Press "Enter" to skip to content

Senator Adelstein Presses for Investigation and Removal of Secretary Gant

Last updated on 2014.01.05

Shortly before the Secretary of State Jason Gant announced the resignation of his politically toxic deputy Pat Powers, Senator Stan Adelstein released for public reading the following letter, which he sent to Attorney General Marty Jackley yesterday, July 5. The timing of this letter's appearance in Jackley's office and Powers's departure from Gant's is coincidence, surely.

05 July 2012

Via Email ( and U. S. Mail First Class

Attorney General Marty Jackley
1302 E Hwy 14 Suite #1
Pierre SD 57501-8501

Dear Attorney General Jackley:

Since my first request on June 17, 2012, for an investigation of the Secretary of State's Office, information has come to me as a result of the publicity surrounding that request. Therefore, I have four new issues I would like your office to look into.

1. In the 2010 election, it is alleged by a Constitutional Party candidate that Jason Gant indicated that contributions to the blogsite South Dakota War College (SDWC) would be taken for the benefit of Mr. Gant's campaign.

A. There is no record that SDWC ever filed Statement of Organization or Campaign Finance Report.
B. There is no record of receipt, by the Gant campaign, of funds from the SDWC solicitation.
C. There is an allegation that the SDWC purchased, through its normal operations, campaign signs and contributed them to Gant's campaign which, it would appear, would have been an in-kind contribution. There is no record of such permitted in-kind contribution.

2. It appears that in 2011, fictitious information was listed on the corporate filings for the "Gant Group" in the Secretary of State's official records. That filing indicated that "Jason Gant was registered agent for the Gant Group" and indicated his address was 666 Main Street, Pierre, South Dakota - an address that does not exist. It appears later that the address was changed to his Pierre home address during the week of June 23, 2012; however, the false information was left on record longer than would have been appropriate under South Dakota law.

3. Mr. Pat Powers, the Deputy Director of the Secretary of State's Office, did not file the "Dakota Campaign Store" as a fictitious business name until March 21, 2012. He had been operating his business under that name prior to that date and the failure to have timely filed is a Class 2 Misdemeanor. Since the obligation to charge a misdemeanor is in the Secretary of State's Office, and obviously was not done so, what is legal situation with regard to this filing and charging?

4. Attached are data collected from Senator Gant's campaign website which show, at least to this uneducated mind, that as late as June 27, 2012, the website's technical representative is Pat Powers. While Mr. Powers may be working pro bono, is it even legal for any employee of the state to be furnishing personal campaign assistance to a Constitutional Officer for whom he is an employee?

In my letter to you dated June 17, 2012, I asked what would be required for impeachment. I am now more interested in the portion of the Constitution that provides for removal from office for gross incompetency. Impeachment would require a delay until the next session of the legislature. I am so concerned about the mismanagement of the Secretary of State's Office, that I would like to know how we could use SDCL § 3-17-1 to remove Mr. Gant from his office unless he volunteers to leave.

The items listed above would certainly indicate gross incompetence. In addition to those, I have received other information concerning everything from Deputy Director Powers being asleep at his desk, to the alleged absence of anyone in the Secretary of State's Office on primary election day June 5, 2012, to answer questions from county auditors, the difficulty of getting information from the Secretary of State's Office to file necessary corporate documentation, e.g., corporate annual reports - since the office refuses to accept any information that is not submitted via internet email.

I am sorry to have to address these issues in such an adversarial manner, but I think the situation is serious and, as a state senator, I need guidance to the extent that I need to ask the Governor for the removal of Mr. Gant as required under SDCL § 3-17-1 of the South Dakota Codified Laws.

Warmest regards,

Stanford M Adelstein
State Senator, District 32


Senator Adelstein attached to his letter this data from a WHOIS registry search of Jason Gant's campaign website,, which as of this writing is still functional. Registry Whois
Whois Server:
Referral URL:
Status: clientDeleteProhibited
Status: clientRenewProhibited
Status: clientTransferProhibited
Status: clientUpdateProhibited
Updated Date: 27-jun-2012
Creation Date: 28-jan-2003
Expiration Date: 28-jan-2014 Registrar Whois
PO BOX 2012
SIOUX FALLS, South Dakota 57101-2012
United States
Registered through:, LLC (
Created on: 28-Jan-03
Expires on: 28-Jan-14
Last Updated on: 27-Jun-12
Administrative Contact:
PO BOX 2012
SIOUX FALLS, South Dakota 57101-2012 United States
605-362-4725 Fax -- 605-335-9549
Technical Contact:
Powers, Pat
1610 17th Ave S
Brookings, South Dakota 57006
United States
Domain servers in listed order:
Trace route performed on
Trace route performed on
Tracing route to [] over a maximum of
30 hops:
1 3 ms 2 * * * Request timed out.
3 11 ms 9 ms 9 ms [24.*.*.*]
4 10 ms 9 ms 9 ms [24.*.*.*]
5 21 ms 21 ms 32 ms [24.*.*.*]
6 119 ms 203 ms 204 ms []
7 37 ms 38 ms 36 ms []
8 48 ms 49 ms 49 ms []
9 60 ms 62 ms 61 ms []

AG Jackley has yet to offer any public comment on Senator Adelstein's request for an investigation of the Secretary of State's office or on the propriety of Secretary Gant's non-enforcement of notary laws (which Ed Randazzo rumors without substantiation may rouse someone to file charges against Rep. Brian Gosch), his use of his official title in a political endorsement, or his effort to influence Senator Adelstein after publication of the call for an investigation. Secretary Gant has also failed to respond to my request for an investigation of the legality of the Madison Community Foundation's attempt to reclaim assets it forfeited when Chris Nelson dissolved them in 2005.

The question of the week: will the "resignation" of Pat Powers assuage concerns about impropriety in the Secretary of State's office? Or can confidence in the integrity of our state's elections and corporate filings only be restored by the resignation of the man at the top whose poor decisions led us to this situation?

p.s.: The South Dakota blogosphere lights up with the story of Pat's resignation. His old blog, Dakota War College, remains silent. The last two mentions of Gant on DWC came on April 20, 2012, when DWC noted Gant's approval of the Constitution Party and the Americans Elect non-party, and November 16, 2011, when DWC hosanna'd the SDGOP's selection of Gant campaign manager Justin Rollins as party political director.


  1. Taunia 2012.07.06

    Oh my. Who bets Jackley sends a reply of "no wrong doing found in the SoS office. End of investigation.", if there even is an investigation.

    And will this be around long enough to beat up Gant with in 2014?

  2. Taunia 2012.07.06

    Also: will PP be returning as FauxNewsLite at SDWC? Oh, what a fun, fact-challenged day that will be.

  3. caheidelberger Post author | 2012.07.06

    I may regret saying this, but I would welcome the return of Pat Powers to Dakota War College. Unchained by political obligations to Jason Gant, Pat could make a big improvement over the lifeless garbage we've had to read there for the last year and a half from "Bill Clay." I at least want to know whom I am rebutting.

  4. Bill Fleming 2012.07.06

    Suppose PP will tell us who "Bill Clay" is, Cory? Ya think he knows?

    (Sidenote: I noticed this morning that PP had "unfriended" me on FB. I applied for a re-up, but so far, no go. Maybe he's had enough of the digital age for the time being?)

  5. Rorschach 2012.07.06

    Where was SOS office staff on primary election day? I don't know about the rest of them, but Mr. Gant was seen making an appearance at a polling place in his old Sioux Falls district. Don't know if he was voting or if he's still registered to vote in Sioux Falls. Probably went to the big city to partake in the GOP primary night victory parties.

  6. Rorschach 2012.07.06

    I have to agree with Cory. DWC sure has gone down hill since PP departed and "Bill Clay" appeared. Now there's no reason why PP can't openly blog under his own name during the work day like he was doing before he got the SOS job.

  7. larry kurtz 2012.07.06

    Dud showed up over there out of thin air a little bit ago: how weird.

  8. Bill Fleming 2012.07.06

    Personally, I think there's probably a lot of reason for PP to stay off the blogs for a while. He's been on the "inside" and knows a lot of stuff he didn't know before. Unless he's willing to open up to all of that (or take the heat for not opening up) he's probably better off cooling his jets for a while.

    Suffice it to say he's not the same guy as he was when he left SDWC (for better or worse).

    Like they say, you can't un-ring a bell, boys and girls.

    I'm just sayin.

  9. larry kurtz 2012.07.06

    Madville is slow loading: big traffic, prolly.

    DWC is like the scene of an arson waiting for the perp to show up is agonizing: even god would show up for the annihilation of her own creation, innit?

  10. caheidelberger Post author | 2012.07.06

    Oh, please, Pat, open up and tell!

    [Larry, I notice the hang-up is in my RSS feed in the sidebar. Sometimes some outside URLs snag. I'll look around!]

