Press "Enter" to skip to content

Bosworth Petition Challenged: 40% Invalid Signatures, 281 Shy of Required 1,955

At 4:40 p.m. today, elections officer Brandon Johnson of the South Dakota Secretary of State's office accepted a formal challenge to Annette Bosworth's nominating petition. Last week, the Sioux Falls physician filed a petition seeking a spot on the Republican primary ballot for U.S. Senate. Including petition sheets delivered to the Secretary of State's office last week, Bosworth submitted 2,868 signatures, 913 more than the 1,955 needed to make the Republican ballot.

A review of that petition has determined that the Secretary of State may invalidate 1,154 of those signatures, more than 40% of the total, leaving only 1,714 valid signatures. Other errors and possible fraud identified may disqualify an even larger number of signatures, if not the entire petition.

If the Secretary of State's office confirms the findings of this challenge, Annette Bosworth will not appear on the Republican ballot in the June 3 primary.

Below is the full text of the affidavit submitted this afternoon:

I, Cory Allen Heidelberger, swear that the following statements are, to the best of my knowledge as of Tuesday, April 1, 2014, true and accurate. I offer these statements and attached supporting documents as a formal challenge, per SDCL 12-1-13, to the nominating petition ("Petition") of Annette Bosworth ("Bosworth") as candidate in the Republican Primary for United States Senate as submitted to the South Dakota Secretary of State on March 25, 2014, and as supplemented by petition sheets delivered by registered mail to the Secretary of State on March 26, 2014.

