Dakota Republican Party which the Freedom Caucus has yet to meaningfully check), the Freedom Caucusers helped it happen.

Meanwhile, the Freedom Caucusers’ friend and fellow Trumpist Big Liar Leah Anderson is trying to silence every citizen who attempts to exercise First Amendment rights around the Minnehaha County courthouse and admin building. Where’s the Freedom Caucus’s call to stand in solidarity with petitioners in Sioux Falls?

It seems the Freedom Caucus, just like the bulk of the Republican Party that it criticizes but does not leave, doesn’t really believe in the First Amendment or any principles in general. It just believes in flacking for its friends.


  1. larry kurtz 2023-05-12 09:04

    How is it wise that the establishment SDGOP is throwing principled conservatives under the bus?

    Recall longtime Republican stalwarts like Phil Jensen, Charlie Hoffman, Betty Olson, Florence Thompson and at least fifteen others threw up their hands in desperation with first term Dusty Johnson and backed Elizabeth Marty May in the Republican US House primary in 2020.

    In South Dakota an unaffiliated candidate needs 3,393 signatures (1% of the total vote for governor in 2018 – 339,214) to get on the general election ballot.

  2. larry kurtz 2023-05-12 09:52

    If Tina Mulally and Tony Randolph aren’t welcome in the SDGOP why would they endure repeated attacks from RINOs like Pat Powers?

  3. Mark Anderson 2023-05-12 12:22

    It’s clearly impossible to not prank a Republican. Whether mischevious or malicious is the question.

  4. larry kurtz 2023-05-12 13:08

    The Christian Conservative Party or just the Conservative Party has a nice ring to it. Patriot Party, Reformed Republican Party, Christian Nationalist Party — all those are great names for an alternative to the SDGOP.

  5. larry kurtz 2023-05-12 13:10

    Heck, what’s wrong with just calling an alternative party the Freedom Caucus because they are outcasts anyway?

  6. 96Tears 2023-05-12 13:53

    It’s been proven again and again that possessing any level of intelligence above being able to fog a mirror is an automatic disqualification for membership in the so-called Freedom Caucus. Therefore, anything stupid or wrong that they say should come as no surprise to anyone.

  7. larry kurtz 2023-05-12 15:09

    While more educated Earth haters prefer Ron DiSantis by a small margin there is a voting bloc within that political party that will support Donald Trump no matter what even though he is unlikely to be on many blue state ballots. An alternative party for christianic ideologues is likely unavoidable.

  8. larry kurtz 2023-05-12 15:46

    In one shade of Shad Olson white supremacist, Sam Kephart is lecturing Mrs. Powers and her myriad personalities about how stupid blogs are. Priceless.

  9. grudznick 2023-05-12 16:41

    Lar, it’s like how Mr. Howie, the insanest overgodder of them all, who owed grudznick oney until he finally repaid it, has been quiet since being virtually beaten about the head and shoulders with bloggings for so long, and how the very pretty and young Ms. Hubbel, to whom Mr. Powers attributes the tin foil style of hat, is not quite as vocal these days.

    I really wish they’d both get back on their horses and form the Party of the Freedom so we could have another convention to go to.

  10. Mike Lee Zitterich 2023-05-12 17:00

    I do not believe the intent here by Leah Anderson was to restrict, nor ban petitioners, it was a policy in order to keep the peace, safety, and health of those who wish to utilize the building to conduct business within the county. If it was to ban petitions, then it would have barred petitions all together. I think people are stretching the truth. But, lets get to the hard work shall we, how to “Save the Republic”?

    Please take the time to read the following story “Save the Republic” @

    For more about me, and what I believe, and a family history of South Dakota, click the following link @ “Our Creed”

    And here is a brief history of the South Dakota Public Education System, and how, and when it was created @

  11. Cory Allen Heidelberger Post author | 2023-05-12 17:06

    Mike, why are you so eager to defend an elected official who is trying to quash the Constitutional rights of citizens? And why is the Freedom Caucus silent on this demonstrable instance of big government quashing Constitutional rights?

    You know, of course, that a public official cannot ban petitions. That would be a slam-dunk lawsuit, as bans based on the content of speech are absolutely forbidden. And as shown in my earlier post on the topic, Judge Roberto Lange sees Anderson’s policy as a clear violation of petitioners’ basic constitutional rights. I thought you and your friend Leah and the Freedom Caucus all were more passionate defenders of the Constitution than that.

    But I’m curious, Mike: how do you feel about banning guns on courthouse grounds, or allowing the carrying of guns only in a couple of small, isolated zones away from the doors?

  12. larry kurtz 2023-05-12 19:06

    Ya know, the militant hatred within the SDGOP is palpable but perhaps the most relevant question is whether John Wiik has the skill set essential to defusing it or if he wants to blow it all up, too.

  13. Mike Zitterich 2023-05-12 20:08

    The COUNTY has NOT banned Petitioners, stop misrepresenting the administrative policy. Anyone has the right to go on any public property to meet people, video record, create a story, to petition the voters. The “Policy” did not ban petitions, it merely moved them away from the entrance/exits of the Minnehaha Administration Building, which under state law, we have allowed them to adopt administrative policies to best manage the business activity in that building.

    You may want to read the S.D Constitution and what it says about how ‘we’ govern the Free Republic, which has supremacy ove the U.S Constitution itself, since the U.S document merely creates and restricts what the Federal Government can and cannot do.

    We can agree to disagree, and I am always open for discussion, however, the policy does NOT ban your ability to petition on County property. I do not like when media people misrepresent the facts of the matter. I do not care if it is Trump, Biden, or our Governor, our any of our Citizens.

