Press "Enter" to skip to content

Bosworth, Notary Broke Law by Circulating Petition Before January 1

Last updated on 2015.03.27

...or, as Lee Schoenbeck will remind us, dog bites man...

Illegitimate U.S. Senate candidate Annette Bosworth and campaign disastermind Chad Haber appear to have broken another law in circulating Bosworth's nominating petition. Here's the story an eyewitness tells me:

On December 24, 2013, Dr. Bosworth and her husband Haber invited two of her patients to spend Christmas with them at Bosworth's parents' home near Plankinton. (Doctor has patients sleep over for Christmas—um, boundaries?) Along the way, they detoured far off I-90 to go to a Hutterite colony about 40 minutes from Plankinton.

Bosworth and Haber met with the colony's head man, a Mr. Hofer, and his wife. They discussed the Senate campaign and the circulation of petitions. They handed Hofer an envelope of petitions, pulled some forms out, and discussed procedures for filling them out and returning them to Bosworth's office. The petition sheets were exactly like those received by other circulators, with the information at the top, including Bosworth's signature on the declaration of candidacy, filled out.

Declaration of Candidacy,  Annette Bosworth nominating petition, January 1, 2014 (or was it December 24, 2013?)
Declaration of candidacy, Annette Bosworth nominating petition, January 1, 2014 (or was it December 24, 2013?)

Notice that the declaration of candidacy bears Rodney E. Fitts's notarized statement that this oath was sworn before him on January 1, 2014. That notarized oath is necessary, because South Dakota law says no one may circulate a nominating petition for the statewide primary before January 1 of the election year. The Secretary of State clarifies that the declaration of candidacy CANNOT be signed before January 1 of the election year. That declaration, dated January 1, 2014, and notarized by Rodney E. Fitts, appears at the top of all 227 petition sheets submitted by Bosworth, including sheet #9, which was circulated by Robert Hofer on January 8 by 20 residents of the Lakeview Colony at 28748 386th Avenue, Lake Andes, about 40 miles south of Plankinton.

If my eyewitness's observations are correct, we have two crimes here:

  1. Bosworth and Haber circulated Bosworth's petition before January 1, 2014, violating SDCL 12-6-4.1.
  2. Rodney E. Fitts falsified the date that he notarized this petition, which should at the very least, per SDCL 18-1-2, forfeit Fitts's $5,000 bond meant to guarantee the "faithful discharge" of his duties.

Bosworth's premature circulation of her petition further proves the ab initio illegitimacy of her candidacy.


  1. rick 2014.05.28

    Does this mean we must be subjected to another ridiculous and bizarre press conference? Hurry up 7 p.m. Tuesday! Bosworth has exceeded her 15-minute allowance.

  2. Rorschach 2014.05.28

    Send the eyewitness to Mr. Jackley. Add this to the stack of charges
    to be filed in June. Let justice be served. Which relative will take their kids in and buy them new shoes while mom & dad are in the poky?

  3. Rocky Racoon 2014.05.28

    I envision a room wallpapered with copies of all her petitions, with naughty words spray-painted on them.

  4. daleb 2014.05.28're missing the point... its not the sos's job to make sure a candidate legally obtained petition signatures, they just count them... ugh. this is banana republic stuff. SMH

  5. grainofsalt 2014.05.28

    Cory, With one week left to gather as much evidence as possible on the Bosworth/Haber & their notorious notories, it's crunch time. We (and by we, I mean you and your blog) need to gather of as much illegal info as possible while the public is still interested in Channette and can contribute. (Do you ever feel like you're doing AG Jackleys job for him?) How can I help?

  6. grainofsalt 2014.05.28

    By the way, you're doing great, and have already opened eyes and saved some people from being scammed, so thankyou, Cory.

  7. daleb 2014.05.28

    she was offering free food and drink at events where sigs were gathered, which is a misdemonor, start looking into that if you are not busy.

  8. grainofsalt 2014.05.28

    lol, To clarify my first comment about gathering illegal info. That didn't come out sounding quite the way I meant it. We do all understand that I meant gathering info on Channettes illegal activities, right?

  9. grainofsalt 2014.05.28

    lol, daleb is right. In at least a few instances, she was inviting people to have a beer with her, her treat. Ahhh, cloud their judgement first. Good strategy.