  11. mike 2012.07.06

    Powers hasn't been proven to have done anything illegal. We need to remember that while poking fun. Gant and his cronies have certainly crossed the line of what is or is not acceptable behavior but the illegal stuff hasn't been proven and I doubt it ever will.

  12. Troy Jones 2012.07.06

    At the end of the day, everybody here would want Pat as their neighbor.

  13. Taunia 2012.07.06

    Ebola, too.

  14. mike 2012.07.06

    Reading Troy's comments above has caused me to think about PP as a person not just some political junkie in a circle we like to kick around.

    Say all the allegations PP made towards Stan on his blog are untrue what if Stan's accusations are not accurate and Jackley comes back and says nothing illegal or impeachable or impropper has been done in the SOS office. What should people think of Stan's vendetta? Was it malicious? Wrong? or just PP getting what he deserves? Did Stan serve the public good by going after PP? Is it right for PP to be tried and have his image tarnished in the news papers?

    Just as Gant has an obligation to uphold the standards of his office (which I personally do not think he has done a very good job of) Stan also has the obligation to not insinuate false accusations against another member of society simply out of payback or revenge. At the very least he should make sure they are accurate and not wild.

    I don't know who is right in any of this. I'm very upset with the way Jason Gant has run his office to this point. But I'm not sure Stan is really doing what is right by holding a public lynching of another person (is PP a private citizen?) without having anything substantial that can prove the SOS office has acted illegally.

    I disliked the way Stace Nelson went after other members of the legislature and as disgusted as I am with Gant I'm equally uncertain about Stan's methods.

  15. mhs 2012.07.06

    I would advise Pat busily spend his time interviewing a few attorneys. While I have many, many comments on the Senators actions, I'll simply float the observation that public character assassination of an employee by an employer is actionable under a host of federal and state laws. In no way does the Senator's elected status shield him for violating all sorts of Bureau of Personnel rules governing employee / employer complaints. The Attorney General now has two conflicting actions before him, it will be interesting to see how he resolves it.

  16. Rorschach 2012.07.07

    Come off of it mhs. This isn't about Stan, who hasn't done anything wrong. I'm glad he's asking questions just like I'm glad Stace is asking questions. Somebody has to hold the good old boys accountable.

    And Mike, it is clear - absolutely clear - that PP violated a criminal law by not doing a fictitious name registration for his Dakota Campaign Store with the Secretary of State's office. PP was working in that same Secretary of State's office and not personally following registration laws that they are in charge of enforcing. So Stan is calling for an investigation and rightfully so.

  17. Joe 2012.07.07

    mhs- what laws? He would have to prove, A that everything said is false, and B that it has damaged him. I'm betting that he has problems proving both.

    Gant knew right away that hiring PP was a time bomb waiting to go off. I'm not going to fault PP for what he did, because he shouldn't have been put in that place in the first place.

  18. mhs 2012.07.07

    You guys are making the mistake of assuming this is libel or some policy dispute. It's not, it's employment law. Pat Powers was an employee in a non-policy making position per his job description as operations and technology manager. A person in a supervisory or control position of an employer (quoting federal law) publicly accusing an employee of poor job performance (sleeping at his desk) has violatied all sorts of harassment and confidentiality laws. How many time have you heard the "no comment as it's a personnel mater" refrain. That's not ducking a question: it's the law. Wrecking someone's career by a control person making public derogatory comments is hugely actionable.

    Clearly a state senator with power to appropriate, for example, meets the test of a control position. Pat has a de facto whopper of a lawsuit on his hands. The Senator should have called Pam Roberts before he popped off. Now he's put the state in a deep liability hole for which soverign immunity does not protect it.

    And for all your armchair experts out there, I've been practicing public sector law for 25 years.

  19. larry kurtz 2012.07.07

    a lawyer who can't spell: how conservative.

  20. caheidelberger Post author | 2012.07.07

    25 years of public sector law practice makes me hesitate to challenge that opinion.

    O.K., hesitation over.

    Don't legislators have some sort of immunity (not sovereign, but personal) for their actions while in office that would cover Adelstein's situation here? Don't we hear Congresspeople do the same thing all the time, dragging government employees into hearings and raking them over the coals for poor job performance?

  21. Steve Sibson 2012.07.07

    "At the end of the day, everybody here would want Pat as their neighbor."

    Since I don't trust him any further than I can see him, you are probably right.

  22. mhs 2012.07.07

    The Speech and Debate clause, as it's called Corey, protects congress, but state law is much more muddled. The law generally protects elected officials in such cases, within reason. Most of those times you see is a manger is raked over the coals but the employees in questions are never named publicly. Again, this is employment law dealing with workplace issues directed at an individual. The Senator went over the line with the sleeping at the desk accusation. State administrative policy when I was there was the BOP was absolutely required to handle all such employee cases. Violating established employer policy is by itself the basis of an action and one of many potential causes Mr. Powers may have.