    I am out there trying to help educate, inform, and help the Citizens of South Dakota understand our “governing process” and how it works, and their role in that process. I grow tired of the media playing politics, to steer people one way or the other.

    I was nominated, and elected as a Precinct Committee Person, and I am trying to be as honest with people as I can be.

    I spell my name M-I-K-E and not G-O-D, meaning, I am not perfect, I am human. I make mistakes, sometimes I say things I should not have, but you live and learn. And that has always been the way I conducted myself buying and selling used cars. I am to honest, I will tell you everything wrong with with the car, (that I know of). I try to help people, and sometimes, the people I am trying to help, well…2 out of 10 come back to haunt you. But, I know God knows the truth.

    The moral of the story, practice what you preach, and do not assume you know what the other is trying to do, or not doing.

    “READ” the policy man, no one is banning you from petitioning on County property.

    Thank You,

  14. grudznick 2023-05-12 21:06

    Mr. Zitterich, you are tightening it up a bit. It could use more. Cut out the “constitution speeches” and all of para 3.

    Also, cut out the precinct crap. Nobody cares. They are going to eliminate those positions real soon now.

  15. larry kurtz 2023-05-12 21:16

    Watching the SDGOP establishment meltdown over sh!t it can’t control is the chaos meant to be. Namaste, bitches.

  16. P. Aitch 2023-05-12 21:19

    Mr. Zitterich. The repetitive use of one’s self-written moniker (The word “I” twelve times in one paragraph) in a single written thought seems ostentatious and self-absorbed; for in a world where all is about an individual’s social status and grandiose reputation, the constant mentioning of oneself only contributes to the perception of a deluded personality with a false sense of value.

  17. grudznick 2023-05-12 21:27

    grudznick could not agree with grudznick’s close personal friend Lar more than grudznick does right now.

  18. bearcreekbat 2023-05-13 01:11

    Reading the Constitution as recommended by Mr. Zitterich is good advvice and in this case it appears he is mistaken in his statement that: “You may want to read the S.D Constitution and what it says about how ‘we’ govern the Free Republic, which has supremacy over the U.S Constitution itself, since the U.S document merely creates and restricts what the Federal Government can and cannot do.” Actually, the U.S. Constitution has supremacy over the S.D. Constituion and restricts the powers of S.D. In several ways. To begin with Article 1, Section 10 explicitly restricts several specific powers of the States.

    . . . Here, the Constitution places limits on the laws a state may pass. In these three clauses, the Constitution prohibits a number of seemingly unrelated things. However, they are all theoretically linked by the notion that, with the ratification of the Constitution, states gave up a portion of their sovereignty. States are not countries. Therefore, they may not legislate like they are countries.

    And there is more. After the ratification of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments making them part of the US Constitution:

    . . . . Gradually, various portions of the Bill of Rights have been held to be applicable to the state and local governments by incorporation through the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 and the Fifteenth Amendment in 1870. . . .

    . . . beginning in the 1920s, a series of Supreme Court decisions interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to “incorporate” most portions of the Bill of Rights, making these portions, for the first time, enforceable against the state governments. . . .

    [And as it relates to Cory’s topic of free speech, ] . . . Gitlow v. New York (1925), . . . expressly held that States were bound to protect freedom of speech. . . . “,the%20state%20and%20local%20governments.

    Thus, it appears Mr. Zitterich’s statement is inaccurate and it seems appropriate to correct any misleading or incorrect statements or implications about the U.S. Constitution made in the media by Mr. Zitterich. Indeed, he himself explains:

    . . . I do not like when media people misrepresent the facts of the matter. I do not care if it is Trump, Biden, or our Governor, our any of our Citizens.

    I am out there trying to help educate, inform, and help the Citizens of South Dakota understand our “governing process” and how it works, and their role in that process. I grow tired of the media playing politics, to steer people one way or the other.

    Perhaps this clarification will help avoid steering the people away from a more accurate understanding of the U.S.Constitution, regardless of their politics.

  19. P. Aitch 2023-05-13 04:37

    And Zitterich believes he deserves credibility when even a high school level civics student learns that the U.S. Constitution takes precedent over all fifty state constitutions?
    Don’t believe this man, kids. And the burning question remains.
    “Would you buy a used car from this fella?”

  20. Donald Pay 2023-05-13 10:13

    The Freedom Caucus, as always, misfires, but they do think there is something more behind the Noem-Lederman freak out that needs to be teased out. I agree. Though I disagree with their idea that Goss was railroaded, I think there is Noem-Jackley corruption behind this, and I hope some enterprising reporter will figure it out. I offer an hypothesis.

    I believe Goss was a complete and total teenager by initiating this prank call. I don’t think this started out as Noem thinking some reporter was out to get her. No, she much more mentally unbalanced than that. Because she has an elevated sense of importance, it would never occur to her that she would be punked by a lowly young South Dakota reporter. No, I propose that the Noem-Lederman freak out which led to this witch hunt was an example of Noem’s mental instability. Who else but your looney Governor would fake up her own witch hunt by blaming the Congressional January 6 Committee for this prank call. Who else would transform this from a stupid prank to a national Constitutional crisis through her crisis acting. By raising this prank to a national level Noem raises the stakes and puts pressure on your weak Attorney General, and, perhaps, others who may have played a role in this theatrical production. But, let’s just say, Noem had to be a bit peeved that she couldn’t have hanged Liz Cheney, rather than settle for a reduced plea from Mr. Goss.

    Let’s open the files of this “investigation” wide open. We all probably have had spoof and prank calls. Many of us have called officials with a simple question: can you investigate all these prank calls? We all get some answer along these lines: “No, we don’t have the ability to do that. There are just too many of these calls to run them down.” We aren’t mental ill and we don’t crisis act, but we need to know what Noem’s crisis acting cost.

