“Residents Grow Weary of the Attorney General’s Vindictive Sense of Humor”
10-13-15 Sioux Falls, SD. By Devin Saxon. Much to the dismay of South Dakotans state-wide, Attorney General Marty Jackley has once again made the public aware that his office is keen on subjecting the citizenry to yet another show playing out his horrible taste in comedy. This comes as residents are still unable to determine whether Jackley’s initial blockbuster premiere was a horror flick, satire, or just some sick sadistic mingling between the two genres with a dab of perverting justice to add some wild card spice.
Who could forget Jackley’s first motion picture where he donned a man playing the Attorney General of South Dakota who just so happened to find a mask with magical powers that, when worn, conjured up the ancient Norse god Lokki to posses him — turning Jackley into a supernatural playboy exuding charm and confidence allowing his office to break the law at will through-out the movie, which went on to be aired through-out South Dakota on every corporate owned local news-station.
With his magic mask, Jackley was then able jester his way past reason and logic into covering-up countless transgressions perpetrated by criminal elements currently plaguing South Dakota’s now infamous state government. The irony to Jackley’s show (spoiler alert) is that Marty made certain to only wear his magic mask when not in the public’s eye, assuring that only his victims were privy to seeing it.
Towards the end of the movie, Richard Benda, playing South Dakota’s Economic and Development Director, was found shot dead in the woods. Following this event came perhaps one of the best one-liners in the entire flick with the state’s investigation, lead by the masked-man Jackley, concluding that Benda had “secured a shotgun against tree” and “used a stick to press the trigger, shooting himself in abdomen.” The state went on to blame Benda for millions of dollars in missing money from a corrupted EB-5 program which Benda was managing — signed off on by the then Governor Mike Rounds.
Critics are unsure whether this aspect of the plot-line was a joke, or simply a sinister tragedy involving a cover-up at the highest levels of government.
Despite the critic’s concerns, fans roared last year at the release of the classic sequel to The Jackley Mask starring Bob Mercer, a reporter with the Rapid City Journal. Last year’s second installment brought a showdown between Mercer and Jackley resulting in Mercer suing the Attorney General to disclose details of the DCI’s investigation into the highly questionable “suicide” of Richard Benda.
Later on in the much anticipated follow-up film, The Jackley Mask: Part II, Mercer gets a hotly debated ruling handed down to him from 2014’s best supporting star, Judge Kathleen Trandahl, playing herself. Trandahl nearly won an academy award for best actress for what many are saying was the best line of the film:
“There is no evidence that the attorney general abused his discretion by making consent from a member of Benda’s immediate family a precondition to disclosure. Recognizing that Benda’s family may have personal and privacy reasons to keep the details of his suicide confidential is not unjustified or unreasonable.” – Judge Kathleen Trandahl
Perhaps the most controversial installment of The Jackley Mask Trilogy was Part III, which aired earlier this summer starring Dr. Annette Bosworth, a political heavy-weight upon launching her first candidacy. In the movie Dr. Bosworth challenged The Jackley Mask’s regime’s handling of the Mettle Rape Scandal, Richard Benda’s Death, the missing EB-5 money, and Brady Folkens’ murder among many other talking-points. In doing so she out-raised the establishment favorite, Senator Mike Rounds, in campaign funds — leaving Jackley no choice but to dust off and take up Lokki’s mask once again.
Arguably the best joke aired on TV this past summer season was when Jackley’s character finally donned Lokki’s mask in Part III, and filed felony charges against Bosworth for “perjury” and filing a “false instrument” over petitions she signed. The charges stemmed from this statement found on the bottom of petitions being circulated throughout South Dakota:
“I, under oath, state that I circulated the above petition, that each signer personally signed this petition in my presence, and that either the signer or I added the printed name, the residence of the signer, the date of the signing, and the county of voter registration.”
Jackley’s evidence? Dr. Bosworth’s signature states she “under oath” witnessed 12 signatures on a Hutterite colony sign her petition while she was on a Christian medical relief mission in the Philippines, so Bosworth couldn’t have been present in South Dakota to collect the 12 signatures personally.
No word yet as to what the term “oath” in this statement is actually pertaining to or what the contents of the “oath” are to begin with. Speculations are running wild as South Dakota’s law-books and statutes don’t explain it either. Many residents are now asking themselves, who is actually supposed to be giving the oath to the circulator and who is supposed to be witnessing it? The Notary? Notaries don’t have any “oath” to read off that a circulator repeats and swears to while holding up their right hand.