  23. John 2012.07.07

    1. It's only libel if its not true.
    2. Folks holding themselves out to the public, such as did PP and the senator, have far lower liable expectations and protections due to the free speech rights of others to criticize public figures in the pursuit of good governance.

  24. mike 2012.07.07

    Might we see PP's favorite attorney Lee Schoenbeck coming to his defense and sticking it to Stan? Lee is a great attorney.

  25. Testor15 2012.07.07

    Guest Poster over at SouthDacola has a twist on this:

    "Destroying evidence to hide their activities, especially AFTER the AG has started a potential criminal investigation is a FELONY.
    If PP and/or Gant have erased evidence, they will go to jail. If the destruction is done separately or as a team it is conspiracy to commit.

    Remember, the fundamental lesson learned by Richard Nixon, the cover-up was worse than the crime.
    Jackley and his investigators have to secure the evidence. Click Rain in Sioux Falls, the webmasters in Utah, SOS office staff could be touched, other constitutional offices and anyone else who assisted in this process becomes part of the conspiracy web.
    This has the potential to take down a big part of the establishment GOP in South Dakota. Think of all the connections to PP in the AG office.
    Once this type of activity starts to see light, where do the investigators stop their searches. Think Ken Star in the 1990′s. It started with a minor investigation and ended with Clinton’s impeachment trial in the Senate."
    This isn't just a little thing, we could be watching the unraveling of 34 years single party domination in South Dakota. Consider this, PP and Gant attempt to hide or destroy the evidence of their actions. This data destruction opens a wider investigation, the wider investigation links legislators, lobbyists, constitutional officers, business contracts, cozy relationships and much more for us to see. With a conspiracy potentially this large, in a state like SD, almost no family would be untouched.
    I'm just looking at this saying, think about the ramifications. Do we, as citizens of South Dakota, have the intestinal fortitude to see this through to the full end? This is just a tip of the iceberg, ready to potentially take down the South Dakota Titanic.

  26. caheidelberger Post author | 2012.07.07

    What evidence has been destroyed?

  27. Dougal 2012.07.07

    Pat Powers, famously called PP, and Stan Adelstein are public figures, not only by legal definition, but also through their own ambitions and direct efforts. As public figures, Stan has a lot of room to say anything he wants about PP and Jason Gant, also not a shrinking violet. If an attorney were to represent Pat in an action against Stan, it would be a very short-lived case. It's a political appointment position. It would not have nearly the same standing in court as a situation where Stan would publicly rip away at the woman who answers the phones and greets folks at the door in the Secretary of State's office. Another test is the veracity of the statements and yet another is whether ill intent was involved with the statements. Stan's statements are either truthful or based on hearsay attributed to others. Stan's intentions are clearly to inflict revenge, but Pat's history of attacks on Stan over the years are easy enough to prove.

    Bottom line: PP knows this. There will be no consideration of civil action.

  28. larry kurtz 2012.07.07

    Likely evidence of defamation has been destroyed, CAH: the truth is out there....

  29. Testor15 2012.07.07

    Cory, in building a legal conspiracy investigation, you start by properly asking for records, no records? Where are the records? Why did you delete records? Why did you move to different servers? What were you trying to hide? Who participated?
    Once you look at the legally obtained data / evidence. It can and will grow to a bigger investigation. Jackley must to be examining this as a potential criminal case and not a good old boy whitewash to satisfy the public. An assumption can be made, many people in the power circles of SD are upset and concerned.
    There are reasons the mainstream media is hiding from this potential story, their friends could be implicated. Why could Jackley's investigation be suspect? Pat's AG office friends potential to influence the work. Pierre is a very small company town.
    So what is missing is not the "known by us evidence". It is the "unknowns" we may discover at the root of the conspiracy. Remember, this is not being fueled by grudges or get evens. If PP and Gant would have come right out and cleaned this up right away instead of making it a moving target, PP might still have a job. By PP playing us, it now could be illegal hiding of potential wrong activity requiring a State Senator to ask for an investigation.

  30. Testor15 2012.07.07

    There would be no defamation case ever in this issue. Any civil attorney would ask for the same information from PP and Gant as requested by a criminal investigation. PP and Gant would have to open everything to public scrutiny. This is bigger than any of us can imagine.

