Is the first "dog of war" a poodle? The Sutton team unleashes an injunction.

After promising to unleash the dogs of war on to the Senate should they proceed with a hearing, the Sutton defense team struck first with an injunction trying to prevent the hearing from going forward.

As related at tonight, things are now on hold in the Senate:
A judge has ordered the Senate to put on hold a hearing to decide whether to remove Sen. Dan Sutton of Flandreau, who has been accused of groping a legislative page a year ago.

Judge Dave Gienapp of Moody County signed the order, obstained late today by the Argus Leader.

Patrick Duffy, one of Sutton's lawyers, had asked for the ruling today.

Duffy said the Senate does not have the right, constitutionally, to force Sutton to leave office by holding the hearing that it had planned.

The hearing was to start as soon next week.

The judge will hear arguments in the case at 9 a.m. Jan. 19 in Flandreau.

Sutton has not spoken at length about the issue, but his lawyers have maintained his innocence.

Asked about the case today, Sutton did say he was relieved before referring further comment to his lawyers.


Gray said the order means the Senate will take no action until Long and his staff study the court order and recommend a response.

“We will not proceed with the disciplinary action until we get through this,’’ Gray said.
Read it all here.


Anonymous said…
sounds to me like someone is scared
Anonymous said…'re just mad because someone peed in your cheerios and Sutton's team is smarter than allowing this circus to go on in Pierre.
Anonymous said…
I am glad that a judge is going to decide if this is legal. It doesnt really seem that a "learn as we go" attitude is the correct way to handle such things. I believe that it is important that everyone's constitutional rights be protected. There is a reason for them.

Good for Sutton. I tell you, its the green blood in those Irish Folk. They will fight, fight, and fight some more. And, Dan should be fighting...this is his life and he should be awarded the same constitutional rights as every other citizen :)
Anonymous said…

Yeah Olson and his dumb bat colleagues.
Anonymous said…
This needs to go away. Lee Schoenbeck is gone. Who is pushing this? The Argus Leader?
Anonymous said…
Yeah...I'm so glad that this situation is going to be drawn out longer, and longer, and longer. I just can't handle all the excitement. (can you sense the sarcasm?)

My guess on when we'll all actually know what happened...July 16, 2008.
Anonymous said…
Who cares if it is drawn out, the most important thing is that every body's rights are upheld. Plus, even if we have to wait until 2008, at least we will know.
Anonymous said…
If it was my constitutional rights at stake, I would do everything in my power to make sure I was treated fairly. Anyone who says that they wouldn't fight for their rights (funny isnt that a song) ANY WHOOO.... anyone that wouldn't fight for their rights is either an idiot or a liar saying they wouldn't do the same thing!! GOOD FOR DAN!! Congrats Buddy!!
Anonymous said…

Looks like this Dog of War weighs at least six hundred pounds.
Anonymous said…
If Sutton did what he is accused of, he is a slimeball and deserves to be thrown out.

Having said that, I am glad that Dan is bringing this challenge. The state's constitution does not explicitly give the Senate the ability to remove one of its members, and I think it is dangerous for them to try to do so by rule. They should amend the constitution so that they are on firm ground. And I understand that the constitutional revision commission has proposed just such an amendment.
Anonymous said…
I am tired of people trying to make this into a full blown criminal case with a criminal law standard. There are two different standards that could be applied to the Sutton matter, one is found in our criminal code and the other is in regard to the Senate's ability to discipline a member. He has not been charged criminally, but the Senate can certainly determine if his behavior was inappropriate. Here's an illustration. If a high school basketball player is caught drinking alcohol by law enforcement there would likely be two potential consequences, one legal and the other losing eligibility with his school to play basketball. For the sake of conversation let's say that his constiutional rights have been violated by the police and they pulled him over in violation of his constitutional rights, the case would be dismissed. However, the school could still not allow him to play basketball. Now the school will still be required for the kid to be allowed a forum to be heard, but a very low standard would be applied and while the cops messed up, the school could discipline the athlete. Just like the Sutton case. Just because there isn't enough for a criminal prosecution to go forward, that doesn't mean that he doesn't have to answer to the Senate. If this were a criminal matter I would be concerned about his "constitutional rights" but it's a poltical matter and the Senate has every right to proceed.
Anonymous said…

Your wording = perfect. I agree 100%.

