We have probable cause, based on documentary evidence, that Joop Bollen committed a variety of crimes when he contracted the duties of his state job out to his own private company. Why hasn't the South Dakota Attorney General taken any action on these crimes?
The AG's office certainly can't claim ignorance; they've known about Bollen's questionable dealings since at least February 2009.
In January 2009, Northern State University and the Board of Regents learned that Bollen had gotten the state's International Business Institute sued by Darley International of California. The Regents immediately hired James Lynch of Garcia Calderón Ruíz from San Diego to get the Regents out of the arbitration that Bollen's concealment and bad lawyering had gotten the state into.
In an invoice dated March 30, 2009, Lynch charged the state $10,921.11 for work done on Darley International v. SDIBI. Lynch kindly itemized his 36.3 hours of labor that month. This excerpt (with my annotations) shows his first actions on behalf of the state:
On February 4, 2009, Lynch included "J. Hallem" on correspondence about rules and arguments he was researching for the state's defense. On February 5, he contacted J. Hallem to discuss an oath (probably the oath required to make him a special assistant attorney to represent the state in court) and other documents.
Lynch mentions Hallem's name 101 times in 16 GCR invoices from February 2009 to June 2010. The Attorney General's office was thus closely involved in reviewing the actions of Joop Bollen in running SDIBI and in forming his own private company to take over the duties (not to mention the profit-making opportunities) on which Darley thought it had dibs.
Hallem and the Attorney General's office thus would have known from February 2009, while Bollen was still an employee of the state, that Bollen was breaking laws. That knowledge would have passed to the new Attorney General, Mike Rounds's appointee Marty Jackley, on September 9, 2009, when AG Jackley had to renew Lynch's appointment as special assistant attorney general:
The South Dakota Attorney General's office has known for five and a half years that state employee Joop Bollen abused his position, broke rules, and exposed South Dakota to legal liability in his quest to enrich himself. Yet the Attorney General's office has not arrested or prosecuted Joop Bollen.
* * *
Related Reading: During yesterday's readers theater at the Government Operations and Audit Committee meeting in Pierre, Rep. Mark Mickelson (R-13/Sioux Falls) showed similar signs of struggling to come to grips with reality:
"There are two things I think bother us," said Rep. Mark Mickelson, R-Sioux Falls. "The first is the appearance that (former Cabinet secretary Richard) Benda would have used his state position to procure employment. ... The other thing that happened is this contract ... that Joop Bollen may have signed with himself" [David Montgomery, "Stymied, Lawmakers Could Subpoena EB-5 Chief Bollen," that Sioux Falls paper, 2014.09.25].
May have signed? Rep. Mickelson, please review the January 2008 SDIBI-SDRC contract, which Joop Bollen really did sign. Really.