Last updated on 2014.08.05
We all have better things to do with our weekends than talk to Chad Haber. But Chad Haber is asking for it... quite literally.
On the lively South Dakota Libertarian Party Convention Facebook page, the Republican candidate for the Libertarian nomination for attorney general has invited us all to ask him questions:
Let's tall about my "scandals."
I've been subjected to over a year of smears, especially from the two main political blogs in South Dakota.
Let's clear the air. If you have any questions, please ask them and let me tell you this side of the story that you haven't been hearing [Chad Haber, post to South Dakota Libertarian Party Convention Facebook page, 2014.08.02].
Now Haber has told folks following the SDLP convention page that I am just a "statist liberal who is only here to sow chaos so the establishment stays in power." I thus won't clutter up the SDLP page with too much of my establishmentarian statist chaos.
But permit me to do two things. First, indeed, let's clear the air. If by "smears" Haber means stern criticism and regular documentation of questionable, apparently fraudulent, possibly criminal behavior, then he should be referring to just one main political blog—mine. The other blog to which he is referring, Pat Powers's Dakota War College, spent most of the past year acting as Haber's ally in the blogosphere, pushing Bosworth propaganda and spinning positive stories about the amateurish and ultimately ridiculous Senate campaign that Haber maanged for his wife, Annette Bosworth. Only when Bosworth turned on DWC's Republican friends Marty Jackley and Joel Arends, and only when Haber had clearly picked a new creepy blogosphere best buddy did Powers get real about branding Bosworth and Haber the charlatans that they are.
Pat Powers is the least of your problems, Chad. You want me. Focus.
Now, to the greater business at hand, the questions Chad Haber says he wants us to ask. Friends, if you have a moment, feel free to pose any of these questions to Chad in his chosen forum.
- Why did you refuse to repay Christine Dearing the $200,000 she loaned you?
- Following up on Rick Knobe's question, please explain the business activities you engaged in and the current business status of the corporations you have worked for and/or run from 2004 to the present, including but not limited to 100X, Prescott & Walker Inc., Associated Strategic Capital, Haber Truck and Trailer Sales, Equipment Sales, Ironworks Leasing, Preventive Health Strategies, and Meaningful Medicine?
- Given that you have cited your management of your wife's Senate campaign as a demonstration of your "entrepreneurship," can you explain what your spending six times more per vote than Mike Rounds and coming away with less than a tenth of Rounds's winning vote total says about your entrepreneurship?
- Why, when a lack of income forced your wife and children to live in an RV in the middle of winter in 2012–2013, did you leave for a three-month stay in Haiti that appears not to have generated any income to support your family?
- On a similar note, how did you pay for your getaway to Alaska (or was it just Canada?) in June immediately after your wife's loss in the primary?
- How do you justify leaving your wife for that vacation when she was dealing with her primary loss and the charges filed against her by Attorney General Marty Jackley?
- Did you witness every signature to which you affixed your circulator's oath on your wife's nominating petition?
- Did you hand copies of your wife's nominating petition to anyone or solicit any signatures for that petition prior to January 1, 2014?
- What did you know, prior to their arrests, about the activities of your associates in 100X that led to their convictions and federal prison sentences?
- Do you consider it ethical to exploit Christian guilt to solicit donations?
- What unethical behavior did you exhibit that could have provoked a campaign employee to quit the campaign?
- Why did you not pay Mathia Rall her full wages?
- Why did Rall receive a paycheck from for-profit Independent Medicine for work she did as an employee of non-profit Preventive Health Strategies? Was that paycheck a contribution from IM to PHS?
- Have you paid all of your delinquent taxes in Utah?
- Did you allow any resources (e.g., employee time, office space, supplies) belonging to your non-profit Preventive Health Strategies to be used in the Bosworth for Senate campaign?
- Why did you stonewall PHS raffle ticket buyers for so long?
- Why did the state's consumer protection office have to get involved to secure refunds for five PHS raffle ticket buyers?
- What is the current status of all raffle funds raised in the motorcycle and land raffles for which PHS never drew prizes?
- Did Preventive Health Strategies legally own the Moody County land it offered for raffle during the entire time that PHS offered raffle tickets for that land?