They are two separate things.
Anonymous said…
Sutton might as well admit his guilt. His resignation/not resignation and now this do nothing to prove his innocence. He's just trying to play games and beat the system, and he'll probably get away with it. I hope the people in his district see thru this at the next election. This kinds of stuff is what makes people apathetic about voting and suspicious of all politicians. What is Sutton scared of coming out in a hearing???
PP said…
7:47 - Any comment on sexual preference is getting killed.
PP said…
7:47, in continuance, unless you're the person themselves, you don't know what their preference is.

And even if you do, it doesn't matter. It's not at issue.

What is at issue is whether or not there was unwanted sexual contact.
Anonymous said…
I for one, am glad to see that a judge will be looking at this matter to see if the Senate has the ability to move forward. Their "make it up as we go" attitude concerns me.

Dan is just forcing the senate to make sure what they are doing is legal....and if you were in his shoes, you would be doing the same.

We're behind you Dan!
Anonymous said…

In response to your comment:

"its a political matter"

Indeed it is...indeed it is. Can you say governor's bid, ridgefield farm etc.

There is more that goes into this than meets the eye.
Mark said…
PP - Forgive me for getting a little off of the topic.... but "preference?" You need to get out of the 1960's. Preference connotes that a person makes a choice about their sexuality. Unless you choose to believe the likes of James Dobson, Rob Regier, et al., you should know that it's a matter of orientation, not "preference."
Anonymous said…

I like you and I dont even know you. However, I have been told that great minds think alike.
Anonymous said…
10:21 am - WRONG!

11:04 am - Conclusions... BOTH

11:04 am - Query? If I am correct Sutton's district has the Flandreau Indian Tribe in it. I understand that you are disturbed by "the fact that the voters of this district were DUMB ENOUGH TO RE-ELECT SUTTON!"

Instead of being dumb could it be that some voters tend to loyally vote for the hand that aledgedly feeds them? Indians tend to support Democrat candidates while actually knowing very little about them.
FlandreauDem said…
Well, that's about the most racist comment I've read on this site. How disappointing.

First of all, it's the FLANDREAU SANTEE SIOUX TRIBE. And secondly, what's with the comment "Indians tend to support Democrat candidates while actually knowing very little about them."? How would you know that?

If ignorance is bliss, you must be ecstatic.
Mark said…
11:31 -

I'm wrong? Apparently you think that one chooses to be gay or straight. That being the case, would you kindly state the date, time, place and circumstances surrounding when you made your choice concerning your sexual "preference?" It's always interesting to see whether one can pinpoint when they made such a momentous decision.
Anonymous said…
Well said, Mark...I agree...
flandreaudem said… too...
Anonymous said…

I disagree with you on so many levels; I don’t even know where to start. Based on many of your comments, your IQ must border around 80 (which may account for why you allegedly did not vote for Sutton and for why you feel the urge to type such malicious rumors, fabrications, and lies).

Sutton received 57% of the vote, so the majority of people obviously approve of the job he has done for the constituents of District 8. And, I would have you know that the voters from his district are not unintelligent. Many of whom research the issues, the legislators past service, and vote based on such regardless of their race (this one was for both flandreaudem and anon 11:31).

In reference to your Ridgefield farms comment, I don’t believe that Dan had, nor has, a conflict of interest in this situation. He is one of the main players who are trying to help the citizens of Flandreau recoup the money that is owed to them through a lawsuit. Oh, but somehow you managed to leave that point out of your vicious post.

Perhaps you are not intelligent enough to see that the person who has/had a true conflict of interest in this situation is Dennis Wiese himself. Why don’t you give him a call and ask him to account for where all the money went. I am sure he can account for every last penny (I am being extremely sarcastic with my last statement).

In reference to the following: "why in the WORLD would a grown man invite a teenager, male or female, to SHARE HIS BED??"

Danny did not invite Austin to stay with him; Austin wanted to stay with Danny. Therefore, with Austin's parent’s permission Danny allowed Austin to stay with him.
Perhaps this was due to the fact that Austin was not liked enough by his fellow pages to stay where he was supposed to. And, Austin was a legal adult at the time, which I wanted to point out because you refer to him as “a teenager” which makes him sound 13.

In reference to:
"Even if he had no intentions of a sexual advance, it was an incredibly stupid move on his part because of the risk it posed."

I am sure that under the circumstances at that time, you would have had the insight to realize...hmm If I allow Austin to stay in my room, he may make an allegation against me. I don’t think that ever crossed Danny's mind. Dan isn’t stupid, he is naive. And for that, he is now being punished.