  31. Testor15 2012.07.07

    Thanks again for the links Larry! I have been involved in SD politics for over 40 years and this has crap has been accumulating. There is so much corruption in so many areas the participants are getting very sloppy. PP and Gant are small potatoes in this field.
    They may just be the small ones thrown out so the others can continue to grow.

  32. mike 2012.07.07

    The idea that any of these constitutional officers are corrupt is silly. Maybe lazy, lack of work ethic, sloppy sometimes etc... but not deliberately corrupt. There isn't any money in these offices. They are not very big cogs in the wheel.

    Same with people throwing around terms like Lust, Gosch and Rausch are corrupt. They are arrogant and in clicks but they are not corrupt or profiting from being in power. There isn't any money in Pierre at these levels.

    The only way for someone to be overly corrupt is in the Governor's office and picking winners and losers with money.

    The rest of it is just sloppy management as far as I'm concerned.

  33. larry kurtz 2012.07.07

    two words: governor's club....

  34. larry kurtz 2012.07.07

    These disclosures are the same rampant hand-washing that took down the earth hater party in Minnesota: may they rot in opposition hell.

  35. larry kurtz 2012.07.07

    Perhaps most frightening is that PP, et al. had access to sensitive material representing a wealth of political extortion ammo: anyone who believes that that is unthinkable forgets the Janklow era.

  36. Testor15 2012.07.07

    Larry you are getting very close to the roots feeding this system.

  37. Rorschach 2012.07.07

    mhs you are completely out to lunch. PP has no case against Stan and no attorney in their right mind would ever waste their time on such foolishness. Stan is in no way shape or form in a "supervising or control position" over employees in the SOS office. That would be Jason Gant in that position. Legislators have absolutely no control over who Jason Gant hires or fires, or how much he pays them, or what tasks he assigns them, or anything else. PP voluntarily left to spend more time with his family. And employment law does not somehow grant employees secrecy if they are sleeping at their desks. (Note that I said if). If you were my lawyer mhs I'd fire you for giving bad advice.

  38. mhs 2012.07.07

    NY Times vs. Sulllivan requires a showing of actual malice in defamation cases before free speech considerations can be overcome. The Minnesota Supreme Court defined actual malice as:

    "Actual malice “may be shown by direct proof of personal spite or by ‘intrinsic evidence,’ such as ‘the exaggerated language of the libel, the character of the language used, the mode and extent of publication, and other matters in excess of the privilege.’

    Anybody here not think there is direct proof of personal spite?

  39. larry kurtz 2012.07.07

    Could Sen. Adelstein argue virtual stand-your-ground in response to repeated assaults by blogger Powers?

  40. mhs 2012.07.07

    Ha! Nice, Larry

  41. shamrock 2012.07.07

    you drive home how out of touch the GOP and it's supporters are. To say, "there isn't any money in any of these offices" when PP made over $60,000/year is insulting to all of the teachers in SD who are the lowest paid in the nation and the rest of SD's wage eaners who also rank at or near the bottom.
    Also if PP can run his political business through the SOS office essentially assuring him customers, I would say there is a quite of bit of money in the SOS office. Of course our part time LT still makes $60,000 and gets to use the state air fleet but that's another story.

  42. Anne 2012.07.07

    Any misfortune that comes to PP, he got the old-fashioned way: he earned it. Libel was his business, and he eventually had to destroy all the evidence.

  43. mike 2012.07.07

    And outside of that salary what money is there in the SOS office for PP?

    $60,000 for a part time LG? Daugaard only made $17,000. Why isn't that a newspaper story?

    Are we finding out that Daugaard didn't do anything as LG, was underpaid or that Michels is overpaid?

  44. mike 2012.07.07

    Anne, the evidence isn't destroyed he just took it offline. Meaning it's still around.

    But yes Karma has a way of catching up to people.

  45. mike 2012.07.07

    Pierre is not corrupt in the illegal sense. It is full of cronyism. Friends scratching each others backs, qualifications out the window, Your my friend and I know your not qualified but if you work there for a few months you will catch on fast... That kind of crap but I'm guessing it happens in the private sector more than we like to admit also.

    Look through the constitutional officers and tell me how many of them have hired deputies (or other staff) with experience in that field. The answer will be zero.

    In fact it would be interesting to look through the constitutional officers deputies and see how much money they all make and compare it to what they used to make before their crony counter point was elected to office. How many people are in the offices were hired because of political connections and not qualifications?

  46. mike 2012.07.07

    From Bob Mercer's blog...