- Why did law enforcement never act on your allegation that I pilfered papers from your locked desk? Did you even have a locked desk in June/July 2013?
If you can get Chad Haber to answer those questions, let me know. I can come up with more.
And remember, Chad Haber really did ask for your questions.
I wanted to ask Chad about the Alaskan vacation. After following the thread on the SDLP page, I changed my mind. I have no tolerance for Chad's spin. How does one have a rational conversation with someone who is completely irrational? I just makes my brain hurt.
Chad loves doing crap like this. He will only keep up the questions he wants, and delete/ignore the rest. Even if he does leave up any of Cory's questions, he will answer them however he wants so he looks good, and will never allow his answers to be questioned. That is the beauty of social media for a person like him. It does not allow direct questions. For all of the other things that made Annette look bad (Chad was never mentioned in most media) there were several sources and documents, not just one person telling "his side of a story." As his version may or may not have any veracity.
As a Libertarian, I don't want this ass clown running as a Libertarian first because he's not one of us. second because he's obviously insane. third he's married to an insane person, and that speaks volumes to his state of mind if there were any questions to his sanity. Will this circus never end? Don't get me wrong I love a good insanity ridden campaign but come on.
Cory, I don't know if it just me and my computer, but the link provided to Chad says it has been deleted or won't download.
At any rate, how will we know that it is Chad answering and not Landslide?
Roger, I still see the Chad post. Try clicking the link at the end of the blockquote.
You ask a good question about verifying identity. Maybe that's a good reason to call Chad in for a live debate, as Emmett Reistroffer is suggesting on the SDLP FB page.
I get the same message on the Facebook page: "This post has been removed or could not be loaded."
I saw Emmett's call for a debate before the SDLP conference, Kurt Evans and I would rather see you debate Landslide.
I gotta flee to bed,but Cory when I say flee it just means my wife has a job offer in another room.
Apparently Tara fell for the Haber bull and now she is going to be on his side against Cory.
In "Fargo" when a suspect flees an interview the cops get after them.
Dave, Roger, I'm puzzled as to your error messages. I try this link this morning—
https://www.facebook.com/events/654189318008579/permalink/666160230144821/
—and Chad's thread comes up.
Yes, Mike, Tara's questions appear to be running interference for Haber. I agree with her that questions about EB-5 ought to be more important than questions about Haber, but Haber created that post and specifically set the topic as his scandals.
Notice that Chad, too, is very focused on spinning his answers away from the topic. In answer to my simple question about why he didn't pay back Christine Dearing, he first attacks me personally, then says I can't show any charges or convictions (which was not my question), and then says, "Bottom line is that was a complex dispute between two business partners that happened in the wake of the real estate crash.... I was hurt by the housing crash. So was my partner, Chris, along with many other Americans. That's not a scandal." I don't see what's complex about a personal loan made with a three-sentence agreement written on a sheet of notebook paper.
Link worked for me. It appears Tara is taking Chad's side, I wonder if independent candidates Myers and Hubbell, who Tara claims to represent, also support Chad's way of doing business?
Tim, Chad's access to Base Connect's mailing list and the ability to raise $1,937,879 may look really good to some potential Libertarian and Independent allies. But if that "entrepreneurship" is enticing any potential allies, they need to look beyond that paper number and realize that, after paying off Base Connect and its affiliates, Chad and Annette maybe got a tenth of that money to actually spend on the campaign. Potential allies also need to remember that Chad has a hard time paying people who work for him, in business and in the campaigns. Allies backing Chad on the hope that they will receive money are taking a demonstrated risk. Ask Christine Dearing, Ethan Crisp, Douglas Brown, Joel Arends, Mathia Rall, LeAnn Batiz, Raymond Paul Morris....
So, what's wrong with asking questions? I question as many candidates as I can from all parties, and non-party candidates.
Tara, there is nothing wrong with asking questions. But what I said on FB is what I'll say here: Chad Haber specifically asked for questions about his "scandals". Let's keep that conversation focused on exactly what Haber asked us to ask him about, the numerous instances of, as well as voluminous evidence that Chad Haber has been engaged in, (let me be charitable) questionable political, business, and personal activities for the last several years.