"Sutton has a long history of inappropriate interest in young boys, a fact which is supported by his being excluded from certain community activities and groups because other adults were made aware of this interest."


Before these allegations surfaced, Dan was never asked to step down from anything or to not take part in any community activities. He worked with both male and female youth, because he truly cares about people and the youth of our community. He was a CCD teacher for years, drum line coach, substitute teacher, etc. Dan has worked with hundreds, possibly thousands, of youth and NO ONE ELSE HAS EVER MADE ANY KIND OF COMPLAINT!!!!

In reference to your statement: "And this guy fits the profile."

I am assuming that you are stating that Dan fits the profile of a pedophile. Are you a profiler? Do you have experience working with sexual perpetrators or even victims? Well, I do. And, you have no fricking clue what you are talking about.

So, do me a favor and zip your lips or better yet...freeze those fingers.

Dan's side will eventually be heard. He just wants it to be legal and fair. It is not fair to subject him to a "we will make the rules up as we go" process. And, when he does speak, I hope you open your ears, because you are going to feel so stupid for all of your ridiculous comments.

Oh, and finally, in reference to your last statement regarding your "lingering question of the pages having access to alcohol." You obviously can’t even read; because Kloucek's email said interns not pages...there is a difference. And, Dan never supplied the alcohol to any of them. They went to the bar after work just like many of the legislators in Pierre do. So, until you have your facts correct do me and everyone else a favor and resist the urge to type malicious, unfounded gossip, falsifications, and rumors.

The true victim in all of this is Dan and eventually everyone will realize this. However, until then, unfortunately, those of us who know Dan and support him will have to put up with ignorant comments like yours from people who don’t know the facts and as a result are incompetent, biased fools.

The people of his district re-elected him after hearing the allegations because most of them know the truth and know Dan's and the alleged victim’s characters. So, I on the other hand would be greatly saddened if a man, who has done so much for the people of his district, his community, and for the youth of his town, would step-down from office. The people re-elected him for a reason, and he should serve out their wishes.
Anonymous said…
bravo flandreaudem!
Anonymous said…

Why isn't Sutton saying anything? He can go ahead and file lawsuits and ask for injunctions, but why isn't he giving interviews and telling the media (and everyone else) that he didn't do anything wrong? His lawyer said he was innocent, but nothing from Sutton himself. How are we going to realize he's the real victim here if he not only doesn't say anything, but he avoids having to say anything at every possible turn? I'm not saying he did something wrong or didn't do something wrong, but he's certainly not acting like he's innocent. The longer this drags on, the more guilty he looks.
flandreaudem said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said…
flandreaudem -

In regards to your post at 3:41pm, I have the following response:

If the alleged victim is 18 and makes a complaint, then legally, his name should be used and released. Think about big cases of alleged rape etc. (i.e. the Lacrosse team that allegedly raped the female last year). Her name was all over the news. In fact, her name was used more than the alleged perpetrators’ names were.

So I have absolutely no problem using Austin's name. He was a legal adult at the time that this allegedly occurred and a legal adult at the time when he made the complaint against Sutton. He should have to stand by his allegation and be just as accountable as Sutton in this matter.

In response to your following comment:

"I'm sure it's hard to hear the truth, but the fact is that there are a number of people in Flandreau who were first-hand witnesses to his inappropriate behavior and resulting removal from organizations and activities involving kids. I've heard the first-hand accounts, from more than one party."

I urge you to give specific accounts (names, organizations etc.) that Dan was asked to step down from and exact instances where he acted inappropriately (listing the names of all involved). If you are going to make such statements, then back them up. If you don’t, then you are just plain lying.

And finally in response to the following statement:

"I also would think somebody who has worked with sexual preditors and victims would know that it is unethical and inappropriate to actually name an alleged victim of a sexual crime, as the last poster did. How sad."