With this many unanswered questions swirling around some legal advisers are informing notaries NOT to notarize any petitions at all in an attempt to prevent notaries themselves from committing “perjury” and “filing a false instrument” which they may be guilty of, according to South Dakota’s laws, by notarizing a petition without witnessing a specific oath being given to each particular petition circulator to swear to.
Regardless of the faulty “oath” vendetta, Bosworth’s hired attorney and legal counsel for her campaign, Joel Arends, advised her that she was “good to go” when she asked if it was ok for her to sign as the circulator for a petition with 12 signatures he knew she had not been physically present to witness. Arends was later found to have been helping to raise funds for Bosworth’s opponent, Senator Mike Rounds, before Arends gave her his faulty legal advise.
If that wasn’t enough, Arends was recently accused of illegally raising funds and running a campaign event for Donald Trump with an unrecognized and likely criminal political action committee — with Arend’s knowing full well that the IRS had revoked his PAC’s non-profit status.
Unfortunately, none of that stopped the masked-man Jackley from his overzealous prosecution and convincing the courts to find Dr. Bosworth guilty of 12 felonies — effectively stripping away an esteemed doctor’s medical license.
As audiences were expecting the credits to roll following Bosworth’s persecution and sentencing, another plot twist occurred in Jackley’s show that blew everybody away. With many holding out in anticipation to see if the mad-man Jackley would be back at it with his mask again, sources have indeed confirmed that it does appear that a spin-off series is now in the making to be released this fall featuring Dr. Bosworth’s husband, former Libertarian candidate for Attorney General and outspoken critic of ‘Ol Marty, Chad Haber, who is now being charged by Jackley’s office with the same crimes as his wife, but this time for only two signatures he signed as a circulator for “under oath,” under the same legal advice and counsel as Bosworth.
This comes as a shocker to viewers, many of whom were expecting to see charges filed against former state representative Steve Hickey, who also signed petitions he was not personally present to witness according to an affidavit filed by former Independent candidate for lieutenant governor, Lora Hubbel. Hickey has since fled to Scotland to study “ethics.”
After searching for days on the Internet for an answer to how an American can be charged with a crime pertaining to filing a petition, #DakotaZFreePress came across an old document written by some people way back in the day. These people claim to be “founders” of some sort, and must of all had children because they also claim to be “fathers” of a country. This document contains a list of ten unalienable rights given by our creator — rights that the federal or state governments are forbidden to interfere with in any manner what-so-ever. Luckily I stumbled upon the first unalienable right right away and jotted it down quickly before losing interest and forgetting about it, as many in the K-12 public education system are likely to do now that the Revolutionary War has been cut out of the history curriculum. The passage is quoted as follows:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT for a redress of grievances.” – 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, also known as THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND
Abridging seems to be a key word in that passage. Whatever abridge means is something that Congress can NOT do UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES WHAT-SO-EVER to any person who petitions the government for a redress of grievances. According to this “Constitution of the United States of America” written by “WE THE PEOPLE,” if Congress did pass a law which did “abridge” a persons God-given FREEDOM to petition the government for a redress of grievances, that law would need to be ruled as unconstitutional by the courts, because if the courts failed to do so in their duty as Americans, then the government would in fact lose it’s consent to govern the people of the United States of America — who have agreed to allow their government to exist so long as that government does not violate simple unalienable rights listed in their Constitution.
Sounds fair enough to me! “Abridge” according to my dictionary says, “to shorten a book, movie, speech, or other text without losing the sense.” Consequently, this document does appear to in fact state that God, an omnipotent being, has given to the whole of man-kind an opportunity to practice liberty and freedom, and in doing so to petition their government for a redress of grievances, grievances of which can be redressed by nominating a new candidate, perhaps a beloved pro-bono doctor, to be placed on the Republican party ballot, without anybody worrying about the government “shortening” any aspect of American freedoms to petition for that idea, or any idea seeking a redress of grievances from the government.
Thankfully for Americans everywhere, these so-called “founding fathers of our country” wrote the Constitution to protect their posterity from something they fought dearly against called “tyranny,” which they found was evident and a-foot when the government no longer had the consent of the people to govern. One founding father even foretold that the government may one day claim to be “protecting” the people by “abridging” their freedoms away from them – he invented electricity on his spare time.
Funny, Marty Jackley also coincidently claims that his prosecution of Dr. Bosworth’s family is on an account of his “protecting the integrity of the elections” by criminalizing people petitioning for a redress of grievances from the government. In that case, to end this bad movie, there seems to be only one more thing left to do: