Stace Nelson’s robocall response

Rep. Stace Nelson just submitted an emailed statement in response to the affidavit alleging he was involved in last year’s anonymous robocalls. In it, he doesn’t directly deny the charges, but calls them “hearsay” and says he stands by his previous statements, in which he has made certain specific denials about sending telephone calls.

Nelson’s statement:

In 2011, myself, the DAV, the American Legion, and the VFW were successful in opposing and killing Governor Daugaard’s SB 188 which sought to cut educational benefits to National Guard members as they were in combat in Afghanistan. Since that time, I have been outspoken in numerous public forums in telling voters that it was Governor Daugaards bill and that it was supported and voted for by GOP Legislative Leadership to include Sen Russ Olson, Sen Dan Lederman, Rep David Lust, and Rep Brian Gosch.  My advisement of this to the public sparked righteous outrage with almost every person that received that factual information.   

From news accounts, my understanding is that what is at issue is that telephone calls were made to voters in these politicians’ districts advising them that these legislators in fact voted to cut educational benefits to National Guardsmen who were in combat, and the calls failed to list their website address in the telephone calls.

I stand behind the statements that I have previously made about these matters.  The only thing that has changed to the situation, as it pertains to myself, is that a lawyer in the civil case has filed a late affidavit in the matter, that is 100% hearsay, containing vague claims of my involvement.  Of note, that same affidavit does indicate by name and deed those purportedly responsible for the detailed efforts in the matter they are suing over.   

Curiously, Mr. Arends has now added himself as a witness in his own civil case with this affidavit that contains his opinions on what Mr. Dykstra meant or said.   It should be noted this contorted hearsay account of what Mr Dykstra supposedly said, was the end product of an orchestrated departure from the normal procedure of a sworn deposition in front of Mr Willard’s attorney.  Subsequent news reports indicate that Mr. Arend bragged he was attempting to hide evidence from Mr. Willard’s attorney. I find it extremely disconcerting that a lawyer, and now a witness in a case, has admitted that he is attempting to hide evidence from the court and the other party.   

Of particular note, these hearsay vague claims come on the heels of statewide discussion on my considerations of entering the 2014 US Senate race.  A race in which Lederman and his Rushmore PAC (parties to the civil case) have publically came out in support of Mike Rounds.

We should all be extremely suspect, and concerned, with the unusual circumstances of this matter.  Especially when this civil case is awaiting a motion to dismiss hearing in several days.


Stace Nelson