  21. chris 2023-05-13 10:20

    Mr. Zitterich, please also put on a Suit Jacket when you address the Sioux Falls City Council. It shows Respect. The Wearing of Singular Dirty White Undershirts is not Good Manners.

  22. Mike Lee Zitterich 2023-05-13 14:28

    The State Constitutions came first, before the U.S Constitution, The Monarchy, Parliament, and the Holy Roman Empire all recognized the Sovereign States as independent, free, republics of “FREE PERSONS” not any such country. In 1776, we declared our sovereignty as free persons, in 1777 we created the Articles of Confederation loosely forming the United States of Sovereign States, each with their own State Constitutions, Laws, and Codes, and finally in 1789 it was decided that we needed a Federal Govt in order to send U.S Senators, Representatives, Delegates to discuss 4 related common issues between the States – Foreign Commerce, Monetary, Immigration, National Defense, let alone Operating a Centralized Postal Service to allow Americans to send mail back and forth between each State.

    The State Constitutions are Supreme over the Federal Constitution, the only means of which the “States’ gave up any portion of their sovereignty is related to the four responsibilities I mentioned above – Foreign Affairs, Monetary, Immigration, National Defense, the National Post Office – and in order to maintain those responsibilities, we delegated to the Federal Government a list of 18 duties as codified under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 to 18.

    That means, the Bill of Rights do nothing more than “restrict” the federal government in the Republic of the 50 Sovereign States, of which the State Legislature’s are the guardians of the Free Republic, of which hold the Federal Govt in check,

    The Federal Government NOT directly hold any American Citizen of South Dakota, nor any of the other 49 States to a Federal Tax, as it can only “Indirectly” Tax Americans by means of Federal Excise Taxes, Duties, and Imposts. The 16th Amendment did NOT change this fact. I merely allowed the Federal Govt to enter into a contract with “FREE Americans” rather than working through the Legislatures.

    You should read our Organic Laws – the 1776 Declaration, the 1777 Articles of Confederation, the 1789 U.S Constitution, and the 1783 Peace Treaty of Paris, let alone your own State Constitution itself.

    At least I have the nerve, and the guts to participate in the governing process, stepping in front of the Legislature or City Council.

  23. larry kurtz 2023-05-13 15:01

    Mr. Zitterich, if you get the signatures to make the ballot as an unaffiliated candidate for US House in South Dakota’s general election next year I will send you some money.

  24. larry kurtz 2023-05-13 15:05

    You only need 50 signatures if you register as a Libertarian.

  25. e platypus onion 2023-05-13 16:55

    Supremacy Clause
    Primary tabs
    See Preemption; constitutional clauses.

    Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions. It prohibits states from interfering with the federal government’s exercise of its constitutional powers, and from assuming any functions that are exclusively entrusted to the federal government. It does not, however, allow the federal government to review or veto state laws before they take effect.

    End of discussion!

  26. e platypus onion 2023-05-13 16:58

    Most of the United States came into being long after the US constitution was ratified, therefore, the state’s constitutions didn’t evolve first..,

  27. Arlo Blundt 2023-05-13 17:08

    Mr. Zitterich engages in nonsensical double talk when addressing “Organic Laws” ….which is double talk itself. All smoke and mirrors..Yes, read the Constitution INCLUDING ALL AMENDMENTS which are just as valid as the original document. The amendments have all the authority and consequence of the original document. That is what the founding fathers intended. The Articles of Confederation occupy the dust bin of history and have no standing in our time.

  28. Mike Zitterich 2023-05-13 17:39

    Thank You Larry, however, I have no dreams of representing the people nor the State in D.C, that place at the moment is to corrupted by foreign lobbies. I would be interested in a seat in the S.D Legislature, or the City Council of Sioux Falls. I am registered as a Republican, however, my political teacher, Bill Nees – I would be more inclined to build the Independent Statesmen Party in South Dakota, allowing it to blossom in a political faction of National Independents. IF we could build a party to gather ALL Independents, that would mean ‘we’ would be more powerful than both the Democrats who have 26% of the voters and the Republicans who have roughly 23% of the voters. All the Independents need is a platform worth running on. I pride myself on being a Anti-Federalist, which people claim means Anti-American, which makes me laugh. Anti-Federalism simply means you are anti-federalism, and pro sovereignty of the States (the people). I pride myself as a Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and George Mason follower. I do not believe in taking any federal monies, subsidies, or taxes from the Federal Govt.
    As a State, and especially as a “City” we do not need federal taxes, this state and city are very much one of the most wealthy groups of people in the nation. The City of Sioux Falls is worth 100x the City of LA. Sioux Falls has a net worth of 2.5 Billion dollars compared to LA which ha a negative net worth. We do not need federal dollars. The only federal dollars that come into the state should be for Federal Administration, Properties, Highways, Programs. The State has a $4.5 billion dollar budget provided for by state taxes with a surplus in fact. We need to get back to a true sovereign state, NOT dependent on federal subsidies of any kind.

  29. larry kurtz 2023-05-13 17:42

    Mr. Zitterich, John Thune just threw Donald Trump under the bus on the debt ceiling and Dusty Johnson is sure to cave, too. How can you tolerate that especially after Wall Meat Processors just got a load of federal cash? How much did Mr. Johnson secure for your business?

  30. P. Aitch 2023-05-13 18:03

    Mike Zitterich. Are you OK?

  31. larry kurtz 2023-05-13 18:21

    It’s naïve of some of us who live in blue states to under appreciate the zeal of those with mutual political enemies.

  32. grudznick 2023-05-13 20:03

    Zitterich Auto Sales probably pocketed a pretty penny or six from the Big Biden Bucks. Or the Trump Transactions for Trash. Mr. Zitterich, you should pay it all back.