Like Cory said. Haber got you sidetracked immediately with non-sense about charges and convictions which had absolutely nothing to do with what Cory asked him. Learn to look behind or through his answers. Your return on stock investments was entirely irrelevant to why Haber refuses to repay money from Christine Dearing.
Tara, you and I both know that Chad had zero intention of talking about his scandals. We all know the only purpose of the post was that the two of you coordinated that first question. Your question was not about any "Chad Scandal". It was designed specifically to try to discredit the two leading political blogs in SD who both see Chad for what he is: a pretend candidate. Let's call a spade a spade. Chad has zero chance at becoming our state's next AG, and I'm going to give the SDLP the benifit of the doubt and say that he also has zero chance of making the ballot. His only goal is to make a mockery of our political process just like his wife did. When this is over, and his Wife has lost her medical licence and served whatever wrist-slap penalty she ends up with, they will be off to their next grift. Utah -> South Dakota -> ? what's next. maybe they can get jobs at the Sarah Palin channel.
Chad is not a Libertarian. He's a Pro-Life Pseudo-Christian Republican.
Thankfully, by next week at this time (if my faith in the SDLP is warranted) this we'll all be over for Chad. We can go back to concentrating on his loony wife's trial.
Tara, I won't go as far as Rocky and say you and Chad cooked up that sequence of statements. But I will say that first question, "Why do the two main blogs have it out for you?" wasn't really a question so much as a meta-question. You didn't ask about the "scandals"; you asked about those who have publicized the "scandals," thus teeing it up for Chad to talk about something other than the scandals that he said he would talk about.
If the goal is to distract from the scandals, then sure, talk smack about the people who report the scandals. If the goal is to inform voters and defuse the scandals, answer questions about the scandals and demonstrate that they aren't really scandals. That honest Q&A would actually serve both purposes: it would disprove the scandals and it would undermine the credibility of those who publicized the scandals.
Wow, RR, I haven't cooked up anything with Chad. These are my own questions, I don't even know the guy. Chad has not been charged or convicted of anything. I am just searching for facts. His wife has not been convicted of a crime either. Did Joel Arrends tell her to sign the petitions? Maybe someone should be questioning Mr. Arrends. I met a former classmate of Dr. Bosworth the other day and he unequivocally told me Annette would never intentionally sign the petitions. He has done a lot of veterinarian work for the Bosworth family and told me they are an outstanding family. He was a childhood friend of hers. That's why it's hard for me to pass judgment when there hasn't even been a trial. I will wait and see how the process plays out, but until then, I will keep asking questions.
Tara, any chance you will ask legitimate candidates legitimate questions, instead of always asking fringe questions that make no difference to normal everyday people? Just wondering.
Cory, if you are an "establishmentarian statist," does that make Chad a "disestablishmentarian," and those that agree with you and oppose Chad, "antidisestablishmentarians?" Wow, its not often that word!
Looks like Nixon's "Checkers"speech has caught one more gulluble tool.
My bad. I'm sitting here shakingn my head in disbelief at how gullible some people are that i mispelled gullible above.
Tim, I think EB-5, Richard Benda and DSS are pretty legitimate questions.
Tara, they are, but you can't run solely on that, this state has a lot of problems that have nothing to do with that, and that idiot Haber doesn't deserve your time. I am still on the fence on a couple of races here in SD and any real info I can get on Mr. Myers stances on things will help me with that. The only thing I have decided on for sure as a voter is Rick Weiland and what party I won't vote for. I would be willing to bet there are a lot of others just like me.
Tim we could write a book on all the problems SD is facing. I just named a few, but one of the top issues Myers will be focusing on is Health Care. He has decades of experience in that area and his first debate will be at Dakota Fest in Mitchell. Tomorrow he is filing his lawsuit in federal court against the SOS. Dakota Today published one of his health care articles which you might find quite interesting. He was a columnist for several papers and has written a book on Health Care and had a radio program; Elder law forum and Senior Help Line. He did these things voluntarily. He loves advocating for people and he challenges the establishment. He does not like bullies.
Tara, Myers is against the ACA, right?
Tara, again, those questions are valid, but they are not relevant in this post or on Chad's post. Address his scandals, please. If you don't want to address them, stay out the way of those who do want to address them.
