In political trivia, Democrat Corinna Robinson netted a meager $3,765 in the final two weeks of her Congressional campaign.

Robinson received 6.6% of that couch-cushion change from her Rapid City neighbor Robert Van Norman, who donated $250 on October 17.

That amount really is couch-cushion change for Van Norman. On August 21 and September 11, Van Norman's law firm received $50,000 from the Senate campaign fund of Annette Bosworth to represent the fake and failed GOP primary candidate in her February perjury trial.

We may conclude that Van Norman is a chivalrous gentleman, willing to help damsels in the greatest distress.

While Bosworth was pretending to witness signatures from Hutterites, Van Norman was supporting Rick Weiland for Senate. On March 14, Van Norman sent the Weiland campaign $1,000.


When he wasn't getting everything else wrong, Pat Powers managed to add three useful observations to our favorite political undercard, the fading Chad Haber-Annette Bosworth medicine show:

  1. Powers finds that Haber, in his fake and mostly silent candidacy for attorney general, has rewritten a key part of his family's story. Where his wife found it useful during her fake Senate candidacy to claim that she had to live with her children in an RV in the middle of winter because because the government attacked her, Haber now claims that they sold their two houses to buy medicine for Native American kids.
  2. Powers checks Haber's financial disclosure form and finds that Haber continues to earn no income for his family (which is a more logical explanation for losing houses and living in an RV... but doesn't explain who paid for his three-month sojourn to warm and sunny Haiti with a young female college student while his wife and kids froze in the RV).
  3. Powers also catches Haber providing evidence that his wife should be prosecuted for medical malpractice. Haber says that he paid for his wife to inject 94 Native American children with Vivitrol, an drug that helps drug users fight addiction. No one has studied Vivitrol in children, and the FDA has not approved prescribing Vivitrol to patients under 18.

Wow: so in an alternate universe where Haber is able to keep his story straight and run an honest campaign, it's anyone's guess whom he would arrest first: me, Joop Bollen, or his own wife.

Well done, Pat. It's nice to see you can occasionally uncover some actual news.

Related Viewing: Haber's YouTube channel includes this video of him in Haiti whining about getting lost after failing to find a translator. "A little frustrating, what do you do?" he asks.

Gee, Chad, I don't know, maybe quit being a thick-headed cultural imperialist who thinks everyone should learn English and study the local language before you go?


Blog compatriot Ken Santema is running for State Treasurer as a Libertarian. I could in good conscience vote for Santema. He knows his numbers, and his current effort to produce the most reasonable and original conservative reporting in the state indicates he would approach government with honesty and openness.

Alas, his candidacy may be as illegitimate as ballot-ousted Ryan Gaddy. My friend Elisa Sand points out the surprising origin of Santema's Libertarian nomination:

His nomination as a statewide candidate at the Aug. 9 Libertarian Convention came as a surprise — especially given that he was nominated by newly registered Libertarian Annette Bosworth. He was one of two Libertarians nominated. Santema said, when he accepted the nomination, the other nominee stepped down [Elisa Sand, "Political Blogger Runs for State Office," Aberdeen American News, 2014.09.05].

I'll get you, Ken! Don't think that Democratic shotgun will save you!

I'll get you, Ken! That Democratic shotgun won't do you any good!

A former Republican candidate for U.S. Senate nominated Libertarian Santema. I won't declare him guilty by association. But I will declare his nomination a violation of SDLP by-laws. Article 2, Section 1 declares that voting members must have paid their dues and be registered Libertarians. As far as I know, Annette Bosworth-Haber was a registered Republican up to the time of the Libertarian convention. (Her name doesn't even appear in the current voter registration database.) If she, like Ryan Gaddy, changed her registration the day of the convention, she was not legally a Libertarian when she nominated Santema, Santema's nomination is illegitimate, and Santema's name should be stricken from the ballot.

However, Secretary of State Jason Gant has likely already printed the ballots and called UPS to haul those ballots to 64 courthouses in time for early voting to start on Friday.

I wish Santema no ill will. Part of me wishes he could replace Republican State Treasurer Richard Sattgast. But if Santema's nomination was illegitimate, can we responsibly mark his name on our ballots?


A couple weeks ago, I mentioned a Brookings correspondent's report that Chad Haber and Annette Bosworth had lured students to a campaign event with an ad in the SDSU Collegian promoting marijuana legalization. The comment section lit up with a discussion of who actually placed the ad.

Let's look at the ad in question first:

Cannabis legalization event ad placed in SDSU Collegian, first edition of 2014–2015 school year, August 2014

Cannabis legalization event ad placed in SDSU Collegian, first edition of 2014–2015 school year, August 2014

The ad states that it was "Paid for by the libertarian Party." The ad refers to the Facebook page for the marijuana legalization organization South Dakotans Against Prohibition. It identifies no individual organizers or speakers. Staff at the SDSU Collegian did not identify the the representative of the Libertarian Party who submitted and paid for the ad. We can only hope the advertiser's check did not bounce the way the SDLP's check for SDAP organizer Ryan Gaddy's lawsuit did.

So we don't know who actually signed the check for this ad. But we do know what the ad says. It promotes the September 3 event as a chance to...