  33. chris 2023-05-13 20:11

    Mr. Zitterich, you WILL put on a Suit Jacket when addressing the City Council. You are representing Patriot Ripple Effect, NOT Patriot Nipple Effect.

  34. grudznick 2023-05-13 20:30

    Mr. Zitterich, grudznick knows a fellow near you who can loan you a decent sports coat. He said he would appreciate if you wore a clean shirt and washed up a bit…I’m just sayin…

  35. Mike Lee Zitterich 2023-05-13 23:52

    I am going to respond this one time to the negative, personal attacks against me, and it will be the one and only time, after this I am ignoring, and not responding further on the the attacks:

    1) My dress wear that I wear to City Council Meetings are just fine, and they are clean, and I act in a very professional manner. So to the person who wishes to attack my dress wear, or looks, you can stop with the personal attacks, it does not look for you, and I do not take advice from social media bullies, the riff raff of the our society.

    2) As for my company, Zitterich Auto Sales, my family has been in the automotive car repair business for more than 40 years, our reputation and honesty in the industry is what has kept us in business for so long and today, my brother runs the repair facility and I have the dealership. We won the respect of the community based on our reputation of being Honest, Caring, Respectful, and Trustworthy. Our father, Gary has taught us kids to be true to our convictions, do not change for no one, and that there will always be a small minority who will always be mad, or think they got a bad deal…you cant help that, but what “WE” can do is be honest, respectful, and caring, and understsanding of our customers, and those who look forward to doing business with us.

    I have sold used cars for as little as $1,000 dollars, and as much as $3,500 dollars, and I have always made an effort to work with people, and to sit down and listen to people who wish to talk. I have more respect within this community than most people think I do, and that is all that matters.

    My father was the first Datsun (Nissan) and Honda mechanic in Sioux Falls, in 1972, he worked his first job at Ryan Motors, today Billions. He He built out automotive business from the ground up, and by showcasing our talents to the entire area. I owe everything to my dad.

    I also learned from my mom, from her home daycare service out of our home, where we had as many as 15 kids to take care. I had learned early in life how to be a role model for our kids, and became a person of which your neighborhood could rely on and trust to watch their kids.

    To those who hate me because of my beliefs, political beliefs, all I can say, many of you have never met me in person, nor took the time to get to know me, and I will be the first to tell anyone, my door is always open to anyone who wants to sit down and talk.

    THank You for all the concerns, but I am fine, and will be fine, and I have a pretty steady stream of people who love associating with me.

  36. bearcreekbat 2023-05-14 01:32

    Mr. Zitterich offers an interesting perspective. If I understand his comments correctly, he does not disagree with the facts about the federal government laws and constitutional principles that I have described, rather he declines to accept these facts or obey the federal laws and constitutional principles I have identified.

    Thus when he writes

    . . . the Bill of Rights do nothing more than “restrict” the federal government in the Republic of the 50 Sovereign States, of which the State Legislature’s are the guardians of the Free Republic, of which hold the Federal Govt in check

    he seems to be saying, in effect, that he disagrees with the contrary decisions of the SCOTUS and thus would reject decisions of any federal court that might purport to restrict the power of the State to directly violate the federal Bill of Rights and subsequent Amendments. In other words, his political philosophy would empower the State to deny an individual the the freedom of speech, association, religion guaranteed by the federal 1st Amendment, as well as deny any or all of the other rights purportedly protected from the State by the federal Bill of Rights and subsequent Amendments, such as due process of law, trial by jury, no cruel and unusual punishment, no slavery, women voting, etc.

  37. e platypus onion 2023-05-14 08:55

    and I have a pretty steady stream of people who love associating with me.

    So did the Reverend Jim Jones and he was a freaking nutcase. btw I tried 3 of the 4 links you posted above and could not find a good match for any of the three. Needless to say I didn’t bother with the 4th.

  38. grudznick 2023-05-14 09:32

    Happy Mom’s Day, Mr. Zitterich. Your blogging above was not too long, due to the content and containing only a medium level of information that was not pertinent. You know grudznick likes not pertinent from you.

  39. Mike Lee Zitterich 2023-05-14 10:20

    As an Anti-Federalist, I align myself with the beliefs, ideals, and morals of the likes of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, George Mason, Samuel Adams, and Patrick Henry…

    When you put in proper place, the sequence of events that originated, created, and established the United States, you being to understand the manner of which a “State” is nothing more than a group of people, aka “State of People” of whom collaborated, and conjoined themselves as one group of people, agreeing to “republic” together to manage their public affairs as a “State”.

    Beginning in 1763, after the Treaty of Paris to end he 7 Year War, many agreements were made between Great Britain, France, and Spain. But this also started a chain of events that began to lead to “Americans” to separate from the Monarch, Parliament, the Holy Roman Empire.

    The “revolutionary period” began between 1764 to 1774 as 5 of the 13 colonies began to rebel, demand, and request the European Powers to stop doing what they were doing, by 1776 we wrote and adopted the “Declaration of Rights” declaring ourselves sovereign and equal to the King, the Parliamenet, the Holy Roman Empire, by 1777 – we adopted the Articles of Confederation creating, and forming the UNITED STATES which turned the colonies into States of Sovereign People, while aligning themselves to work together to protect each other; and by 1783, the Second Treaty of Paris would end the “Revolutionary Period” of which the Monarch, Parliament, and the Holy Roman Empire now agreed to recognize the “STATES” as independent, and sovereign entities, basically agreeing to terms to allow them to be “Free People”.

    With the Adoption of the Articles of Confederation, the United States of America was formed, established, and as mentioned in the 1776 Declaration of Independence, each “State” shall be its own republic, independent from one another, and free to self govern itself from a centralized power, or government.