Tara, does Mr. Myers plan to debate in West River? I know the Journal is hosting a debate that Daugaard doesn't plan to attend, all though I don't need to him to be here for that, his record speaks for itself. I will be at that debate, would love the chance to see Mr. Myers in person along with Rep. Wismer.
Bearcreekbat, I am always happy to open the door to vocabularial adventures. However, we can't accurately use that fine word here, because its use would rest on that big "IF" that opened your question. Chad's accusation that I act with intent to uphold any establishment is (1) ridiculous and (2) another example of Chad's willingness to use words completely detached from reality to distract from his own misdeeds.
Sorry Cory, this is as much my fault.
Yes he is Owen, he is against hospitals being the insurance companies. He is for patients choice in which you will be able to choose your own Dr. He believes the ACA will not be affordable to everyone. He is against hospitals spending millions of dollars advertising and paying CEO's and Vice President's millions of dollars a year. He said hospitals are like a private club and they are only accountable to their inner circle. He will structure health care so it will be affordable to all people. Myers is a genius when it comes to healthcare. Just come to his first debate at Dakota Fest and you can ask him whatever questions you want. ACA was written by big Insurance Companies. Just ask Mike Rounds. lol. He was one of the players.
Tim, we plan on requesting to the RCJ to hold the debate with or without Daugaard and hopefully Susan Wismer will be on board. Myers has already confirmed that he will be there. Myers plans on showing for the biggest educational gathering among School Administrators and SD School Boards Aug 8th at the convention center in Sioux Falls. That was conveniently canceled also. Imagine that.
Tara, I will respect Cory's wishes and stay on topic here, if you want to send me info on Mr Myers stands on things you can get my email from Cory. I look forward to the debates.
Despite being a decent looking Dr from sioux falls, who talked a good game and raised enough money to ping ppls radar, almost nobody in SD bought into her. Then she gets charged with petition fraud - filing a false legal instrument. Bosworth and Haber are so desperate for credibility they are clinging onto every issue they can find, making up ones where nothing exists in some cases. Nobody believes them. Some people are making the mistake and assuming haber and boz are the enemy of their enemy, thus making them friends. But that is not how Haber and Boz work. Haber and Boz make a mess of everything that comes their way. The only thing aligning with them will accomplish is to further drive down credibility to those who align with boz and haber. They dont need Haber and Boz to highlight these scandals, nor do they need to interject it into Boz and Habers media spotlight.
I'm with you there, Dale. I'm waiting for anyone, Chad included to offer a benign explanation for Chad's "scandals." Tara, has Chad given you any explanation for any of the 20 questions I lay out above?
Cory, I talked to him once over the phone, and I drilled him with questions on these so-called scandals, but over the phone doesn't count. I want him to explain his dealing eyeball to eyeball. I always like to hear the other side of the story. So at the Libertarian Convention...Fire Away. I am hoping to make it for the afternoon session. But I want to ask him questions face to face.
O.K., eyeball to eyeball. Are you saying then that his offer to address questions about his "scandals" on the SDLP FB page doesn't count, either? Are we to simply ignore his request for questions and his subsequent dodging thereof on Facebook?
And why don't things said on the phone count? I've gotten all sorts of leads and facts over the phone for blog stories this year. Reporters do interviews on the phone all the time. What did Chad tell you on the phone that you are discounting pending his personal appearance at the convention? Did he really address the scandals, or did he just give the same dodges that we're getting on Facebook and then assure you that you just need a chance to talk to him personally, face to face, get to know him, and then everything will come clear?
Personally, I think Haber and Boz are getting too much attention, Boz will get more attention than she wants if they send her to jail, I don't consider Haber legitimate and from what I read neither do libertarians. Maybe they should just be allowed to fade into history.
Tim, my email is tarabyu@gmail.com, but if you have any questions about the issues, you can email Mike at mikemyersforgov@gmail.com. Cory, I hope you come to the Libertarian Convention and ask Chad questions that concern you. Have you ever talked to him in person? I also look forward to meeting these candidates in person.
Tara, why can't we get the answers now, when Chad has offered to give those answers online?
I don't know Cory. I haven't been to the Libertarian sight since this morning.