  1. On March 26, 2014, the office of the South Dakota Secretary of State ("Secretary") provided me with a copy of 213 sheets submitted for the Petition. On March 31, 2014, the Secretary provided me with a copy of 14 addition Petition sheets submitted by mail. All sheet numbers herein refer to the order in which the sheets appear in those copies.
  2. I have since reviewed the Petition and have found the following violations and other deficiencies that render the Petition invalid.
  3. Petition sheets 20, 129, 192, 203, and 207 list Annette Bosworth as circulator. Petition sheet 44 lists Chad Haber as circulator. Petition sheets 20, 44, 129, 192, 203, and 207 include voter signatures dated between 1/5/2014 and 1/15/2014. During those dates, Bosworth and Haber were on a publicized medical mission trip to the Philippines. Neither Bosworth nor Haber could have gathered signatures in Huron, Aberdeen, Parkston, Sioux Falls, Lake Andes, or Vermillion during that time. The signers listed on those sheets on those dates were not all in the Philippines during that time. Bosworth and Haber thus swore false oaths on these Petition sheets, invalidating all signatures on those sheets.
  4. Bosworth's and Haber's violations of their circulator's oath further casts doubt on the validity of all other Petition sheets circulated by Bosworth and Haber. All sheets circulated by Bosworth or by Haber should be rejected. Rejecting all sheets circulated by Bosworth or by Haber leaves only 1,426 signatures, not enough to qualify Bosworth for the ballot.
  5. Joel Arends notarized Petition sheets 44 and 192. Arends helped organize and publicize Bosworth and Haber's medical mission trip. Arends knew Haber and Bosworth were out of the country during dates included on the petitions on which he notarized Bosworth's and Haber's false circulator's oaths. Arends thus misused his notary seal in support of the Petition, casting doubt on the validity of all Petition sheets notarized by Arends. All sheets notarized by Arends should be rejected. Rejecting all sheets notarized by Arends leaves only 1,402 signatures, not enough to qualify Bosworth for the ballot.
  6. Rejecting all sheets circulated by Bosworth, all sheets circulated by Haber, and all sheets notarized by Arends leaves only 1,103 signatures, not enough to qualify Bosworth for the ballot.
  7. Even if the Secretary applies the above evidence to invalidate only the individual sheets on which violations took place and not all sheets circulated by Bosworth or Haber and/or notarized by Arends, the Petition contains several other deficiencies that disqualify entire sheets and individual signatures and leave the Petition with insufficient valid signatures.
  8. The circulator did not print her name on sheets 24, 45, or 61. SDAR 05:02:08:00.01 makes clear that a petition "must include the printed name of the circulator." The circulator's failure to print her name on those three sheets invalidates those three sheets.
  9. On sheets 75, 88, 194, and 195, the handwriting for signers' addresses and dates does not match the handwriting of the signers or of the circulator. Signers give the circulator that information. SDAR 05:02:08:00(3) allows the circulator to add address and date information to the petition for signers. State law and administrative rules authorize no one other than the signer or the circulator to add that information. Because neither the signers nor the circulators of these sheets appear to have written that information, these sheets are invalid.
  10. On sheets 117 and 212, the notarizing officers also sign to nominate the candidate. SDCL 18-1-7 prohibits notary publics from using their seal "in connection with any instrument which shows upon its face that he is a principal party thereto." Signing the petition to nominate Bosworth makes each notary public a principal party to the Petition. The notary seals on sheets 117 and 212 are thus invalid, invalidating all signatures on those sheets.
  11. Additionally, sheet 212 has no signature of the officer administering the circulator's oath, further supporting rejection of the entire sheet.
  12. Sheets 130, 137, and 218 have invalid notarization dates, thus invalidating those sheets entirely.
  13. Sheet 161 was circulated by Lachlyn Kilpatrick. The circulator also signed the sheet to nominate Bosworth. This violation normally invalidates only the circulator's nominating signature. In this case, the circulator appears to have disguised her signature by signing nominating line 13 with her maiden name. These signatures cast doubt on the reliability of the entire sheet, which should be rejected in total.
  14. The Petition contains numerous individual deficiencies that disqualify hundreds of signers. These deficiencies include but are not limited to the following:
    1. Signers do not appear to be registered Republican voters (approx. 380);
    2. Addresses do not match voter registration records (approx. 160);
    3. Invalid dates (approx. 40);
    4. Individuals signed petitions previously submitted for the same office (approx. 30);
    5. Invalid address, including P.O. Boxes in first-class municipalities;
    6. Individuals signed Petition more than once.
    7. Circulators signing their own sheets.
  15. Individual deficiencies are itemized on the spreadsheet submitted to the Secretary with this affidavit.
  16. According to my best count, of the 2,646 signatures submitted in person to the Secretary on March 25, 2014, in support of the Petition, 997 are invalid, leaving 1,649 valid signatures.
  17. According to my best count, of the 2,868 signatures submitted in total in support of the Petition, including the signatures received on March 26, 2014, by registered mail by the Secretary, 1,154 are invalid, leaving 1,714 valid signatures.
  18. Finally, the Petition nominates one Annette Bosworth, M.D., as a Republican candidate for United States Senate. As of April 1, 2014, the Secretary of State's voter registration records, as accessible to the public via the online Voter Information Portal on the Secretary's website, show no person named Annette Bosworth registered as a Republican in the state of South Dakota. The entire Petition, all 227 sheets, is thus invalid.
  19. I thus believe that the nominating petition of Annette Bosworth fails to qualify Annette Bosworth as a U.S. Senate candidate to appear on the ballot for the Republican Primary election scheduled for June 3, 2014.
  20. With deep respect for the office of the Secretary of State and the laws of South Dakota, I hereby request that the Secretary take the following actions:
    1. Disqualify all deficient signatures itemized in the attached documentation and any other deficient signatures that the Secretary's scrutiny of the Petition may uncover;
    2. Decertify the Petition;
    3. Decline to place Annette Bosworth's name on the Republican Primary ballot;
    4. Forward this affidavit and the Petition to the South Dakota Attorney General and the United States Attorney for the District of South Dakota and request that those officials investigate the evidence outlined in Points 3, 4, and 5 herein for possible violations of state and federal law pertaining to elections and the integrity of the notary seal.

Dated this 1st day of April, 2014


Cory Allen Heidelberger, Affiant

Interested citizens may review the Bosworth petition itself by clicking this link.


  1. Charlie Wheeler 2014.04.01

    So is this all an April Fool's joke?

  2. Tim 2014.04.01

    Ouch! How could somebody submit something like that, with that amount of mistakes and be considered a legitimate candidate? Nice work Cory.

  3. caheidelberger Post author | 2014.04.01

    Charlie, I don't suffer fools, April or otherwise.

  4. Jeff Barth 2014.04.01

    Well done Cory.
    Amazing, this whole saga.

  5. larry kurtz 2014.04.01

    yer a god, cah.