  1. get free food,
  2. "meet the libertarian party," and, most prominently,
  3. join a "grassroots digital media movement" to end cannabis prohibition.

I spoke with Nate Cacy, an SDSU student who attended the event at Hillcrest Park. Cacy says the first promise was absolutely true: free food was present.

The second promise is arguably true, if the Libertarian Party now consists of Chad Haber and Annette Bosworth. Haber and Bosworth were the only two organizers who identified themselves at the event.

The third promise, however, the thrust of the ad, proved entirely false. Cacy says that in the half hour that he attended the event, he heard not one word about legalizing marijuana. Haber dominated the event, talking nearly the entire time about his own candidacy for attorney general and, in Cacy's view, coming across as somewhat rude.

Haber exposed that rudeness most clearly when he took a moment to interact with his audience of four (Cacy reports seeing three other spectators, as well as a young unnamed companion helping Haber and Bosworth). Haber asked what issues the youth consider important. Cacy mentioned discrimination and cited LGBT equality issues as an example. Haber said to Cacy, "Oh, so you're coming out to everyone?"

Cacy is still wondering just what Haber's intent was with that comment. I'm trying to figure out how Haber's comment is any way an appropriate response to a voter who raises an important electoral issue.

I'm also trying to figure out the logic that gets a party to advertise an event around Issue X and then play a switcheroo in which one of its candidates shows up unannounced at the event and talks all about himself and not at all about the issue that drew people to the event.

Ah, but it's been a while. I almost forgot: if we're talking about Chad Haber, we're not talking about appropriateness, logic, or truth. We're talking about false advertising and self-obsession, the cement blocks to which the South Dakota Libertarian Party has chained itself.


Failed U.S. Senate candidate Annette Bosworth has hired her fourth attorney in three months. Christopher Robert Jansen wasn't available, so Robert Van Norman will take over Bosworth's defense against twelve felony charges of false filing and perjury.

Predictably, Van Norman tells the press that Bosworth's case is "very complex from a defense standpoint" (no, it's not: she lied under a sworn oath), meaning he needs "additional time to review records, locate various witnesses, and investigate the charges and legal issues in order to properly represent her" (no, you don't: just read this blog, and you'll understand the perils of representing this incorrigible con artist and that your client's only hope is to plead guilty and beg for mercy).

Van Norman also has a daughter getting married and guests from Europe staying over this month, so the Hughes County court has delayed Bosworth's motions hearings to November and December and her trial to February 4–6. That delay has thus doubled the chance that Bosworth's husband Chad Haber could save her from a felony conviction from one over infinity to two over infinity. Haber is a fake candidate for attorney general. If he (chuckle) beats Marty Jackley (snort!) in November, Haber would take office (ha ha ha!) in January and could tell his lawyers to ignore the law and drop the case.

O.K., back to reality. If she and Chad don't finally close the clinic and flee the country with their leftover campaign cash, Bosworth goes to trial February 4, and a jury will convict on February 6.

Related Reading: While awaiting conviction, Chad and Annette are pulling more scams. A Brookings correspondent tells me that Chad and Annette placed an ad in the SDSU Collegian a couple weeks ago inviting students to a picnic (food for votes again?) to discuss legalizing marijuana. According to my correspondent, four students showed up. They heard nothing about legalizing marijuana; instead, they got a sales pitch for Chad's fake candidacy and the now fake Libertarian Party.

Correction... for the rest of the press: Reports on Bosworth's arrest and pending trial have perpetuated the misleading labeling her jaunt to the Philippines as a "Christian mission trip." That is technically true, but it was not the original intent of the trip. Bosworth and Haber originally organized the trip as a stunt to promote her fake Senate candidacy and their attorney Joel Arends's veterans organization. In a November planning discussion with Arends, Haber laid out a cynical strategy to exploit Christian guilt to raise money for the trip. The trip only became a Christian mission trip when Haber and Bosworth's hasty organization and fundraising fell predictably short and they had to glom onto an independently organized Wesleyan church mission trip.


Even if Annette Bosworth can't stick us with the bill for her lawyer, holding the doctor accountable for her crimes and lies is costing the state of South Dakota thousands of dollars. For some reason, Attorney General Marty Jackley is trying to shift some of that cost to Hughes County:

Hughes County Commissioners want an explanation from the Attorney General’s Office before paying an expert witness bill in a case being prosecuted by the AG’s office.

The commission Monday night decided to delay paying a $4,440 bill submitted by a handwriting expert who is being used in the Annette Bosworth election fraud case ["Commission Wants Explanation Before Paying Bill," KCCR Radio, 2014.08.05].

According to paragraph 14 of the affidavit filed by Division of Criminal Investigation agent Bryan Gortmaker to inform the Bosworth arrest warrant, forensic document examiner Janis Tweedy analyzed Bosworth's signature on the petition sheets on which Bosworth appears to have sworn a false circulator's oath:

14. Your affiant states that these six (6) nominating petitions have been examined by a forensic document examiner, Janis Tweedy, to determine the authenticity of the circulator's signature. Two (2) petitions are identified as having been produced by the person said to be Annette Bosworth when compared against known Dr. Annette Bosworth signatures that various State entities had on file. Four (4) of the petitions are found to be highly probably as having been produced by the person said to be Annette Bosworth when compared against known Dr. Annette Bosworth signatures [Bryan Gortmaker, affidavit, State of South Dakota v. Annette Bosworth, Civ. No. 14-305, paragraph 14].