    "Kyle Holt has been our office manager and has been a solid addition to our team — a steady hand in the midst of the daily demands of political work! He will be joining new State Auditor Steve Barnett’s office in early January.

    We also were fortunate to have Justin Ohleen on staff before he went to serve as Deputy to School & Public Lands Commissioner Jarrod Johnson... Mike Lauritsen once again ran our West River Victory office in Rapid City and will be going to work for our new Secretary of State Jason Gant."

    "South Dakota Secretary of Agriculture Walt Bones has hired Lucas Lentsch, the executive director of the South Dakota Republican Party, to be a senior department official."

    "Justin returned to South Dakota as campaign manager for Jason Gant for Secretary of State. Since the election, he has served as State Election Coordinator in the Secretary of State’s office..."
    Party hires political director:

    "Before joining the Daugaard Administration, Kelsey worked as West River Director on the Johnson for PUC campaign."

    "He has also served as Campaign Manager for the Johnson for PUC campaign."

    and served as Campaign Manager on the Daugaard for Governor campaign.

    elect Dennis Daugaard, the PUC has hired Chris Daugaard, son of the governor-elect. He started last week. It was no secret in Pierre, just as it’s been commonly known in Pierre for years that Brian Rounds, a son of Gov. Mike Rounds, also works at the PUC. Chris and Brian are utilities analysts. Their posted salaries are $55,000 for Chris Daugaard and $70,000 for Brian Rounds.

    He also did research and special projects for the Daugaard for Governor campaign.

    What do you want to bet we could go through every office and find the exact same type of qualifications for everyone?

    Strange thing is that they show off the cronyism in their staff bio's.

  47. Dougal 2012.07.07

    Cronyism, unless otherwise defined in law, is not illegal. But one-party rule, largely unchecked by the opposition party and the press over the span of 35 years, opens the gate wide to corrupt and illegal behavior. It is condoned by the highest offices of state government because any attack on the corruption threatens these office holders. They feel very secure that, with members of the capitol press corp co-opted by spouses and family members holding state government jobs and/or contracts, they will not be challenged by the media. Their offices are located in a small town, isolated in the middle of the state. Pierre is a corrupt town in the classical meaning of the word corrupt. It is a company town. State government is the company. And the Governor's office is the Boss.

    If the national media wants a real story about real election fraud and corruption, they've got a big, fat, juicy scandal in Pierre to demonstrate how it gets done by Republican Party officials.

    If the national media ignores this, this scandal will fade away because that's what Governor DD's henchmen want.

  48. Stan Adelstein 2012.07.07

    By the way, anyone who has copy of the DWC blog asking for donations to "Gant for Secretary State" would help establishing what I carefully called "allegations." A copy to me at and a copy to the Attorney General would be appreciated.

    Stan Adelstein

    Senator Stan Adelstein

  49. larry kurtz 2012.07.07

    jim seward's smarmy grimace just popped into my head: anybody know why?

  50. Stan Adelstein 2012.07.07

    After a little thought (big ones come to me with difficulty) I thought that it would be helpful to the any MOUSE "mike" whomever he/she may be to reconstruct the true chronology of what happened.

    Perhaps helpful, as well, to others, lest they lose the real trail, from his/her attempt to drag the red herring of the abominable peepee, over the route.

    I was troubled by the chief election official endorsing the sleazy opponent of the seated Senator in a primary of OUR party.

    I supported District 4 Senator Tim Begelka the honest and hardworking incumbent - by independent advertising and a publicly reported PAC donation - reported both early and accurately.

    Why? Because the less than valiant Speaker had:

    (1) lied to me personally about his refusal to honor a minor legislative courtesy for which I had asked (and worse, that I had not immediately recognized the refusal as false due "session fatigue," despite nearly 10 years as a legislator. AND

    (2) that he had used his position to twist arms to gain - by a single vote - a bill (HB1234) that did not represent the interests of his constituents. Tim had voted 1234 despite pressure thus making clear who HE REALLY represented. AND

    (3) the common South Dakota courtesy of "waiting your turn" after spending eight years in what is sometimes referred to "power?) As well as running in a primary against a seated Legislator of his own party

    When I started down this trail, I was deluged with new information of the outrageous behavior in the SOS office, and the fact that the mis-named "val" had paid with the coin of the realm to the Secretary's chosen assistant for campaign material (and "consulting?"). From there the other issues emerged, and though many pointed to peepee's ignominious role. Though corollary, his was a self-induced target.