  6. Deb Geelsdottir 2014.04.01

    40% invalid! Good grief. What trash. She truly is shameless.

  7. Bree S. 2014.04.01

    "As of April 1, 2014, the Secretary of State's voter registration records, as accessible to the public via the online Voter Information Portal on the Secretary's website, show no person named Annette Bosworth registered as a Republican in the state of South Dakota. The entire Petition, all 227 sheets, is thus invalid."

    LOL It's awesome you submitted this today, Cory. Thanks for the laugh!

  8. Rorschach 2014.04.01

    Very well done, Cory! Dr. Bosworth must be very talented to circulate all of those petitions around SD while in the Philippines. But of course none of the laws apply to her. The authorities are much more interested in anonymous political phone calls than in felonies. But then again, this may be what the medical board needs to revoke her medical license on character and fitness grounds.

    Now what are you going to do when the Secretary of State rejects your challenge?

  9. PlanningStudent 2014.04.01

    This sooo makes my day!

    I'm too lazy to go back and look myself, what day did Arends notarize the petitions that were circulated during the overseas trip?

  10. Dave Blair 2014.04.01

    I really feel bad for Annette. Tell her to send a petition to me down here in Arizona and I'll circulate it for her!

  11. anon 2014.04.01

    She's not my candidate but Annette Haber is a registered republican in Sioux Falls.

  12. Brother Beaker 2014.04.01

    Could have sworn this was an April Fool's prank, but Montgomery is an unlikely co-conspirator!

    Interesting questions.

  13. PlanningStudent 2014.04.01

    This no joke...

    She is registered under a different.. Probably not an issue

  14. daleb 2014.04.01

    wow crazy stuff

  15. mike from iowa 2014.04.01

    Excellent job,Cory. Would hope she pays more attention to details with her patients,because frankly her abilities as a candidate leave much to be desired. Do you suppose her people figured no one was paying attention?

  16. Joan Brown 2014.04.01

    While on the topic of Ms. Bosworth, can somebody tell me how to keep her stuff off my facebook page? I have blocked her, but I still get her daily devotions every now and then. I have also blocked one of my sisters because I got tired of all her religious stuff on my page, this way I can scroll through it and not look at things that I don't want to see, but still every now and then she will like something about Bosworth and it shows up on my page.

  17. mike from iowa 2014.04.01

    Any one know if it is too late to purchase life insurance policies on Bosworth's campaign staff? I have a feeling some are soon to be thrown under her campaign bus.

  18. Bert 2014.04.01

    This is BAD news for Dr. Bo$

  19. Roger Cornelius 2014.04.01

    Holy hypocrite! This is absolutely unbelievable. And yet, it should not be a surprise to anyone.

    How long does the SOS have to respond to the challenge?

    Way excellent job Cory, congratulations are in order.

  20. Jim 2014.04.01

    ...and an atheist shall lead the way.

  21. Flipper 2014.04.01

    The only fools in this story are named Haber and Bosworth.

  22. Douglas Wiken 2014.04.01

    How many hours of work did that bit of analysis take?

  23. William Beal 2014.04.01

    Kudos Cory!

  24. daleb 2014.04.01

    it probably took a group of 15 people putting in around 40 hours each over the last 5 days. If any of boz's former employees need a security detail i can help with that.

  25. Kari 2014.04.01

    Keep up the good work!!!

  26. Roger Cornelius 2014.04.01

    Planning Student,
    How could Bosworth being a registered Republican under another name not be an issue?

    How many names does she go by?

  27. daleb 2014.04.01

    Annette Bosworth and Chad Haber have used a multitude of aliases. In utah as a rezident she was bosworth-haber, then it was haber, and now its bosworth. Chad filed legal documents in utah as Chad Bosworth.

  28. advocate 2014.04.01

    Cory...remind me to never get on your bad side...

    Seriously, good work. If the State of South Dakota wants its election laws to be taken seriously, they need to take this seriously.

    While I suspect the GOP will cry in public, I bet many would be relieved if the Bosworth sideshow left the public scene.

  29. owen reitzel 2014.04.01

    Excellent Cory!!! Excellent!

  30. Bree S. 2014.04.01

    I think her name just has to match her declaration of candidacy, right?