  10. caheidelberger Post author | 2014.05.28

    Grain, we just have to keep telling the facts and encouraging people to come forward. But I worry: perhaps yesterday's press conference and the subsequent anti-media rant from her paid campaign staffers were really just another intimidation tactic: badmouth Annette, and she'll send her taggers to paint naughty words all over your house!

  11. Roger Cornelius 2014.05.28

    Perp walk on June 4?

  12. 108 2014.05.28

    I am all for going after Bos - She is a POS... I however fail to see the proof that the Notary did anything wrong - He likely witnessed her sign the petition on the date that he noted, he has no responsibility beyond saying that he verified that she signed the paper on that date. He is not required to read the document, or verifiy that anything else is legal - ONLY note that the signature is valid. Am I missing something, why do you keep attacking notaries when there are plenty of other real illegal facts to focus on?

  13. student 2014.05.28

    The notary Joel Arends is her attorney as well. He was with her in the Philippines. so.... He notarized a document he new to be fraudulent

  14. caheidelberger Post author | 2014.05.28

    Subtle difference here, 108: on Joel Arends's notarization of Annette and Chad's false circulators' oaths, Arends was saying he witnessed Annette and Chad sign those oaths on the given date. And in that case, the dates the oaths were sworn are not in question. But on the candidacy declaration, Fitts the notary is writing down the date that the oath was sworn before him. If the sheet was filled out to hand to the Hutterites on December 24, Fitts himself lied in saying the oath was sworn before him on January 1. That's a problem. Notaries are not responsible for fact-checking the documents they stamp, but they are responsible for making sure they act with complete honesty and integrity. The notary seal is really important and deserves strict respect and protection from falsehood.

  15. Been There 2014.05.28

    Student and 108, we are now talking about Notary Rodney Fitts who certified the petition in order to circulate them. He notarized them with a date of January 1. The witness is saying Annette circulated these petitions to people a week or more prior to that date, with his signature post dated on all the forms. He did not witness her signing the form on Jan 1. He witnessed it in Dec. He falsified the information on a legal document.

  16. Been There 2014.05.28

    You are right again Cory, with the same notary on every petition and Chanette knowing, the entire stack is out. Another "no no". Do you think that would be one count for the whole thing or a count for each paper?

  17. 108 2014.05.28

    Understand now. Devils advocate, how sure are you that those signatures were actually in place and how can we prove that he did not in fact sign on the date noted on the sheet of paper? I would not put it past the Boz camp to get signatures before the form was filled out properly. Again, I might just be missing details that already show what you are looking for, just inquiring. Trying to understand how we can pin, without a doubt, that the notary was the one that actually screwed up here and that it wasn't just more document mishandling by the idiots in the Bosworth office. (She can now add "idiot" to her wall if it was not already there)

  18. Kathy 2014.05.28

    rick: she's got another presser at 3:30pm today according to David Montgomery of the Argus-Leader. He posted on Twitter that the Argus will live-stream it. There was a picture of Doc B standing in front of the a graffiti wall and holding a shot gun. Personally, I'm in far too good of a mood today and I do not wish to test the limits of it by listening to her brand of bat-crappery. I'll just wait for the highlights instead.

  19. caheidelberger Post author | 2014.05.28

    Very good devil's advocacy, 108. My eyewitness says the top part of the petition was filled out. If that knowledge had been available during our petition review at the end of March, I'd have included Fitts's violation as point five, argued (as Been does) that every sheet is invalid, and asked SOS Gant to reject the petition in toto. SOS Gant and AG Jackley would then have punted that ball to each other and left Bosworth on the ballot.

    But let's entertain 108's suggestion: what if Fitts didn't pre-notarize all those sheets? Suppose Chad handed entirely blank petition sheets to Mr. Hofer, Mr. Hofer gathered signatures, and then Annette and Rodney filled in the declaration. If they didn't do it on January 1, Fitts is still lying and breaking his notary oath. Independent of that, the circulators are guilty of circulating a petition without giving a complete candidate's declaration to signers, meaning the petition would be invalid.

    The problem is, this all hinges on testimony, eyewitnesses. We can't carbon-date the ink on each sheet (if only! Get me my tricorder!). But I have reason to believe my eyewitness is reliable... and that we can get others.