    What the “Articles’ did, was not only did they create the country, they set in motion of how the “United States” were to be governed, and if you were to assess the very articles themselves, you would conclude the following fact’s to be true and correct:

    As per Article 1 – we formed the United States of America; whereas Article two established the fact that each of the State’s were to be sovereign, independent from one another, and have their own government, in accordance to Article three of which they each signed on to enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defence, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretence whatever, and whereas article four, the free inhabitants of each of these States, papers, vagabonds and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizen of the states, pursuant to Article five – the citizens of each state were to commonly elect representatives, delegates to represent each of the states to create a national congress in order to help manage the common defense, monetary, foreign affairs of all the states acting as the United States of America.

    The remaining articles pretty much set in motion the manner of which the States shall govern the country, let alone preserve to the states the authority over the national congress itself. Even under the U.S Constitution – the State’s themselves never gave up their authority, they simply established a central government to act independently from the state governments themselves. And the ‘guardsman” to watch over that central government was, and always has been the “State legislatures”, who are elected by the people. And that brings us to who has the authority of electing the “chief executive officer” of the Federal Government itself.

    By 1789, nothing changed, other than the fact the “States’ agreed to send Delegates to a Convention to discuss the public matter of creating, and establishing a “Central Government” where that central government would be handed 4 responsibilities – Foreign Affairs, Monetary, Immigration, and Defense of National (or common borders) in addition to creating a National Postal Service.

    Those 4 Responsibilities delegated that would be handed over to the Central Government, were then broken down further as the “STATES” gave to this Central Government a list of 18 duties (or boundaries) as part of Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 1-18.

    The Supremacy Clause under Article 6 did nothing more, but maintain this separation between the Central Govt v the State Republics. It merely sets in motion, the divisions of power between the Federal Government and the States, while stating, where the Two Jurisdictions overlap, federal statutes, codes, and actions have supremacy, but where the two jurisdictions separate – the State Constitutions, Statutes, Codes, and Actions have preference over federal laws, hence, the States maintained their Sovereignty, let alone Independence.

    The “State Legislature’s” have been given the vast power to act as the first line of defense of the total sovereignty of the People, and the State’s respectively, they are elected directly by the people as per the state constitutions, and were tasked with nominating, appointing two of their very own members as U.S Senators within the National Congress, while the people had the right to nominate and elect their own “representative” as part of the U.S House of Representatives whereas the people were to have 1 representative per every greater in number than 30,000 American Citizens of the respective States themselves. Today, the American Citizens of the “States” have one representative for every 735,000 citizens.

    You see, the Constitution was NOT forced upon the “States”, as it was to be heavily debated, concurred with, and scrutinized within each State itself, whereas 5 of the 13 States would NOT accept the Constitution for until finally, the Legislature’s finally convinced the others to adopt the 10 Bill of Rights, aka “Bills of Limitation” laid upon the Central Government itself, furthermore, maintaining our Sovereignty.

    The Federal Govt could NOT restrict freedom of speech outside the Territory of the District of Columbia; the Federal Govt could NOT create a National Religion, nor disrespect any form of Religion established within the “Republic of Free States” and most importantly, the Second Amendment was adopted to protect the First Amendment, which says:

    First Amendment – “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” of which is furthermore upheld, and defended by the “State of South Dakota” where the People went a step further, by adopting Article 6, Section 24 upheld, and protected ALL State Citizens “The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be denied.” of which, ‘we’ adopted Article 15 that gave to the Citizens the utmost powder to Self Regulate …

    Article 15:

    The militia of the state of South Dakota shall consist of all able-bodied male persons residing in the state, between the ages of eighteen and forty-five years, except such persons as now are, or hereafter may be, exempted by the laws of the United States or of this state.

    The Legislature shall provide by law for the enrollment, uniforming, equipment and discipline of the militia and the establishment of volunteer and such other organizations or both, as may be deemed necessary for the protection of the state, the preservation of order and the efficiency and good of the service.

    The Legislature in providing for the organization of the militia shall conform, as nearly as practicable, to the regulations for the government of the armies of the United States.

    All militia officers shall be commissioned by the Governor, and may hold their commissions for such period of time as the Legislature may provide, subject to removal by the Governor for cause, to be first ascertained by a court-martial pursuant to law.

    The militia shall in cases except treason, felony or breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at muster and elections and in going to and returning from the same.

    All military records, banners and relics of the state, except when in lawful use, shall be preserved in the office of the adjutant general as an enduring memorial of the patriotism and valor of South Dakota; and it shall be the duty of the Legislature to provide by law for the safekeeping of the same.

    No person having conscientious scruples against bearing arms shall be compelled to do military duty in time of peace.

    While, back to the United States Constitution, the “STATES” elaborated further, thus adopting Article 1, Section 8, Clause 12, thus restricting the Federal Government to the following rule:

    “To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years” – thus maintaining the fact that “NO Federal Tax” shall fund a standing “National Army”…

    Whereas, the PEOPLE OF SOUTH DAKOTA (Republic) elaborated further, by adopting the following Statutes:

    S.D.C.L 22-16-30 which says, Homicide is excusable if committed by accident and misfortune in doing any lawful act, with usual and ordinary caution.”

    S.D.C.L 22-16-32 which says,Homicide is justifiable if committed by a law enforcement officer or by any person acting by command of a law enforcement officer in the aid and assistance of that officer: (1) If necessarily committed in overcoming actual resistance to the execution of some legal process, or to the discharge of any other legal duty; or (2) If necessarily committed in retaking felons who have been rescued or who have escaped; or (3) If necessarily committed in arresting felons fleeing from justice.