  31. lrads1 2014.04.01

    Oh my. Does this not tell us more about the SOS office than it does Ms. Bosworth?

  32. Bree S. 2014.04.01

    Arends translated: I do Rounds dirty work and these legal problems will be ignored by Gant.

  33. Bree S. 2014.04.01

    He took a dig at Cory with "actual South Dakota residents" and in the process forgot that they also need to be "actual Republicans."

  34. grudznick 2014.04.01

    You're a mean one, Mr. H.
    You really are a libby.
    You're as cuddly as a cactus.
    You're as charming as Mr. Sibby.
    Mr. H.
    You're a "media" whore with just a bit of fibby.

    You're a libby, Mr. H.
    Your heart's an empty hole.
    Your brain is full of 'spiracies.
    You've got garlic in your soul, Mr H.

  35. mhs 2014.04.01

    Well done, Cory. Anybody can be a "blogger". Putting your name on a legal challenge with real consequences makes you a citizen.

  36. Dana P 2014.04.01

    Great work, Cory! (clap clap clap - standing ovation)

    But how sad that this had to be someone like you, a concerned citizen, to do this work. There are people getting paid to do this sort of detective work --- and they didn't.

    egg.... on.... face

  37. Chris 2014.04.01

    Cory, you make some good points that show her petitions could be invalid, but I have ask: given your status as a nonresident, do you qualify as an "interested person" who is allowed to file a challenge under the statute you cited in your affidavit?

  38. grudznick 2014.04.01

    Mr. Owen, I believe you should have type:

    "a few more IQ points than you do."

    Indeed. Mr. H has gone after Mr. Gant in the most insidious manner, by slapping a "kick me" sign on his bulbous buttocks on the way out the door to point out the utter incompetence in that office.

  39. Rorschach 2014.04.01

    Cory is a SD resident. He has not changed his domicile. He is temporarily out of the state with the intention to return.

  40. larry kurtz 2014.04.01

    sanborn: use your name.

  41. owen reitzel 2014.04.01

    Grud. call me Owen please. Mr. makes me nervous

  42. Disgusted Dakotan 2014.04.01

    So Annette claims she was collecting signatures in SD while she was out of country and Joel Arends notarized that statement knowing it was false?

    How is Mr Gant and Jackley going to ignore those obvious crimes?

    Does anybody think they will do the right thing? Or will Gant take another fall for the establishment decoy for Rounds?

  43. grudznick 2014.04.01

    DD, do you really see the young lady Dr. as such a threat to your behemoth? I, for one, hope Mr. H's mean-spirited and focused attack on Dr Bos fails. Not that it wasn't a worthy endeavor. More because if successful it will deprive me of some low value entertainment. Mr. H, he is not a pleasure delayer.

  44. Sam 2014.04.01

    Cory I hope we can stop Mike Rounds. I would not waste time on the Boz. She will not win anyway. We need to focus on stopping the Mike Rounds propaganda machine.

  45. WestRiver 2014.04.01

    I sure hope that CAH challenges Gant if he doesn't disqualify her as a candidate based on the fact that she and Arends both broke the law signing oaths that she collected the signatures and he attesting to that fact. Arends needs to run for the hills and get as far away from Bosworth as he can or his whole world will come crashing down. By now, he should know that to be in the Bosworth camp means that you have to be willing to do illegal acts and all those in SF with even a little common sense don't like to link their name to hers or Chad's. Also...wasn't Arends also in the Phillipines with them and therefore would have firsthand knowledge that those petitions weren't circulated by her?

  46. Roger Cornelius 2014.04.01


    If being liberal means exposing corruption and dishonesty, I'll proudly be one of those.

    Finally grudz, you have given liberals a good name.

  47. PlanningStudent 2014.04.01

    Grudz... Did you miss the part where the SOS office does NOT check petitions for these types of deficiencies..? They are simply a filing agency for nominating petitions, it is the publics job to do this!

    Roger, because there is no specific requirement, just like the name you use to sign the petition doesn't have to match your registration.

  48. Jim 2014.04.01

    Cory, I would vote for you for SOS. Very nice work.

  49. Bree S. 2014.04.01

    Mean-spirited attack on Boz? What do you call it when she lies and steals from people, Grudz? No one forced her to submit fraudulent petitions. If she forgot to put an address on something I'm sure Arends would be all over that.