  20. caheidelberger Post author | 2014.05.28

    Kathy, you won't get highlights from me. I'm going shopping, then reading a good book.

  21. daleb 2014.05.28

    if fitz put initial notaty on after sheet had sigs each sheet is invalid n isnt it perjury ?

  22. Jessie 2014.05.28

    First time I've actually been able to watch a whole event from Bosworth without repugnancy overload. At least she wasn't babbling.

    If her "debate/forum" is not just a pipe dream, is it just for Repubs? If it is for issues Repubs care about, don't Dems and Indies also care about them, at least to make sure the Repubs don't screw us over?

  23. rick 2014.05.28

    Just watched Annette's presser today in front of the same backdrop. Where did yesterday's Annette go? This one seemed rational and 70 percent focused. She wants to conduct a televised debate of the GOP Senate candidates, but this time she wants questions that interest conservative Republicans. She also bitch-slapped Rounds for ducking out of the next and last televised debate of the primary, for which I applaud Annette.

    Rounds pulled that stunt in his re-election for Governor in 2006. If you need to know something about Mike, just watch his sanitized advertising. As Stace Nelson says, if Rounds won't bother to explain his scandals and his record before the vote, why would he bother to answer you after the vote?

  24. mike from iowa 2014.05.28

    The basic problem I see is lack of precedent from SD's AG. He has never prosecuted anything like this before,at least I gather he hasn't,therefore he has no guidelines to guide him to do a job he acts like he doesn't want to do. Someone needs to take him by the hand and lead him through life as an attorney until he understands what is expected/required of his office.

  25. Dave Baumeister 2014.05.28

    Cory, I just had a scary thought. Let's say, for argument's sake, with all of this last minutes posturing, Bozworth does win. Everything that most of us can see through does work for them with an ignorant electorate who votes for her simply because of name recognition. And women going to the polls, see her on the ballot with a bunch of guys and just vote for her because she is that woman against a bunch off guys. (That is who she is trying to pander to now.) If Jackley then did prosecute her and took her off the Nov. ballot, would't the state GOP then be able to pick a replacement at their convention? This could all get very interesting.

  26. Lanny V Stricherz 2014.05.28

    Kathy gets post of the day with, "her brand of bat-crappery". Nice one Kathy, I always need something to humor me after reading about the Dr.

  27. JeniW 2014.05.28

    Dave, you bring up a point that I want to comment on from my perspective, that is women voting for female candidates.

    IMO, part of that is due to male candidates not adequately addressing issues that impact women, just like most of the candidates not addressing the issues that impact the North American Indians living in South Dakota.

    Male candidates focus on being anti-abortions, which is their right, but they do not go far enough. They fail to address encouraging men and women to use any, and all conception prevention methods, providing resources and money to do so.

    Male candidates also need to address wage differences, if there are any, between men and women who have the same job responsibilities.

    There also needs to be discussion about women who have not been in the workforce, or left the workforce to care for children then want to re-enter the workforce once their children enter into the school system, or become adults.

    I also have noticed that male and female candidates do not address the issues and concerns that impact individual with disabilities, and issues that impact the aging population.

    I hope that whomever wins the Democrat or Republican primary will address the above issues and concerns.

  28. Roger Cornelius 2014.05.28

    How many signatures would this involve if this is successful challenge?
    If the number is substantial, would it affect the petition that Gant certified?

  29. student 2014.05.28

    Cory, annette called steve out on her page stating that she doesn't see her name on his post talking about her dad getting farm subsidies, so I thought you could send him the story with her name in it so you can clear that up for her.since we can't post there.

  30. Been There 2014.05.28

    Just heard that early voting has been quite slow. EVERYONE NEEDS TO VOTE! If you don't vote, don't count on me listening to your opinion.

  31. mike from iowa 2014.05.28

    JeniW-you just listed any number of excellent reasons not to ever vote for a wingnut-ever. Pretty much every item listed is anathema to social conservatives(aka wingnuts). The more extreme nutters proudly run on anti-women agendas. Nothing says we don't love women like a wingnut party platform.

  32. caheidelberger Post author | 2014.05.28

    Dave, in the absolutely not-happening scenario you describe, the SDGOP would indeed pick a replacement for the ballot. Bosworth would have to be DQ'ed by early August.