    S.D.C.L 22-16-41 which says, Any person who, while under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or substances in a manner and to a degree prohibited by § 32-23-1, without design to effect death, operates or drives a vehicle of any kind in a negligent manner and thereby causes the death of another person, including an unborn child, is guilty of vehicular homicide. Vehicular homicide is a Class 3 felony. In addition to any other penalty prescribed by law, the court shall order that the driver’s license of any person convicted of vehicular homicide be revoked for a period of not less than ten years from the date sentence is imposed or ten years from the date of initial release from imprisonment, whichever is later. In the event the person is returned to imprisonment prior to the completion of the period of driver’s license revocation, time spent imprisoned does not count toward fulfilling the period of revocation.”

    You basically be excused of Homicide in cases of where someone attempts to break into your home, property, or from attacking you, where your life is threatened, you may have the right to shoot the person in order to detour them from committing a crime; let alone, where it is justified where a Law Enforcement Officer (Governor, Sheriff, Mayor, Local Police, etc) deputize you, giving you the lawful right to help law enforcement in capturing criminals, or of protecting the peace; and finally, you may be excused from Homicide where you are involved in a Vehicle Accident, of which a person(s) dies as a result of the accident, except for where you are found to be under the influence of Alcohol, Drugs, or Both.

    The STATES (Free People) – did NOT give up all their “Sovereignty” upon agreeing to accept the U.S Constitution, thus they agreed to Create the Federal Government under specific rules, permissions, and limitations.

  40. larry kurtz 2023-05-14 10:28

    When the US Constitution was written the Federalists argued for a strong central government with co-equal branches but today neo-Federalists advocate for a weaker central government with a strong unitary executive. Tribes are bound by the Supremacy Clause just like individual states are. Nevertheless, Republicans and their toadies cry government overreach while WOTUS architects regroup for another round in Congress.

  41. larry kurtz 2023-05-14 10:34

    Republicans in South Dakota have apparently forgotten that the ground they live on was seized from aboriginal cultures by liberal democrat, President Thomas Jefferson through an executive order that even he believed was unconstitutional.

  42. larry kurtz 2023-05-14 10:42

    Thomas Jefferson believed a standing army and the right to bear arms are mutually exclusive and put Jesus of Nazareth on a par with Leonardo da Vinci and Sir Isaac Newton.

  43. chris 2023-05-14 11:17

    Does Rolly Samp of the Samp Law Office in Sioux Falls have the exact same understanding of the U.S. Constitution as Mr. Zitterich? They too are listed in the membership on Patriot Ripple Effect’s website.

  44. grudznick 2023-05-14 11:33

    Mr. Zitterich, I didn’t read more than 3 words of your manifesto, as I knew it was insaner than most just from how long it was. Tighten it up, Mr. Zitterich, or nobody will even read your bloggings.

  45. Mike Lee Zitterich 2023-05-14 11:39

    Both the Democrat and Republican Party’s are Left Wing Platforms. Their policies are no more right wing, than each other. The Democrats today have gone far to the LEFT, stretching nearly as left as Communism, to as far as Total Control of all Economic Activities, while the Republican Party is currently a progressive party by virtual of its birth in 1850, slightly past the the middle line. Both parties are on the left side of the left v right spectrum. While the Republicans are somewhat still bound to religous liberty, they to, are not anymore conservative than the Democrat Party. It was the platform of the Republican Party, led by Abraham Lincoln of who established the I.R.S as a revenue office to be placed all through out Federal Territory, in order to levy, manage, collect, the Tariffs imposed by the federal govt. In fact, it was Lincoln who threatened the “States” saying, Failure to pay the tax, he had no problem going to war with them, egging on and causing a political divide to occur between the States. By 1850, you had this huge divide occurring among the States – Federally Regulated States v Un-Regulated States (states who did not bind themselves to Federal Regulations). This divide had been growing stronger between 1828 to 1860, with the addition of California becoming a State, the huge battle was whether it would be a Free Soveriegn State v Federally Regulated State due to it stretching past the Mason-Dixon Line, shows how much this divide had occurred. The agreement was, we’ would lower the tariff rates, if we allow California to come into the union as a Federal Regulated State.

    I have made a huge case that “WE” never truly separated from the Crown Government aka the Monarch, Parliament, Holy Roman Empire. And I connected some dots that proves this theory to be correct. I tell that story here…

    “A Great Panic Fell Upon the United States” (Save the Republic) –

    What we have today are “Federal States” v State Republics — we have “WE THE PEOPLE OF SOUTH DAKOTA” vs the Federal State of South Dakota. The Federal State is operated by the Federal Govt today, raising federal taxes to fund Federal Properties, HIghways, Armies, Programs, Administration Duties; and then there is the “REPUBLIC OF SOUTH DAKOTA” which is the FREE Sovereign People (citizens of the State) of which are protected by the U.S Constitution, to be FREE from Federal Rule.

    The “Republic of South Dakota” has a annual budget of $4,500,000,000 billion dollars raising its own state and local taxes, with a surplus of tax money for future expenses; whereas you have the Federal “State of South Dakota” of which has an annual budget of $5,000,000,000 billion dollars to fund Federal Administration, Properties, Programs, Highways, etc. On paper, the common American cannot see these two ‘jurisdictional states” – the media portrays it as Total “State” revenues of $9,000,000,000 billion, but in reality, they are two totally separate entities.