  50. Joe K 2014.04.01

    Cory, well done! Impressive reporting and investigative work!

  51. Watchful I 2014.04.01

    Cory, Petition 212 - no signature by the supposed Notary. You know, this really shouldn't be that hard Annette.

  52. John 2014.04.01

    Thank you, thank you, Corey.
    I'm long overdue to ring your tip jar for your column is frequently worth more to us than all the SD dead tree newspapers combined. For example none would publish what you just did. It is refreshing to know and be reminded that a few folks want to improve South Dakota.

  53. Anne Beal 2014.04.01

    In all fairness to Arends, when I tracked down a notary for the petitions I circulated, all she did was look at my ID & watch me sign where I was supposed to. She didn't look at the petitions to see who had signed them or when, and, in fact, I think notaries who insist upon reading the contents of what you are putting your signature to are too darn nosy. I had one who insisted she had to read all the details of an inheritance. It wasn't any of her business.
    As for figuring out if Dr Boz is registered as a republican, you need a DOB to do that and if you don't enter the correct date you don't get verification of registration. (I just tried it with an incorrect DOB for myself) So I am wondering if she has been using multiple aliases with multiple DOBs, and where did Cory get her DOB?

  54. Lanny V Stricherz 2014.04.01

    Dana P, said it best. And oh my heavens, the entire Republican hierarchy should be ashamed of itself for this atrocity, not just the SOS. How can the same party that has kicked dirt in the face of Stace Nelson for over a year, have completely ignored this, especially considering the misdeeds that have been revealed about the Doctor in the past few months? If Mr Nelson had challenged these petitions (and I am sure he does not have the volunteer staff that Cory did) the rest of the Republicans would have been throwing mud at him not just dirt, because he is the only true conservative besides Dr Bosworth. Great job Mr Heidelberger. As us old guys like to say, you da man.

  55. Roger Cornelius 2014.04.01

    Did Pat Powers come out from under his rock yet?

  56. Rorschach 2014.04.01

    Anne Beal, Arends isn't just the notary of the petitions in question. He's also Bosworth's lawyer. What lawyer signs anything without reading it - as a notary or otherwise? Are you suggesting that Arends should commit malpractice by not carefully reading a document his client proposes to sign in front of him?

  57. Jim 2014.04.01

    Anne, try 11/29/71. It is on the Internet.

  58. Anne Beal 2014.04.01

    When it comes to notarizing signatures the notary's function is to verify the ID of the person who is signing the document. The notary has no business flipping it over to read the details if your divorce, your child support obligations, your inheritance, or the medical problems you are seeking compensation for. That's personal stuff. The notary is verifying your signature, period

  59. Rorschach 2014.04.01

    Cory, It should be clear to you that criminal laws in SD do not apply to Bosworth, and you can't rely on Republican officeholders to take any action against her. Perhaps you ought to file your own criminal complaint against her for perjuriously signing the petitions as the circulator while she was out of the country. But don't be surprised when she comes back with a claim that she lied about going to the Philippines, and she was really here all the while collecting signatures. Arends will vouch for her being right here in SD.

  60. Rorschach 2014.04.01

    The duties of a lawyer go beyond the duties of a notary. The lawyer also has a duty to refrain from assisting his client in committing fraud.

  61. WestRiver 2014.04.01


    It is unfortunate that I am truly worried that even though Cory has honestly taken the time to go through these sig's one by one and ask for help from the public to keep the Boworth campaign honest that it will all be for naught. I worry that this will be thrown by the wayside and nothing will come of it because much like any other government, S.Dakota is no different, they too are corrupt and would rather go with the flow than hold someone accounatable. Over on DWC's page, ol' PP is pretty confident that the Supreme Court would uphold the signatures, which is why, in my opinion Arends put himself out there to the Argus that nothing will come of it and he's probably right because, the dishonest seem to be the ones who always wins when it comes to politics.

  62. Anne Beal 2014.04.01

    The problem that arises when any candidate is disqualified from the ballot is that the candidate will claim persecution by opposing interests and the SOS office will be accused of corruption no matter what they decide. It's a lose- lose situation for the SOS.

  63. Paladn 2014.04.01

    Well Done. Would you'll like to look into Mr. Jensen from West River?