  33. Lanny V Stricherz 2014.05.28

    Cory, You don't get off that easy by saying, "absolutely not happening scenario". I posed a somewhat similar scenario the other day. The longer she hangs in there and keeps getting the media attention and getting the sympathy on the net and FB, the longer she remains viable and the more viable she becomes. Her ploy today, (which grudz didn't care for, I presume because she didn't come across as sexy as she did yesterday, when he watched pantingly at least four times) could be another move that will get more voter sympathy. With 100 and some thousand possible voters, the ones that would probably not usually bother to vote in a primary, might be attracted to this one just by her stunts from yesterday and now another one upcoming.

    She would not be disqualified by August, because Jackley has already stated that he will not/cannot go after wrongdoing until after the election. which is exactly why I posited a month ago, that it is ridiculous, that she or Rounds, if the Feds come down on his EB-5 after the primary or even after the election, would make the democratic process a joke again, just as it was with Dustin Johnson resigning for the Chief of Staff job, two days after being elected to the PUC. Because unless I am mistaken, both her actions and Rounds EB-5 actions can be proven to be felonious, and I don't think a felon can serve in US Congress.

  34. Roger Cornelius 2014.05.28

    Given the way this Republican primary has been playing out the last couple of weeks and with only a few days remaining to election day, anything is possible.
    If you read the supportive comments and the number of likes on her Facebook page, you'd think she has this all wrapped up.
    Therein lies the problem for Bosworth, the false support she is garnering is from non-voter purchased likes. They have been feeding her ego, praying for her, and staunchly supporting her and deleting her criminal activity and criticism of her as fast as they are put up.
    Obviously she will get some local support, but how much?
    Even Ryan Gaddy, once a Bosworth avid supporter is now dismissing as nothing more than ATM.
    The scenario presented would be entertaining if nothing else and a liberal Democrat would love nothing more than to have Bosworth in the general election.
    Now if those 150,000 Facebook likes were South Dakotans, we'd have a problem.

  35. Dave Baumeister 2014.05.28

    Lanny, Jackley would not be influencing the election, in the case of the absolutely not-happening scenario, as that election would be over. I believe the election he referred to was just the primary. He would have to proceed on the charges, since there would be plenty of time for her to re-group if they were proven false. Any one or all of the other candidates could bring suit, and if it happened after August, she could not be replaced, turning it into a race without a Republican. But, of course, as we all know, that is an absolutely not-happening scenario!!

  36. grainofsalt 2014.05.29

    I thought Annette sounded strange again today in her latest grasping at straws. I don't understand her.Example #1. She said "Discussing further how our military would be addressed in the next cycle for a Senate candidate." So here we have 3 phrases put together that don't say a lot. Discussing further how our military would be addressed / In the next cyle / For a Senate candidate. Example #2. "How our schools and several of those issues." How they do WHAT Annette??? Say sentences that make sense! You're frustrating to listen to.

  37. caheidelberger Post author | 2014.05.29

    Actually, Dave, Lanny is right: Jackley said he won't take action against someone who's on a ballot. His words mean that whoever wins the June primary is immune from prosecution until the November general election. So if all of Annette's out-state Facebook fantasists moved here and voted on June 3, she'd have another five months to shred evidence, launder money, engage in press circuses and litigious intimidation, and prepare to move to Haiti.

  38. Dave Baumeister 2014.05.29

    I know what he and Johnson "concluded," but I still believe he was just talking about whatever election was at hand. Here on the blog, the ridiculousness of that has been pointed out. IF we live in a world where Bozworth could win the primary, it is feasible she could win in November. Jackley knows the first thing she would do would be to make his life a living hell

  39. Nick Nemec 2014.05.29

    Jackley's position just seems wrong headed to me. With his theory, Mike Rounds, assuming he wins the primary, couldn't be indicted for any wrong doing in the EB-5 affair until after the general election. In other words he'd rather risk the possibility of indicting a sitting US Senator than a Senate candidate months before the election. Which would be more traumatic for the South Dakota body politic?