Well, don't worry, Tara, you haven't missed any real answers from Chad.
Hey, Cory: how much to take Myers and Adelstein off Madville?
Larry, send Cory a check for $1000 and he can take the add down. Not a problem.
Is what Tara writes true, Cory?
Yes Larry, all true. I am not a BS'er. I stand by my posts. By the way I graduated from BYU. Utah just got rid of their last two Attorney Generals. They don't mess around in Utah. Our Politicians would all be spending time in the Lock Hotel if this was Utah. That's why I respect the state of Utah, because if Mr. Haber had any wrong doing, especially being a non-Mormon, he would have been convicted. For Heaven sake, you can't even drink tea or coffee at BYU. And try buying alcohol. I wore a tee shirt before I moved to Provo which read "Eat, Drink and be Merry, for tomorrow you may be in Utah. I love the Mormons, even though I didn't convert.
Tara, that assertion about law and order in Utah does nothing to disprovr any of the facts I've posted about Haber and Bosworth, nor does it answer any of the questions I've posted here.
(This $1,000 question is entirely off-topic. The Myers campaign bought that ad space. No third party can take that ad space from them.)
Cory, I am just throwing it right back at Larry. And as far as Chad, no crime has been committed. Larry, pay out Buddy. You are so DDDDDDDDDDD.
No answers to the questions asked here. That's too bad. It's so weird really, when direct questions are asked and the response doesn't answer the question. Sometimes it's almost funny. Here's my favorite:
"I understand what you're saying, but I think the Real Question is . . . . " Then he goes into what he wants to say and your question is loooong gone!
I'm guessing she doesn't eat meat because she is a veterinarian.
That is one of the many problems with the Internet and social media. Since there is no real interaction, people can say what they want and avoid what they want. The other side of that, as we tell our childen, the Internet is forever. Annette Bosworth's anti-gay, anti-abortion, intrusive government into our daily lives issues (none of which she believes on) were spoon-fed to her by Chad Haber. The sad irony is that he is now seeking help from Libertarians when he just ran a campaign that goes against most of what the party stands for. Of course, he will avoid direct answers and avoid lie-questioning follow-ups. But what he says now and factual documents online don't add up.
Tara, saying no crime has been committed sounds a lot like Bill Clinton's excuses on his Oval Office affair. You don't have to break the law to be unworthy of public trust.
Deb, you've got Chad's M.O. dead to rights. He opens with some stock pandering phrase like, "Thank you for the question," or "I understand what you're saying," then goes for total diversion.
And now, in a ridiculous turn, Chad has declared that he is taking his conversation to his paid spokesman's website, because I have "hijacked" the thread on the SDLP website. Read that carefully: Chad posts a thread inviting "any questions" about his "scandals", and I hijack that thread by asking questions about his scandals.
In Chad's world, words have no meaning. They are mere tools, wrappers for whatever he's trying to sell.
In Clinton's favor,he was elected to handle the Nation's affairs so why were nutjobs mad at him?
I never was able to make the Chad link work for me, but I suppose it is just as well. It doesn't take much of an imagination to know that he really didn't answer any questions.
His moving the conversation to Landslide's blog is nothing more than getting Landslide some readers and maybe one or two comments.
Did anyone besides me happen to notice that Lee Stranahan retweeted a #metterapescandal tweet that contained a link to this blog?... I just had to chuckle at the comedy of it all.
Tara- As someone who has know Chad and Annette for 20 yrs now. Who used to support them and their shenanigans. I plead you just take this advise. Run far far away and under no circumstances give them a dime, otherwise there will be a day in the not so distant future you will have to come back here and eat crow--if Chad hasn't grifted you out of your computer as well. That I would be willing to bet my life savings on.
Thanks James. I have always been one to look at the good in people, but this is all to confusing for me.
I find it quite maddening that Lee Stranahan insists Haber and Bosworth are innocent in every way but has no evidence to back up his claims...any statements made by Haber or Bosworth declaring their innocence obviously do not qualify as evidence. (If that were the case, we would have numerous criminals running free, as most do not readily confess to their crimes).
Cory, on the other hand, has real, hard evidence as well as valid testimony from several individuals pointing to the truth: Haber and Bosworth should not be trusted.
