Just in from one of our friends…
On Monday of this week, there was an announcement made regarding a change of venue to Hughes County (Pierre) that had apparently been granted in the case ‘Strong v. Gant’.
However, it has now come to our attention that a motion to vacate that change of venue request was filed late Friday afternoon in Pennington County.
The motion to vacate specifically makes reference to SDCL § 15-5-10 which states:
————————————————————————————————————————————–
Trial of action in county where commenced unless defendant demands change of venue. If the county designated for that purpose in the complaint is not the proper county, the action may, notwithstanding, be tried therein unless the defendant, before the time for answering expires, demands in writing that the trial be had in the proper county, and the place of trial be thereupon changed by the consent of the parties or by order of the court, as provided in §15-5-11.
The motion to vacate also cites several South Dakota court cases as legal precedents which lend strong support to their assertion that their case not only CAN, but in fact OUGHT TO BE heard in Pennington County .
One of the precedent-setting cases mentioned in the motion is Williams Insurance of Pierre v. Bear Butte Farms Partnership (1986) from which the following quote is taken:
“We have held in a long line of cases that ‘failure of a [respondent] to attempt to obtain [applicant’s] consent to a change of venue before approaching a court results in denial of the motion.’ “
This latest development puts the ball back squarely in the court (no pun intended) of Judge Robert Mandel in Pennington County. In view of this latest development, it is our expectation that the case will indeed receive a hearing in Pennington County despite the efforts of Rep. Gosch and his apparent allies in the Secretary of State’s office.
But regardless of which way Judge Mandel rules in this matter, two things have now become clear:
1.) Secretary of State Gant clearly failed to provide notification about the proposed change of venue to Strong in apparent violation of South Dakota Codified Law.
2.) It also now appears that Gant (and perhaps also Rep. Gosch), were either willfully ignorant of the appellant notification requirement(s) in SDCL § 15-5-10 that are required to lawfully file for a change of venue, or they actually knew of the notification requirements and purposely failed to fulfill those requirements and were hoping that no-one would notice or hold them accountable.
In either case, the voters of South Dakota (in particular, the voters of District 32) should take notice of the propensity of those in powerful positions to bend and sometimes even break the rules when it works to their own political benefit.
***Gordon Howie is a nationally syndicated author, host of Liberty Today TV and CEO of Life and Liberty Media***
Get DAILY updates… Friend Gordon on Facebook
Help spread the message by sharing with your email list and facebook friends… and why not pitch in $10 or $20??? Click the Donate button on this page NOW!!
What does it say about the South Dakota Republican Party when its elected officials act NO different than the crooked Chicago Obama crew?
Gant and Gosch are a disgrace to their offices and to the people of South Dakota. Quick Governor Daugaard & Attorney general Jackley, go after some more of your political opponents using your office to do so! You need to change the spotlight on these crooked politicians again..