  40. Dave Baumeister 2014.05.29

    (Ooops, hit the post button too fast. Wanted to add…), his office had been after her for the medical board. No, IF she got through the primary, he would NOT want to take the chance she'd get to DC. Plus, his office has had time to research her guilt to any number of crimes, and knows how successful a prosecution would be. AND the "protecting Rounds" factor, if it ever existed, would no longer be in play. The best thing for Rounds then would be for her to be prosecuted and removed from the ballot so the state GOP can appoint him to replace her. BUT none of this is ever going to happen anyway, and I am just wasting my time with these speculations, aren't I??????

  41. WestRiver 2014.05.29

    If Annette would have ditched Chad and used a real campaign manager, she could have done some damage in the campaign. Fortunately for all of us, she let Chad have the reins and he once again, just as he destroyed her in Utah, at Sanford, with the raffles, etc., he destroyed her campaign. I think he actually enjoys being her puppeteer but more than that I think he enjoys destroying her reputation, credibility, and most of all, her sanity.

  42. grainofsalt 2014.05.29

    While we're fantasizing, how about this for a scenario: Annette never married Chad, but a nice stable, honorable man instead.(and somehow ended up with those same really nice boys) She either never had a mental illness, or got proper treatment for it and stayed on that treatment, thereby being a stable person. She is a smart, caring, honest, and innovative leading doctor in her field of internal medicine. She has no skeletons in her closet. The sad thing is that Annette COULD HAVE been a really good candidate IF she was like this AND willing to go through the steps necessary to get some local political experience first. So sad this isn't the case. Chad is pure poison.

  43. mike from iowa 2014.05.29

    grainofsalt-your talking South Dakota wingnuts-they are all bat$@#&crazy.

  44. grainofsalt 2014.05.29

    mike from iowa, it was just a fantasy... sigh

  45. grudznick 2014.05.29

    Mr. Salt, that is exactly what would have transpired. This Chad person is poisoning the pretty young woman and she is not really at fault for all these horrible things being done to people. Why don't we ever see Chad talking in the videotapes?

  46. Roger Cornelius 2014.05.29

    Sorry grudz and grainofsalt, having a mental illness or being controlled by a puppet master is not an excuse or justification for breaking the law.
    Since Bosworth is the mouthpiece for this crime ring, she is likely more culpable than Chad in committing some of these scams.

  47. grudznick 2014.06.01

    Ms. Hope, are you suggesting that the pretty young Dr. Bos had her signature forged onto these petitions? That would certainly make the Attornies not be prosecuting her for the items Mr. H decries but they are probably searching for who is the forger.

    [CAH: Sorry, guys: Ms. "Hope" was a fake ID. Comment deleted.]

  48. Lanny V Stricherz 2014.06.01

    Oh, come on grudz, wake up. All they have to do is put bamboo sticks under the fingernails of the notary public. He or she would then cry out with the name of the forger and with the fact that the young Doctor was in the Philippines when he notarized it was her signature on the Jan 7th, when she claimed she got the ones in one of the H colonies.

  49. grudznick 2014.06.01

    Mr. Stricherz, I do believe that young Mr. Rounds has your eye focused otherwhere than on the ball.

  50. lorahubbel 2014.06.06

    With over 50 comments this won't get much attention...but has anyone considered that the AG/SOS disenfranchised the voters of SD? They knew she was an invalid candidate and let her proceed thereby injuring and deceiving the voters, donors and supporters of Annette. Look at all the wasted money, energy and time just because the powers that be wanted to deceive the voters. I would think Annette's donors and supporters could countersue for being led astray by deceptive people in power.

  51. Jerry 2014.06.06

    That was the intent laurahubbel to disenfranchise voters. Cory spelled it out weeks ago and eventually, so did Hickey. This was well played in the open by rounds and his machine and so far, it has worked. Donors, supporters and workers, just go screwed, too bad for them as there is nothing that can be done done, the king has been crowned.

  52. lorahubbel 2014.06.06

    Its hard to imagine the thought process of an individual...what goes through their mind?
    "WE who hold the power will just let the little people carry on as if their pitiful lives have meaning...Let the plebeians grovel in their effort to dethrone our chosen one....haha...Let them give up their money, time, and hope in a vain effort to stop our empire...We will just work our magic within our massive network of opportunistic loyalists and cut her off at the knees the day after the election...after all...How DARE SHE???!!! There is too much money at stake here...the end justifies the means."
    Hmmm...I can only imagine....

Comments are closed.