First off, you spelled “predators” wrong, which further substantiates my claim that your IQ is barely above 80. I am beginning to believe I was being generous in that assumption. However, to rebut your claim that it is unethical and inappropriate for me to actually name the victim, I can guarantee that it is not. I checked my code of ethics and all (once again my sarcasm emerges).
Anonymous said…
PP, didn't you recently decide comments like those of flandreaudem would not fly unless otherwise verified with you? Do you have this checked out or is it ok bc a dem ox is being gored?
Anonymous said…
6:29- I agree with you, but I really want to see what flandreaudem has to say about my previous post asking for specifics. My best guess...he wont because he is a liar, liar, and his pants are on fire. And, yes...I know that my previous comment was extremely mature.
Anonymous said…
Who cares?
Anonymous said…
I'm going to have to agree with flandreaudem on 98% of the information he has shared. I can also name organizations that have...i wouldn't say 'banned'...but have forced him out. I'm not going to name names - because a blog is not the place to do that - so you just have to take my anonymous word for it.
Anonymous said…
7:00 -

I will not take your word for it. And, previous to this allegation being made, Dan was never, and I repeat NEVER asked to step down, nor was he "banned" or "forced out" of anything.

You need to get your facts correct, because mine are!
Flandreaudem said… was ugly...the truth apparently brings out the worst in some people. There's really no need to resort to childishness. ("liar, liar, and his pants are on fire"? What the heck is that???)

Bottom line: I stand by my words, I think Sutton is guilty and that there is an abundance of proof to that end, and I hope he is removed from office.

As for me, my part in this pi**ing match is over. Someone needs to take the higher road here and besides, I'm guessing this debate is getting tiresome for others who frequent this site.

Anon, you apparently have a need to have the last word, so go for it...I'm giving you this one.
Anonymous said…
let me be the third person to say he has been pushed out of Flandreau organizations where he had access to kids. This is the truth. We in Flandreau know this. its not just rumors, but it should be up to those individuals heading the organizations to speak up...where are you, guys?
Anonymous said…

And, may I point out that you are refusing to actually substantiate your allegations re: Sutton.

This further substantiates my belief that you are indeed lying. I however, cannot substantiate my claim that your pants are on fire, and for that I apologize.
Anonymous said…

I am not saying he has never been asked to step down. What I am saying is that PREVIOUS to this allegation, he was NEVER asked to step down from anything.
PP said…
6:29, you're correct. I just saw them after driving to Brookings.
P.R. said…
So much for freedom of speach.

pp, I'm disappointed in you.
PP said…
If you want to host your own blog and post statements that could be litigated as libelous, knock yourself out.

Me? I'm erring on the side of caution.
Anonymous said…
personally, I'm sick of people saying they KNOW whats going on, and they KNOW what the facts are, and they KNOW their sources are correct. I really don't think you KNOW anything unless you are either Mr. Sutton, or the kid. I don't really know either side of the story, so I can't vouch for who's side is truth or not, but i CAN tell you that its ridiculous to argue about who's source is right when in fact it is just a source. So you dont KNOW anything - you can guess, speculate, or accuse - but you dont KNOW.

And as far as guessing someone's IQ by their spelling errors? Come on people how old are we? Isn't this a blog for mature adults? Spelling errors are not directly related to IQ.
Anonymous said…

You are correct; IQ's are not directly related to spelling errors. However, the statements posted by flandreaudem, were in my opinion, idiotic and untrue. My statements regarding their IQ were simply to reinforce the fact that I found their opinions and untrue statements idiotic. Try and find some humor in it, because I did.
Anonymous said…

flandreaudem's fourth paragraph at 11:04am is out of line. It is an untrue statement aka untrue rumor and it should be removed. Thus, all comments after that, which refer to that paragraph, in my opinion, should also be removed.
tom said…
Sutton "never had sexual relations with that child. Not once, ever."
Anonymous said…
I am forced to agree with someone who is probably a green blooded liberal, but the 4th paragraph by flandreaudem is a bit out of place. I have been a member of Flandreau for quite some time and I have seen both sides of this situation grow up so I am trying to remain neutral in the whole situation. However those comments in the 4th paragraph are false, the only time that Sutton was ever excluded from any type of community event was after these allegations surfaced.

Now if flandreaudem is referring to the FHS drum line of say 5 or 6 years ago, the only reason that Sutton was partly excluded from that is because he and the band director of the time did not see eye to eye and the band director viewed the drum line as a school function, which it only was by name. To make a long explanation short, he was asked not to attend performances. Other than that he has never been excluded from anything. Those comments are out of line and should be erased.