    Yes it is true that I had been displeased by his frequent dishonest/insulting references to me personally. But let me make it clear; when I got into this business I knew that I had to have the impenetrable hide of a Rhinoceros - as well as the willingness to use my horn! (by the way some believe that the horn, when ground, can be used to increase virility, particularly when caused by obesity)

    I disliked specially his expressions about my faith; and his blog picture, where he showed himself denigrating my photograph in South Dakota Hall of Fame. While I frequently publicly express my opinion - that I did not deserve to hang there - , my "class" included Gov Frank Farrar, whose photo along with that of Gov Joe Foss and several hundred other South Dakotans who ARE deserving are thus denigrated by association.

    Now the media ask "are you pleased at the resignation?" (of this minor villain) - my reply, "that is only a first step, the Secretary must be removed from office."

    A side note; fascinating to see how quickly someone is thrown (or chooses to fall) "under the bus," by a weak and ineffective associate (or through guilt or other arrangement)

    I was disappointed by the Attorney General's opinion that the only way for removal would be impeachment. I know that I have colleagues who are "licking their chops" in anticipation. That would be a TERRIBLE waste of energy in the short session. I am hoping that enough shame - if he has any - will cause Mr Gant to resign, maybe even before the election in November.

    I am pleased with the reaction of my peers. Not one Legislator, nary a single elect member of either party, of either house as communicated disagreement with my efforts. Quite the contrary numerous positive calls and e-mails.

    Stan Adelstein

  51. Stan Adelstein 2012.07.07

    At the very moment that I as writing the last paragraph of my overly long essay, I discovered that I was receiving (in part) the following from a legislator

    ..."Thank you for standing up for what is right and against what Powers has been doing in his office"...

    names and other data omitted to protect the innocent

  52. grudznick 2012.07.07

    It starts to come together. Stan is a rhinoceros and others are after his horn.

  53. mike 2012.07.07

    I was not aware of Michels salary at half pay. Daugaard did not get nearly that much in salary if memory serves me right.

    Possibly that with Michels qualifications and I'm sure he took a serious pay cut to become a full time LG that he is a valuable asset in legal terms and healthcare. (wasn't he chief legal council for Avera?)

    And I agree with you Shamrock that is much more than Daugaard earned being LG so why can't Michels take the same pay Daugaard took? The fulltime LG position for one year has increased the part time salary by tens of thousands for future part time LG's - which historically SD only has part time LG's.

    Would be nice for the legislators to get a pay raise also...

  54. Stan Adelstein 2012.07.07

    Gosh and Thanks grudznick, I dd not know why some of these people called me a Rhino -- now I had better protect my ...........

  55. Testor15 2012.07.07

    Keep up the great work Senator

  56. Lori Stacey 2012.07.07

    Senator Adelstein, It was the Dakota Campaign Store website that all the activities occurred on, NOT the War College site. My allegations are very valid and the record and inquiry need to be corrected as to the website that I was referring to. I might add that it is interesting that all records of the campaign store site seem to be completely wiped from public domain.

    It does not change the fact that this is my eyewitness account and many others can attest to seeing the same thing.

    I would like to speak with you at your earliest convenience.

    Lori Stacey

  57. Dougal 2012.07.07

    Stan. Please consider changing your party registration. I take you for a smart man, and while the Democrat brand has its flaws in South Dakota, it has yet to push loyal Democrats to the back of the line because of their personal ideology or religious identity. What do you owe to the GOP hacks in your district or in the State Capitol? And think about whether you belong with people who would welcome you with open arms.

    I've been a Democrat in South Dakota since 1974. Yes, the state party has had little input with me and the national party has disappointed me at times. But never -- never! -- has anyone hinted that I was a Democrat in name only. My guess is that you have been attacked thusly from alleged stalwarts in your party many times without anyone guarding your back.

    There is only one other legislator whom I've asked to make this consideration. He said the nice Republicans in his district had kept him in office and that he didn't want to turn his back on them.

    I respected that and never asked him to reconsider. Then, in the next election, the GOP Governor sent first class letters throughout his district, lying about his long-term public record and his loyalty to his people, and he was defeated.

    I don't want to see this happen to you. You are a conscientious person in a political party that has no respect for conscience, independent thinking or personal liberties. Nuff said.

  58. Stan Adelstein 2012.07.07

    I appreciate, and am touched by your "invitation," but Dougal, I AM a Republican in the most traditional sense(s) - individual responsibility, and non-governmental intrusion in individual lives. State Legislative Responsibility without Federal Intervention in each State's management of it's citizens lives and protections. And much more than that; but is late on a wonderful evening - and I am in my home in Keystone, SD where the lights just came on Mt Rushmore outside our window.