Anyone who cannot see this clearly needs a wake-up call.
I personally know the power that this couple exerts over those who fall prey to their tactics. It is extremely difficult to untangle the web of words they spin, particularly when a face-to-face conversation is occurring. I left each encounter with them feeling quite confused.
That is NOT normal behavior! A typical exchange between two or more individuals consists of questions and answers and clear thoughts. Conversations with Bosworth and Haber are centered on manipulation. The only way I can describe a conversation with them is a big, fat pile of MESS. It is nearly impossible to sift through in the moment, let alone later when it is difficult to recall exactly what was said.
I urge anyone who reads this to PLEASE take an unbiased look at both sides of this issue and see where the evidence points: should you believe one individual who cries "they're innocent!" or believe the masses AND the hard evidence that points to "GUILTY!"?...
So I noticed Lee Stranglehams asks everyone to go to his DakotaTroll.com website to read answers from Chad... but there are no answers from Chad. I also notice Stranglehams devotes a LOT of time and space talking about Cory instead of the topics he claims are important. Meanwhile Cory is writing articles about child advocate Shirley Schwab, recent polling surrounding South Dakota elections, and several articles about actual (legitimate and confirmed) candidates running for office.
So Stranglehams talks about Cory and spends half his day inventing excuses and conspiracy theories to explain why Bosworth's attorney is joining the one-way distance express away from her. Where is the real investigative journalism he so proudly claims he is capable of?
He calls Haber and Bosworth his friends, but what I see is someone digging himself a massive hole. When the checks bounce and they are no longer in the limelight of the next campaign, and when Stranglehams is no longer able to hitch his spotlight to the failed Senate candidate he might have to get a real job. Good luck with a resume that mentions either of those two as your recent success stories.
Tara, it's not confusing. Chad is a liar. He's a scammer. He's a user. Just be smart, be safe, listen to those of us who care about you and about South Dakota and stop playing Chad's game.
Silent, Craig, I appreciate your fair and accurate comparisons of what you hear from me and what you hear from Team Haber.
Here's the scary thing: Chad doesn't care about evidence or truth. He knows it takes effort to pay attention. To catch Chad in his lies and scams, people have to pay attention. Consider even Tara's statement, that the discussion of Chad's scandals gets "all too confusing". Chad banks on people getting tired of paying attention and ignoring his immoral and possibly illegal behavior. And then when no one's looking, he'll go find new marks, like the out-of-state retirees on the Base Connect mailing list whom he can continue to exploit for "campaign contributions". There always are new marks.
And Craig, indeed, it's funny that when Chad Haber started stumbling all over himself, proving is inability to answer questions, he promised to take that discussion to his controlled website, but then didn't even bother to get his spokesman to create a post where that specific conversation about Chad's "scandals" could continue. But again, you've got to be paying attention, as you are doing, to notice that.
Imagine reality as a salmon. Haber is the attached lamprey to that salmon and Lee the groundhog is the leech that sucks the lamprey. Bos is the remora that attaches and detaches at will. Once they have drained their host they move on to greener pastures.
Again, Chad gave no answers in his interview with Lee. They simply discussed the scandals using the same phrases and, frankly, excuses and dodges that they have used time and time again. They also misinterpreted a few questions (was probably intentional). I find it repulsive that they attack Cory in the interviews as a tactic to prove Chad's and Annette's innocence. That makes no sense, yet politicians use it everyday. I for one do not want such a man in office. Why would I trade one corrupt politician for another when there is the possibility of a third candidate that has not been accused of scandalous behavior (that I am aware of- correct me if I am wrong). It is appalling that grown adults can behave in this manner and call it "politics". Actually, the Facebook thread is absolutely disgusting. Comments posted by Lee and Shane literally made me sick with rage. I can't wait until Saturday comes and goes and this mess is over....I am not a member of the Libertarian Party and will never be (my political leanings differ too greatly to ignore) but I can see that they have good sense and will do what is right.
On another note, there is no denying that something more must be done to remove Marty Jackley from his position of power or create a stir that brings about some changes. I vote those who are passionate about this cause shift their attention from The Haber and Bosworth Show and focus on the broader issue...I am not savvy enough concerning politics to know what can be done if Jackley retains his position following November's election, but I would be interested in hearing what options are out there (namely, how do we expose his misdeeds and scandals in a way that will reach an even broader audience and will cause change?) I do believe we have the power to make political change even after an election is over and I want to jump on board.