  64. Flipper 2014.04.01

    No hyperbole, no rumor-mongering, no half-truths, just facts. Facts are wonderful things.

  65. caheidelberger Post author | 2014.04.02

    Anne, who would accuse the Secretary of corruption for confirming the findings if this investigation? What blowback would the Secretary face for following the law?

  66. caheidelberger Post author | 2014.04.02

    All, thank you for the compliments. Many of you made this challenge happen. We all have a duty to protect the integrity of the petition process, the ballot, and all the institutions of democracy. Our work is never done.

  67. Deb Geelsdottir 2014.04.02

    I'm pretty sure Ann is correct. The notary is simply verifying the signature on the document, not its contents.

  68. Jessie 2014.04.02

    Despite how Powers interprets this challenge and expects the SD Supreme Court to just let Bosworth's petitions be accepted, I remain confident they will do no such thing. Powers is, as usual, talking through his hat.

  69. Dave Baumeister 2014.04.02

    Here's the best comment of the day... I just put $50 in the tip jar! When I get a real job, I will quadruple that. Good work, Cory.

  70. Doreen Allison Creed 2014.04.02

    Cory - I hope it's okay that I shared your complete article on Meade County Town Hall's Facebook page.

  71. Linda 2014.04.02

    Even though we might not agree politically, Cory, I never doubt your honesty. Thanks to everyone involved in going through these signatures. I wish our own party was as interested in digging into Bosworth's past and present.

  72. Lanny V Stricherz 2014.04.02

    Thank you Linda, Those were my sentiments exactly. Although I must admit, it is easier to agree with Cory, being our party has gotten so extreme to the right for business and uncaring toward the people.

  73. owen reitzel 2014.04.02

    "The problem that arises when any candidate is disqualified from the ballot is that the candidate will claim persecution by opposing interests and the SOS office will be accused of corruption no matter what they decide. It's a lose- lose situation for the SOS."

    I'd have to disagree Anne. If Cory has stated his case well with facts and Bosworth is disqualified then the SOS has to merely say that Cory's facts were right.
    If the SOS allows Bosworth on the ballot and has facts to back his decision he wins.
    The key is if he has the facts

  74. caheidelberger Post author | 2014.04.02

    Paladn, it would be interesting to review every petition in the stack and see how many candidates have crossed all the t's (I suspect the vast majority have). Do you think Jensen engaged in some petition monkey business?

    Alas, under the process under which this challenge was filed, citizens have just five business days to lodge such a challenge with the Secretary of State. I can now tell you from experience, that is not enough time for review of a statewide petition.

    Expanding the timeframe for citizen review of nominating petitions wold be tricky. This year, nominating petitions were due March 25, and the SOS must get final printed ballots to county courthouses for early voting by April 16. If wanted to give citizens and the SOS more time to review petitions (the way the Legislature this session expanded the timeframe for challenging initiatives and referenda at the behest of corporations who don't like the people speaking up), we'd have to either move the petition filing deadline earlier (thus making it harder for candidates to get on the ballot) or shrink the early-voting period from 46 days to 30. Is the harm of moving either of those deadlines worth the benefits of more petition review time?

  75. Nick Nemec 2014.04.02

    Given those choices Cory I think we should maintain the status quo. I don't want to reduce the opportunity for early voting and I am aware of the need for giving candidates a reasonable amount of time to collect signatures. Rarely will a candidate as deeply flawed as Annette Bosworth present themselves, I can't ever remember a candidate who has gone through the motions as long as she has who failed to get the signatures. It really is the lowest hurdle to keep all the winos and coffee shop loud mouth off the ballot.

    Good luck with this challenge, are you aware of any court rulings where the judge ordered the law to be interpreted liberally so as to not disenfranchise the signers?

    Had Chad and Annette spent their time in the Philippines in Sioux Falls going door to door collecting signatures they wouldn't be in this position. I suspect the Bosworth-Haber crowd ended up sitting around a table with a voter list taking turns forging signatures.