    Yes, the State Republic of South Dakota, led by the Governor often times grabs Federal Grants to help with public infrastructure, true. But these Grants are governed by federal laws, and can only be used in a specific manner for things such as State Water Programs, Land Development, State Highways/Roads, Infrastructure Projects, etc, and the Governor has to manage the funds in order to make sure they are well utilized. Many of these “Grants” have been used to create S.R.F Loans to Counties or Cities allowing them to borrow from them, to build out their Water and Water Reclamation Facilities, Public Parking Facilities, Infrastructure, etc, but the dollars are to be paid back to the STATE, of which collects 2% Interest from your City. So the GOVERNOR as our at-large rep has to manage those Federal Grant Funds in such manner, to maintain them, and to sustain them as to NOT grab an abundant of federal tax dollars.

    This is why I favor a repeal of the 16 AMendment, I rather the Federal Govt directly work with “WE THE PEOPLE” collectively, working through the Legislature, of which gives permission to the Governor to accept such funds, in order to utilize in the best interest of the State, which then allows us to Directly Tax Ourselves by Statewide Sales Tax, Property Tax, Income Tax, collected by the State, of whom then remits a payment back to the Federal Govt as a “State”.

    The BILL OF RIGHTS are there to Protect both the States and the People from an abuse of of power of the Federal Govt. They restrict the Federal Govt outside the “territory” established by the constitution known as the District of Columbia. The constitution does in fact allow the Federal Govt to hold Enclaves, Administration Buildings, Offices in all 50 States, allowing it to connect a Federal Network of Roads to each one aka Federal Highway System – hence the “Territory of D.C” includes NOT only D.C itself, but all those Federally held Properties, Administration Buildings, HIghways, National Parks, Nature Reserves, National Defense Bases, etc…

    WIth the adoption of the ACT OF 1871 all these Federal Properties were Incorporated as ONE ENTITY, allowing Congress to appoint a Governor of the Territory, while putting in place a Council to represent that Entity, then in 1874 (or 1875) it adopted the District of Columbia Municipality Act which allowed those “residents” of D.C to elect and create a Municipal Government electing a Mayor and City Council of whom has vast powers given to them under the powers given to D.C by the constitution. The LEFT wants to make D.C a State, and that would be scary, since the Territory of D.C now today, is a Federal Corporation of which has a Municipal Govt, and of which has and owns property in all 50 States. IF D.C was allowed to become the 51st State – it would become THE STATE making us a One State Country.

    I know that many people on this website are NOT going to agree with me, I just feel, if “WE” can discuss things, topics, our history, we are much better off, we can agree to disagree, I am ok with that. I am very much grounded by my faith, morals, and self discipline. It is what has helped me operate my own small car lot business. Even though I take a lot of abuse, and hate, I am a good guy who means well. I try to always appease people, and do the right thing, I have a heart for SIngle Moms with 2 or more kids, so I always tried to find them used cars they could afford, or for those people down on their luck, but often times, cheap cars, need repairs, and I try to help them anyway possible.

    I may be Republican, but I am tired of all the hate coming from within the party itself, and I am tired of people hating on each other for differences in opinion, beliefs, and political thought. It is why I decided to put my own website together, to help people understand who I am, let alone, help promote the good and bad of the State of South Dakota and SIoux Falls. I am building it to be poltically neutral, non biased between political parties, trying to keep it strictly about the PEOPLE, and who they are, and where we came from, and how we live. I want to promote this state as a god loving, and fair state..

    Thank You,

  46. chris 2023-05-14 11:39

    […and finally, you may be excused from Homicide where you are involved in a Vehicle Accident, of which a person(s) dies as a result of the accident, except for where you are found to be under the influence of Alcohol, Drugs, or Both. ]

    Mike, maybe you can work this line into a jingle for your next small business advertisement? I bet it would be catchier than the one for Marv’s Body Shop.

  47. larry kurtz 2023-05-14 11:41

    Please pardon the poor reading acumen of some others here, Mr. Zitterich. It’s evident in many Republicans.

  48. grudznick 2023-05-14 12:10


  49. larry kurtz 2023-05-14 12:28

    New political parties only need 250 signatures to get on a statewide ballot.

  50. Arlo Blundt 2023-05-14 12:46

    Mr.Zittrich–I waded through your various manifestos and find them to be utter, and complete nonsense. Your thesis has been wrong since George Washington was President and Randolph was chief justice of the Supreme Court.

  51. bearcreekbat 2023-05-14 13:08

    Although Mr. Zitterich’s recent posts have covered some of his views about the history of the current U.S. constitutional government, his focus seems to be almost entirely before the adoption of the 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th and subsequent Amendments after the civil war. His comments also seem to avoid discussion of the validity and implications of the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison, which defined the extent of the power of judicial review in the courts that has been accepted as correct and implemented in our system of laws by the nation since 1803. I may have missed something as I admit to skimming over portions of his lengthy historical expositions, so if I did perhaps miss or overlook his views pertaining to compliance with court decisions and post-civil war constitutional changes, perhaps Mr. Zitterich or any reader would be kind enough to direct me to that language or those specific parts of Mr. Zitterich’s lengthy writings that explicitly describe Mr. Zitterich’s views on the current power of the federal courts and the current impact of post-civil war Amendments.

    Otherwise, my understanding from what I have read in his comments is that he rejects entirely the decisions of federal courts that have held that the 1st Amendment and other Amendments restrict the power of the States.

    Likewise, it appears to me that Mr. Zitterich rejects the currently recognized, accepted and enforced changes in law restricting state power and authority flowing from the 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th and several other post civil war Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

    If I am reading his comments correctly, then, Mr. Zitterich is describing a system of the U.S. Constitutional government that he wishes would be accepted and recognized as currently valid even though the reality is that only he (perhaps some other like minded individuals, such as income tax protestors, etc) believes currently exists, The rest of the world, however, recognizes the U.S. Constitutional form of government as it actually exists today, with the power of judicial review vested in the courts and with the U.S.Constitution restraining the States from encroaching upon the various liberties explicitly protected by the Bill of Rights, additional Amendments, and other explicit and implicit provisions of the U.S. Constitution.