After reading Shane's answer to the land raffle fiasco, it is even more clear that Chad is unfit for office. Two big problems I see:
1. Preventative Health Strategies/Chad and Annette did not check policies regarding fundraising for troops before launching the raffle. It is wise to alert the organization set to receive the funds that the fundraiser is taking place. Seems like common sense.
2. I am uneasy with the prospect of raffling something that one does not already own but intends to purchase (with the raffle funds?? Did I read Shane's response correctly??). That is simply poor business management. Plain and simple. Fundraising is always a gamble. One never knows if he or she will be able to raise sufficient funds. To take money from hard-working South Dakotans when you know you are in such a position is wrong , Wrong, WRONG. No doubt about it.
Edit: it appears that I may be confusing the second land raffle with another raffle entitled "Harleys For Heros" launched by the same organization. In this instance, the Military has a policy in place that prevented the funds from reaching their intended party. This means my first point of the two may not be valid (unless a similar scenario occurred with the second land raffle. Anyone know the facts?)
However, that incident is still relevant when calling into question Chad's fit for office.
Silent, I'll be glad to have you on board for a sincere, selfless campaign against corruption. Don't wait until after the election: vote for every South Dakota Democrat you can in November!
You're right: the land raffles subsequent to the successful April 2012 of the quarter-section in Aurora County were total screw-ups. There were multiple raffles advertised and tickets sold in summer and fall 2012 for motorcycles, at least one ATV, and about 75 acres in Moody County. The ownership of the Moody County land is in question. These later raffles were advertised at first as benefiting military members and their families, which seems to have been another crass ploy by Haber and Bosworth to glom onto popular themes to rake in cash. And yes, they did indeed run afoul of military regulations. PHS never awarded any of those subsequent raffle prizes after the Aurora County land giveaway.
Silent, is it possible that that military organization was never going to receive any funds from the git go? I have no doubt that certain parties aren't above using deceptive practices to make monies for themselves.
Entirely possible, Mike.
Mike, I second Cory's comment. It is possible. However, I refuse to believe that is so unless I am presented with cold, hard facts attesting to such behavior.
Cory, I am particularly interested in the corruption occurring in the foster care system here in South Dakota. Can you point me to any relevant organizations/persons that I can get involved with to become more informed about the corruption and
find a place to speak out?
If the land Channette planned to raffle off was not in their possession, isn't that fraud? And if Chanette's plan was to buy land with money from the ticket buyers, how is that different from a pyramid scheme?
One more thing:
Why is Annette the dumb dupe and Chad the svengali-ish schemer? Is there information to support that description? It seems commonly accepted here on the Times.
It would be nearly impossible to prove intent to defraud as long as everyone keeps saying they intended to payoff,whether they ever do or not. Not being a lawyer,one can only guess,but it certainly seems obvious from a distance that there would be no plans to pay out if nobody complains. South Dakota's AG doesn't appear to want to do his office's job to prosecute much of anyone for anything without serious prodding from the public (meaning Cory,of course) sector. All it could take is one domino being tipped to relieve your state of this conservative corruptive,constipation.
Haber should be known as a Chaber-dashery,defined as one who dashes off when the heat is on.
Silent, to get informed about the corruption in the foster care scandal, start with Laura Sullivan's October 2011 NPR report:
http://www.npr.org/2011/10/25/141672992/native-foster-care-lost-children-shattered-families
Follow that up with a reading of the NPR ombudsman's August 2013 critique of that report:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/ombudsman/2013/08/09/186943929/s-dakota-indian-foster-care-1-investigative-storytelling-gone-awry
Much has been written about both reports. Try this Time response, saying the ombudsman missed the point:
http://ideas.time.com/2013/08/15/stop-the-relentless-even-handedness/
Then read up on Oglala Sioux Tribe v. Van Hunnik, the lawsuit by the Oglala Sioux and Rosebud tribes and American Indian parents against state officials for violating ICWA and taking their children away without due process:
https://www.aclu.org/racial-justice/oglala-sioux-tribe-v-van-hunnik
Getting involved is tough, since we're talking about the need to rattle and reform the Department of Social Services, South Dakota courts, tribal governments, and probably much of South Dakota culture. Plus, you've got to watch out for selfish actors like Haber who are simply re-exploiting the children and Indians involved. I recommend three actions:
1. Vote for Democrats in South Dakota. Democrats haven't exactly taken the lead on this issue, but the people in charge now are all Republicans. Upset the power base and put new people in charge who will be more open to acting on our protests. (But note that Chad Haber will be too busy with his own corruption and too addled with his own incompetence to get anything done.)