    I am attaching of a letter written 68 minutes before yours from a special woman - a leader in the Tea Party Movement - another REAL Republican, though many decry their voices. While I have some fundamental, clearly expressed differences with some of their philosophies, the REAL Republican Party has room for all voices. Here it is:

    Dear Senator Adelstein:
    Words cannot fully express my gratitude that you have pulled back the curtain and exposed the corruption of PP and SOS Jason Gant. They are not the first - maybe even not the worst - to defile our constitutional offices by treating them as their personal politcal playground. The first step must be taken before the dignity of our South Dakota Republic can be restored; I believe this may be that moment.
    I and some of my past associates have been targets of the DWC during the public reign of PP. If you need any more fuel for this raging fire, I think I can provide some.
    God bless and sustain you.Dear Senator Adelstein:
    Words cannot fully express my gratitude that you have pulled back the curtain and exposed the corruption of PP and SOS Jason Gant. They are not the first - maybe even not the worst - to defile our constitutional offices by treating them as their personal politcal playground. The first step must be taken before the dignity of our South Dakota Republic can be restored; I believe this may be that moment.
    I and some of my past associates have been targets of the DWC during the public reign of PP. If you need any more fuel for this raging fire, I think I can provide some.
    God bless and sustain you.

  59. Stan Adelstein 2012.07.08

    Ms Stacey

    I am truly sorry that I misunderstood that the source of the funds was not the DWC, but rather "The Dakota Campaign Store." I am also intrigued with your information that not only you, but others remember seeing the same fund raising information.

    I am also assuming that there is no report of campaign fund raising, or a political committee, or even an independent fund raising effort filed with the Secretary of State, or reported as a source of funds by, then candidate, Jason Gant. Is that assumption correct?

    There is also this intriguing excerpt from Pure Pierre Politics by Bob Mercer, on July 6: "... an on-line campaign store that did business with Gant and other candidates, including raising money for Gant." Does this mean that Mr Mercer has either a recollection or information on that fund raising effort?

    Would those that you refer to as "many others can attest to seeing the same thing," be willing to sign a sworn affidavit actually attesting to that effect? While I am not an attorney, and it is late on Saturday night, I would think that such affidavits, given to Attorney General Jackley, would give him a reason to question both the Secretary and Mr Powers (if, indeed, there is no record in the filings for the Gant Campaign of such funds.)

    I would suppose this would be, as they say, "the smoking gun," indicating gross violation of campaign finance law -- by a public official. Worse yet, by the official and his recent deputy responsible enforcement of those very campaign laws.

    I will call you tomorrow, if would please send me a telephone number to use on my e-mail

  60. Lori Stacey 2012.07.08

    Stan, You must have read my mind as I already sent you an email before just now reading your post. I have offered to sign sworn affidavit already and I emailed you that info along with my phone number. So I guess we are definitely on the same wavelength even before reading your latest post.

    Yes, I had checked finance records and saw nothing showing a large dollar amount that could account for all those signs his campaign had. Not unless it was on his very last report filed after election, that one I do not remember looking at. Possibly you had not written the article I wrote about this situation.

    I had posted here that I was willing to cooperate FULLY and I certainly had in mind affidavits.

    In Freedom and Justice,

    Lori Stacey

  61. larry kurtz 2012.07.08

    Sen. Adelstein: what's your opinion of the proposed mine near Keystone?

  62. Stan Adelstein 2012.07.08


    Thanks for the question. First of all, I want you to know that I have a business interest connected to the mine - so I want it to succeed -- but not at the expense of protection of water and environment.

    My final thinking is not there yet. I had a two hour lunch with one of the two owners of the mine property itself, a little over a week ago. I had about the same length of dinner with the President of the "prospector," development plan company on Friday night, and then went on to the town meeting that evening.

    So far I am comfortable with the folks. At dinner I said that I would be putting in two bills that would tend to tighten up regulations A LOT before either that mine or the one in Spearfish Canyon opens. He seemed to understand where I was coming from. One bill would require something which he already has to do in Canada. He made no definitive comment on the second. (unless "oh," without facial expression is definitive)

    I also have major business interest in Spearfish Canyon, and I am not as sanguine about that mine - and perhaps you know that I spoke in opposition at the Lawrence County Planning Committee (which later was ignored and passed to the County Commission. My opposition continues.

    Sort of off this track, but that is something of a relief.

    Stan Adelstein

  63. larry kurtz 2012.07.09

    Thank you, Sen. Adelstein: please forgive me if I don't support your optimism.

Comments are closed.