Tweedy looked at six Bosworth signatures and compared them with other exemplars. I believe Tweedy was present for the June 17 grand jury hearing. I don't know what other services she has rendered for the state, but at $4,400 so far, analyzing signatures sounds like a really good job.

Whatever the services, the key phrase is rendered for the state. Hughes County isn't investigating or prosecuting Bosworth; the state is. I can think of no good reason for the state to try passing costs of the Bosworth investigation onto any county. Neither can Hughes County commissioners, who are asking the Attorney General to send someone to a future commission meeting to explain why the county should pay that bill.

Marty Jackley appears to be a lot like Annette Bosworth and her husband Chad Haber: they all want someone else to foot their bills.


Hey, everybody, guess what? Brandon Taliaferro and us bloggers are all lying about Annette Bosworth. So says the perjurious political poseur's paid press, which asserts that Bosworth brought a check to court Monday to pay attorney Taliaferro the $25,000 retainer he said he never received:

By the way, Bosworth is and was ready, willing and able to pay the retainer. She brought a check to the hearing yesterday [Annette Bosworth's paid spokesperson, "Lawyer Did NOT Drop Bosworth For Non-Payment: South Dakota Blogs Lie About It," that fake Bosworth-Haber blog, 2014.08.05].

So let's see: the retainer was supposed to be paid by July 25. Bosworth offered to pay it on August 4. O.K., fine.

The one thing we do learn from this claim is that now Judge John L. Brown can comfortably reject any attempt Bosworth may make to obtain a public defender, since her own press team says she can afford to pay for her own lawyer. Thank you, Annette, for letting us taxpayers off the hook.


Leo Kallis helps us understand why Circuit Court Judge John L. Brown approved attorney Brandon Taliaferro's request to withdraw from Annette Bosworth's defense. The reason is simple and unsurprising: Bosworth failed to pay him.

In court yesterday, the failed Senate candidate complained that Taliaferro's motion to withdraw was too vague. Taliaferro responded that he had avoided mentioning specific reasons to protect Bosworth from undesirable media scrutiny:

My motion to withdraw was intentionally vague. I did that as a benefit to you so as to limit the amount of information in the record that the press or public could get ahold of. If you consent to my withdrawal, the court likely won't require any additional information on this issue. I believe that to be a benefit to you. However, if you oppose the motion, the court will likely require additional information from me, which will then be in the record. The same goes for the motion you are considering filing. Once you file something with the clerk of courts, it's in the record and available to the press and/or public. I don't see that as benefiting you, but it is your decision to make [Brandon Taliaferro, letter to Annette Bosworth, electronically transmitted 2014.08.03; quoted in Leo Kallis, "Apparently Chad Haber Doesn't Read The Paper Or Think About The Implications Of His Words," The Displaced Plainsman, 2014.08.04].

This August 3 letter shows that even as he is trying to leave the Bosworth circus, he is still trying to serve his client's best interest. The bottom of his letter suggests Taliaferro is even trying to help her line up a new attorney (Taliaferro mentions "trying to secure Mr. Schreiber," perhaps Pierre attorney Brad Schreiber).

But again, in Bosworth's narcissistic world, no press is bad press. She throws another tantrum, and Taliaferro's reasons for withdrawing become public:

As for the obligations you failed to fulfill, they are set forth in various emails and letters I sent to you. Essentially, the obligations were:

  1. Chad [Haber, Bosworth's husband] withdraws from the AG race before our last hearing which did not occur;
  2. Lee [Stranahan, Bosworth's paid spokesman] stops mentioning me, you or Mette which did not occur;
  3. We issue a press release distancing you and your defense from Lee. That occurred, but was completely undermined by the video you and Lee put out hours after the press release; and
  4. 25,000 retainer by July 25 which did not occur [emphasis mine; Taliaferro, 2014.08.03].

Bosworth promised Taliaferro $25,000. Bosworth did not pay Taliaferro that $25,000. She continues not to pay her debts to those who have worked for her.

Bosworth doesn't pay: the story is almost so predictable as to no longer be news.

Bosworth's exploitation and abuse of her former attorneys proves her toxicity. It's almost as if she's trying to make herself unrepresentable, to drive off every respectable attorney in the state, to force us to pay for a public defender. I could tolerate footing the bill for Bosworth's constitutionally guaranteed defense if she were really destitute and lacked the means to raise money. But her mistreatment of Taliaferro, like her parasitic relations with past employees, indicate Bosworth is just looking for another freebie.


Support Your Local Blogger!

  • Click the Tip Jar to send your donation to the Madville Times via PayPal, and support local alternative news and commentary!

South Dakota Political Blogs

Greater SD Blogosphere

SD Mostly Political Mix

Greater SD Blogosphere

Madville Monthly