Last updated on 2015.03.20
Patrick Davis finally did the public some good this week by joining the ranks of those debunking Annette Bosworth's constant stream of vengeful and distracting public lies. Interestingly, Troy Jones says Davis erred both in agreeing to work for Bosworth's fake Senate campaign in the first place, then speaking up against his former client.
Davis's price for selling his soul for nine months was at least $36,952, according to payments thus far documented in Bosworth's FEC reports. That price apparently did not include keeping Davis's propaganda for Bosworth around. Last September, Davis put out a supposedly heartfelt appeal for contributions to Bosworth's vanity fund. He even invoked his wife in his pitch, saying "JoAnn and I have slim discretionary income but we've committed $500 to this effort."
That pitch was on Davis's webpage as recently as May 23, 2014. But it's gone now.
Having fulfilled his contractual obligations to Bosworth, Davis is free to put as much distance between himself and the alleged felon as he wishes. He can keep or delete whatever content he wants on his own websites. But Davis's lucrative yet unsuccessful association with Bosworth will hang around his business neck. Davis signed on to represent a candidate whose media forays, philosophical inconsistency, and shady business practices had already made clear she was a nowheresville candidate. He charged this fake candidate nearly $37K, swore to her conservative bona fides, promised "to do everything I can to help Annette get elected," and delivered 5.75% of the GOP primary electorate. That's not the sort of advocacy I'd want on my political consulting résumé.
Davis will catch heck no matter what he does. I don't think he deserves heck from Troy for pointing out a former client's bad-faith lies about her former lawyer. But I'd give him less heck if he'd own and apologize for his role in perpetrating Bosworth's national political fundraising scam.
That singular, stand-above-the-crowd, candidate is Annette Bosworth. She has the grassroots support and professional credentials to unite social, economic, and national security conservatives behind her candidacy, serve South Dakota and represent you and your family with honor and integrity. We can trust Dr. Annette Bosworth to do this job for us [Patrick Davis, "Please Help Dr. Annette Bosworth," fundraising pitch, 2013.09.17].
Rats fleeing the sinking ship! Lol
And rats seem to be the only ones left on that ship at the end.
but,they're god fearing christian rats. That counts for sumpin,don't it?
"But I'd give him less heck if he'd own and apologize for his role in perpetrating Bosworth's national political fundraising scam."
When is the last time you heard a South Dakota Republican apologize for anything? I can't recall any South Dakota Republicans apologizing for anything. Maybe I just missed it. Everyone makes mistakes. People of integrity apologize.
Patrick Davis did real harm to his reputation by working for Bosworth and staying till the bitter end of the campaign. Had he jumped ship early rather than pinching that last $1,000 tricked from the pockets of elderly dupes everywhere, he could have preserved some semblance of dignity. His new pitch to market his services is: "I'll take your last dollar, deliver 5% of the vote, and kick you while you're down after I get the last paycheck."
Davis, Lederman, Arends: pink slime stuffed in hog casings:
http://patrickdavisconsulting.com/2011/12/30/senator-dan-lederman-emerging-as-a-conservative-south-dakota-leader/
Hey accruing to the Animals Against Dr. Annette Bosworth facebok page, she has waived arraignment and won't be in court Monday. Anyone know what is up with that or if that is even accurate?
http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/06/20/4191652/arraignment-waived-for-bosworth.html
From Florida to San Francisco they all report a judge waived the arraignment for Monday and it has not been rescheduled.That,I'm afraid,is all.
Yes Dave her arraignment has been waived.
For those who have wondered how the republicans would weasel out of a court date for the bos. If there were a doubt about her getting into their primary race to siphon votes for Rounds benefit, this just put an end to that. Of course, nothing to see here, right? More of the same corruption.
Doesn't waiving an arraignment simply mean that Dr. B has successfully requested that the formal reading of charges in open court be passed over? It doesn't change anything about the charges. It doesn't mean that she won't be appearing in court, unless of course she is offered a plea deal.
Maybe that is the case, maybe not. There could be a plea deal to keep the lid on the scam. There certainly is a lot of money that was collected, don't you think? I wonder where all of that went? Most went to the firm that was a huge part of the grift, but what about the rest? As it turns out, there was not a close race between Rounds and Nelson like it was originally thought, but what if there would have been. No one was picking up on the fact that there may be something wrong but this blog. I did not see anything about this until something smelled.
But Dr. B has only been charged with the felonies associated with her petitions. Anything else she may have done that the justice system should charge her with is a different story altogether. If the Kansas City and Miami papers are following this, I doubt she can drift into obscurity no matter what the SDGOP would prefer.
Did you see how fast Mr. Benda disappeared? How about Joop? In South Dakota, you can disappear right quick like. Paging EB-5....anyone...
I'm still curious about the Bosworth comment on her Facebook page where she said Marty Jackley had informed her of additional charges.
Anyone?
Case not starting Monday and no one knows when.
"PIERRE, S.D. (AP) — U.S. Senate candidate Annette Bosworth won't be in court Monday on charges she violated election laws.
A Hughes County grand jury indicted her this week and a court official says the judge waived her arraignment that was scheduled for Monday in Pierre.
That hearing has not been rescheduled."
http://www.yankton.net/news/state_ap_sd/article_f9cd9efe-a2be-58ad-aa99-fc99e3c91336.html
When she eventually goes to court I expect full drama and Lee filming everything. Will Annette wear a crown of thorns and carry a cross as the end drags on the sidewalk as she approaches the entrance of the Hughes County courthouse? Perhaps Deb Rice or another from the FB Church of Annette will offer her a cup of water as she struggles towards the entrance.
Oh the persecution! The Drama and Money to be made by Chanette and Lee!
Roger, I'm not sure what the status is of the additional-charges claim. Sources have told me about other activities (early circulation of petition on Hutterite colony, more false circulator oaths on last-minute petitions) that could well lead to other charges. But I've also heard that the state is standing pat on the charges currently filed. It is possible that Lee and Annette received notice of the formal indictment from the grand jury and mistook that for additional charges coming.
On waiving the arraignment: I can't find the South Dakota code, but in federal court, the judge can waive the arraignment when the defendant has been indicted, has received a copy of the indictment, has waived the hearing, and is pleading not guilty.
I note the press is getting the story wrong. Check the AP story as published at the link Rocky provides: "Authorities say she fraudulently attested to gathering voter signatures when she was really on a Christian mission trip to the Philippines." The Philippines trip was not originally planned as a Christian mission trip. Chad Haber planned to prey on Christian donors to raise money ostensibly supposedly needed for the trip, but Joel Arends advertised it just three days before departure as his veterans organization's relief project. Chad and Annette appear to have latched onto a trip already organized by the Wesleyan church, and Annette mingled the trip with her political campaign. To call it a Christian mission trip clouds the issue.
R, you just wrote the blog post I will write the next time Patrick Davis announces he's working for a candidate.
Oh, those pesky details, Cory! ;)
Cory, I did not find an explicitly direct SD provision that would allow a defendant not to appear at the arraignment, but I think language from SDCL 23A-7-2 contemplates and implicitly authorizes a non-appearnce when pleading not guilty. That statute lists the various pleas permitted and states: "Except as otherwise specifically provided, a plea of guilty or nolo contendere can only be entered by a defendant himself in open court." This seems to imply that the defendant's lawyer may enter other pleas without the defendant present in open court.
SDCL 23A-7-4 seems to confirm this reading, as it requires the court to personally advise the defendant of certain rights before accepting a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, but does not have the same requirements for other pleas.