2. Support the ACLU. They are helping with that lawsuit, and we will need court action to resolve many of the ills.
3. Consider supporting the legal defense fund set up by Brandon Taliaferro and Shirley Schwab, the two folks whom the state prosecuted for trying to help some Indian foster children in Aberdeen:
http://childadvocatesdefensefund.com
Their prosecution (which ultimately failed, as the judge dismissed the state's case without hearing the defense's case) began with their search and arrest in November 2011, right after the NPR Sullivan story came out. It is possible that the prosecution was politically motivated, seeking to tamp down evidence that would support Sullivan's report and prevent a lawsuit against the state for negligence in the foster care system.
Haber-dashery—brilliant! I may not be able to resist using that term, Mike!
Deb, the exact proportions of responsibility for the scams Chad and Annette peddle remain undetermined and likely forever undeterminable. I work from psychological profiles built on 14 months of research, review of public statements, and consideration of volumes of observations from confidential sources (the great leaky bucket). I am confident that Chad fancies himself a master manipulator. I am confident that Chad has to some extent manipulated Annette. Some of the observations I have heard seem to suggest that Annette sometimes acts as if she were subject to battered women's syndrome, yet I am confident that Annette has used her intelligence and charisma to promote scams. I cannot establish for certain to what extent she has chosen to commit her scams, nor can I tell if there is some portion of her wishing for escape and normalcy.
I don't know if the unknowables in the above assessment matter. Annette and Chad have hurt people. We need to hold Annette and Chad accountable and reduce their ability to do more harm.
Cory, thank you very much for the extensive information concerning the foster care system. I really appreciate it!
Tara, You told Larry to send Cory a check for $1,000 and the Meyers/Adelstein ad would be taken down, no problem. What in the world make you say with such certainty that a $1,000 bribe would cause this site to take down an ad that was bought and paid for? Please answer
grainofsalt, I just responded to Larry's question to Cory which was...Cory, how much to take Myers and Adelstein off Madville??? $1000 was not a bribe, just tying to help out Cory financially. I was speaking for Myers not Adelstein. Cory can do what ever he want's. Not my call. But Cory, if Larry sends you a check for $1000 dollars feel free to take it down.
Tara, Cory already said no. i just tweeted that Rod Woodruff might be urged to run an unaffiliated campaign for attorney general: maybe we could convince Cory to do it instead.
So Larry, you would really send Cory $1000 dollars to take down Myers add? Good luck on getting another candidate to run for AG.
John Fitzgerald might do it, Tara.
Larry, what is an "unaffiliated" campaign? We have no write-in; there is no means for anyone else to access the ballot at this point. It is up to Marty Jackley to seek answers to the above 20 questions.
Tara, the person I dealt with on the Myers ad was Mike Myers himself. We spoke on the phone. He wrote the check. The only person I would consider as having authority to change the terms of our advertising agreement would be Mike Myers himself. I have no interest in changing the terms of that agreement.
Cory: is there time for you to get on the ballot as an 'independent' or unaffiliated AG candidate?
No. Indy deadline was end of April. Party certification deadline is today. There is no means for any new candidate to access the November ballot at this point... much as there apparently is no means for us to get answers from the SDLP's AG candidate to any questions of substance.
However, while South Dakota does not count write-in votes, there is nothing to stop interested parties from waging a protest campaign to write in other names on the AG line. Before advocating such a protest, we should check statute to see if a write-in or other such stray mark ruins just that portion of the ballot or throws out the entire ballot; we wouldn't want a quixotic gesture on the AG foolishness to cost Rick Weiland votes.