  76. Disgusted Dakotan 2014.04.02

    Has anyone else noticed that Pat Powers is deleting comments on his own post on this that are critical of Joel Arends' involvement? It is down right creepy the extent that he goes to trying to put out propaganda. I was dubious of the decoy claims until now. It literally looks like it is part of Rounds campaign strategy to flood the US Senate race with "conservative" candidates to confuse the voters and capitalize on his name recognition. Why else would Powers be shoveling the propaganda already to try and give Gant and Jackley cover to ignore this criminal activity?

  77. larry kurtz 2014.04.02

    Pat is up to his areolae in problems and needs whatever resources pay the bills: integrity is a liability in his world.

  78. caheidelberger Post author | 2014.04.02

    Doreen, thank you! As long as you share with full attribution and a link back to the original article, I'm happy to share the information.

  79. Lima 2014.04.02

    I just want to say job well done, and I admire and respect everything you are doing Mr. H. You are setting an example of being a true informed citizen that everyone should follow suit.

  80. Troy 2014.04.02

    The assertion that Arends did something wrong is incorrect.

    Arends notarization makes no statement with regard to the document EXCEPT that the person who collected the signatures is the person he/she says she is.

    Notaries notarize mortgages but that doesn't mean the mortgage is enforceable or valid or legal but only that the person signing it is the person they say they are.

    Notaries notarize wills but that doesn't mean they make any statement about the validity of the will. Only that the signer is who they say they are.

    All Arends did was notarize that the person who claims to have collected the signatures is who they say they are.

    P.S. I'm impressed Cory. I didn't think you'd find enough signatures to potentially disqualify her.

  81. Disgusted Dakotan 2014.04.02

    @Troy Jones Your statement attempts to ignore the reality of the situation. Mr. Arends is not some hapless notary. Joel Arends is actively involved in promoting her campaign and was intimately aware that the circumstances she was swearing to, were a lie. He used his notary to suborn perjury and helped her facilitate her fraudulent activities. were false, he swore them to it despite that knowledge. Now that does not mean Gant and Jackley wont do everything possible to protect this establishment lackey, but that doesn't mean you get to insult our intelligence by whitewashing the facts.

  82. Disgusted Dakotan 2014.04.02

    Mr Jones' efforts to muddy the water shows that Arends actions are actually the worst of the whole fraud scheme. Found this little jewel online:

    "In legal practice, the condition of suborning perjury applies to a lawyer who presents either testimony or an affidavit, or both, either to a judge or to a jury, which the attorney knows to be materially false, and not factual. In civil law and in criminal law, the attorney’s knowledge that the testimony is materially false must rise above mere suspicion to what an attorney would reasonably have believed in the circumstances of the matter discussed in the testimony. Hence, the attorney cannot be wilfully blind to the fact that his or her witness is giving false, perjurious testimony.

    Moreover, an attorney who actively encourages a witness to give false testimony is suborning perjury, which is a crime punished either with formal disciplinary action, disbarment, or jail, or a combination thereof. Likewise, a false statement by an attorney in court also is a crime similar to subornation of perjury, and is punished accordingly. Hence, in the professional conduct of an attorney at law, there is a fine delineation between assisting a witness to recall occurred events and encouraging him or her to give materially false testimony."

    Arends knew the testimony she was swearing to and submitting was false and yet he facilitated it.

  83. Douglas Wiken 2014.04.02

    "Arends knew the testimony she was swearing to and submitting was false and yet he facilitated it."

    How do you know this?

    My guess the lawyer was handed a pile of paper and was told he needed to notarize that the person in front of him was person signing them.

    I'm no particular friend of lawyering, but I doubt one would knowingly do something for nothing that would endanger his or her professional license.

  84. daleb 2014.04.02

    when I've had things notarized the lady reviewed each document asked questions about them and added notes about each one to her journal. thats how its supposed to be done. without that process whats the point of notarizing documents. as their lawyer he should not have been notarizing their petitions.period.

  85. G-Man 2014.04.02

    Way to go Cory! Thanks for all your hard work and diligence. Not many people have that fortitude in today's politics.

  86. Mark Schuler 2014.04.03

    Cory, good job!! I hope the State of South Dakota pays you the 46 dollars and change per hour for the information you and helpers provided. And Jackley and Gant get deducted pay checks for the same amounts!! So why isn't Gant and Jackley relieved of their jobs for not doing them???? I just don't understand. So whats Rounds doing while everybody is looking at the Bosworth petitions?

Comments are closed.