  52. larry kurtz 2023-05-14 13:18

    This is a great blog.

    Austin Goss was deliberately and maliciously targeted for retribution and the state’s actions are a chilling effect on press freedoms.

  53. grudznick 2023-05-14 14:24

    Mr. Zitterich, like grudznick once was, is a sovereign citizen.

  54. Arlo Blundt 2023-05-14 15:50

    The concept of “sovereign citizen” under the Constitution of the United States was quashed when George Washington mobilized the militias of 4 states, raised an army of 13,000, and personally led this army to forcibly put down the “Whiskey Rebellion” in Western Pennsylvania in 1794. Farmers in Western Pennsylvania refused to pay federal taxes on whiskey made from local grain which was used as “coin of the realm” for payment for goods and services. Light Horse Harry Lee served as General of the Army, Revolutionary War hero Danial Morgan assisted. Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of the Treasury accompanied Washington and Meriweather Lewis served as an officer. It was an all-star cast and they meant business. The 13,000 man army soon brought order, stopped the assault on tax collectors, which included tar and feathering, and arrested the leaders of the revolt. To give you an idea of how determined Washington was in quashing the “sovereign citizen” tax protest, realize that the 13,000 man army put down the revolt in an area of the frontier that had less than 20,000 citizens. So much for Mr. Zittrich’s argument.

  55. Mike Zitterich 2023-05-14 17:31

    I do not claim to be a “Sovereign Citizen”, and yes I understand the difference the two.

    1) You cannot be sovereign and a citizen at the same time;

    2) I am an American Citizen of South Dakota, my domicile is held by the State of S.D, and I have submitted myself to the State;

    3) “WE THE PEOPLE” making up citizenship status as a S.D Citizen, a free republic are SOVEREIGN PEOPLE fully free, and protected by the U.S Constitution which recognizes us as a Free Republic under our State Constitution.

    4) I take NO PLEDGE to the United States Government, nor to the District of Columbia, so saying the PLEDGE OF ALLIEGENCE does not do nothing for me, rather, I cited the following VOW,

    “I, Mike ZItterich, wholy swear, do take this vow to, “Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name; thy kingdom come; thy will be done; on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil, to a place of which, we are grateful for our civil and religious liberties, in order to form a more perfect and independent government, establish justice, insure tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and preserve to ourselves and to our posterity the blessings of liberty, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the state of South Dakota.”

    To read more of who I am, and what I believe S.D CITIZENS to be –

    We, our own ancestors, worked together between 1860 and 1902 to establish a “State of People” of which All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring and protecting property and the pursuit of happiness. To secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, of whom believe the right to worship God according to the dictates of conscience shall never be infringed. No person shall be denied any civil or political right, privilege or position on account of his religious opinions; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse licentiousness, the invasion of the rights of others, or justify practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of the state, and of which no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. The right of persons to work shall not be denied or abridged on account of membership or non-membership in any labor union, or labor organization.

  56. chris 2023-05-14 19:31

    Mike, should constitutional sheriffs serve the Republic of South Dakota, or the State of South Dakota?

  57. Arlo Blundt 2023-05-14 20:01

    Mr. Zittrich has defined himself as a traitor. If not a traitor, then he is not a US citizen but has claimed for himself the title “Native born Resident Alien”.. His assertion that the people of South Dakota between the years 1860 and 1902 established a “State of People” is total gibberish. I find nothing in the Territorial or early State history that alludes to any such movement. It is nonsense. Dakotans organized two mounted regiments which maintained peace on the frontier, including manning Fort Randall, a federal installation during the Civil War, and volunteered by the thousands for the Spanish American War. The People were in unanimity in their support of being a full member as a state in the federal Union.

  58. grudznick 2023-05-14 20:16

    Mr. Zitterich. There is no god. Your god drowned in a bowl of cereal. Stop being such a goof, and tighten it up.

  59. bearcreekbat 2023-05-15 11:30

    IMHO extreme caution is merited before classifying or labeling someone as a traitor or non-citizen based on their expressed beliefs about the meaning of a country’s Constitution, laws and system of government. The term “citizen” is defined in a manner that has nothing to do with one’s beliefs or disbeliefs.

    A citizen is a person who, by place of birth, nationality of one or both parents, or naturalization is granted full rights and responsibilities as a member of a nation or political community.

    One loses citizenship status based on certain behavior, not based on beliefs nor the expression of those beliefs.

    Likewise, with the meaning of “traitor.” Simply because someone express extreme views about the nature and makeup of a government does not turn that person into a traitor. Indeed, minority and extreme views often evolve into the mainstream over time. That happened with abolitionists, who obviously did not have control over the initial meaning of the U.S. Constitution, as it was interpreted to permit, and even approve of, slavery and treatment of peoplehas less than others based solely on skin color (the 3/5th rule).

    Using the label “traitor” to define someone that speaks out expressing a view contrary to the mainstream government thinking is too easily transformed into a tool of repressive governments to stifle legitimate dissent. Further, discouraging individuals with odd views from expressing those views also shields them from considering potential valid and convincing facts and theories that might change their minds.

    As for Mr. Zitterich, I am unaware whether he has taken any actual actions to undermine existing constitutional law, but his expression of his current extreme viewpoints should be encouraged, not discouraged, so that the benefits and flaws of such a viewpoint are in the open. I would certainly not consider him a traitor nor non-citizen for merely expressing his extreme views here on DFP. While much of Arlo’s explanation of our State and Country history is right on the money and helpful in understanding how our Country ans State came to be what they are today, I respectfully disagree with labeling Mr. Zitterich either a traitor or non-citizen.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.