As to the rumor of inappropriate interest with "young boys", all I can say is that if it talks like a Wiese and walks like a Wiese, then it must be a Wiese.
Anonymous said…
Anon 7:00 PM,

You say that you agree with flandreaudem 98% and I am sorry to hear that. Firstly flandreaudem is off with his depiction of Ridgefield farms which was Denny Wiese’s employer and not Sutton’s, so obviously it would be Sutton’s job as head of the FDC (Flandreau Development Corporation) to get the citizen and his constituents of Moody County their money back. That is probably where the 2% comes into play.

As for a blog not being the place to mention the other information, I can only assume that you are a high ranking employee/employer for the Flandreau Public School system or the head of religious education at Ss. Simon and Jude Catholic Church. I would venture a guess at the first one. Now when you say you forced him out, you really probably meant that you told him he would not be hired back as a substitute teacher, because at this time Larry Long and very few others knew of the situation, because it was well before the public had found out. You, and this is my guess, as an employer at FHS could not allow Sutton to be near any student, let alone the alleged victim who was still in school. This would also be the same reason that you probably had to find a new band teacher at the end of the summer and would not allow Sutton to go on the FHS band trip to Orlando, Florida. Now I am sure it was the duty of your job to do this, but it could be that the alleged victim was the 6th or 7th man on your basketball team (just my guess), but you could not allow Sutton to be back at the school. Now if I am wrong, which is entirely possible please let me know. Otherwise you will just have to take my anonymous word for it.

P.S. Hopefully I didn’t put inappropriate/unwarranted guesses in this blog space, but they are my personal thoughts.
Anonymous said…
Also, I know that what was said in my first paragraph was not said by flandreaudem, but it was inferred by myself. Anyways it is a brief synopsis of what is happening in the Ridgefield Farms fiasco.
PP said…
I knew I missed a libelous statement somewhere.
Anonymous said…
I have to say, flandreaudem is sure keeping conversation lively on this string.

anon, 7:00 pm:

I have to beg to differ with your statement that only a very few were aware of this early on. I live and work in Flandreau and this sordid story was pretty much general knowledge in my circle very early on. Everywhere I went, people were discussing the situation, albeit behind closed doors and at a whisper. I think Flandreaudem was correct in his statement that it was the worst-kept secret in Flandreau.

The quickest way to get a juicy story circulated is to unleash it in a small town.
Anonymous said…
Anon 9:15,

Though it the allegations may have been flowing around quickly (probably more in my circle than maybe yours, but maybe not) they were only really known in Flandreau and what flandreaudem and anon 7:00 pm said, was that Sutton being involved with young boys has been a long standing secret and that Sutton has been with held from many activities due to this fact. What I will say, (this is from personal knowledge) that the only time Senator Sutton was ever with held from any type of community activity was after these allegations came up, because it was only then that he was asked to step down as a CCD teacher, substitute teacher, and FHS drum line coach.

What flandreaudem said is that he had been with held from events before the allegations surfaced, which is not true. Dan has been and will continue to be (after this is resolved) a major player in shaping they youth of Flandreau (no, not in sexual ways). What is not known about the good senator is that for many years when kids got in trouble or screwed up and were too scared to be able to talk to their parents about it and tell them, Dan stepped up to the plate. He would arrange a meeting and be there to help that person be able to overcome their problem. That is what Dan does best and after this is all said and done, will continue to do.
nonnie said…
to 10:16 anon. You say Sutton is truly this remarkable person in dealing with youth, and if he is, that's great. But for the life of me, I then do not understand why he wouldn't stand up and proclaim from the rooftops that he is innocent of this charge. Why he wouldn't face the charges during the last session? If he is truly innocent and is relying on the advice of his lawyers to pursue these delaying tactics, then he is being done a disservice as it only makes him look guilty.
Anonymous said…
Anon who is so vehemently defending Sutton:

Just wanted to point out that your last post contains a number of grammar and spelling errors. Wasn't it you last night who criticized others and assessed an IQ based on exactly the same things?

People in glass houses...
Bob said…
I'm on the fence on this one. I do want to point out, however, that an adult's dedication to helping youth could be interpreted two ways: as a selfless gesture with the best of intentions, OR as a way to get closer to youth for the purpose of taking advantage of them in some way (that is typically called "grooming").

Now Anon, before you steamroll me, let me point out that I'm not necessarilly accusing anyone of anything. Just making the point that at the end of the day, the only ones who REALLY know what happens behind closed doors.
Bob said…
That last sentence should have read "the only ones who really know what happens behind closed doors are those who were present". Sorry.
Anonymous said…
Well Nonie,

Let me say that to you and Bob can say whatever you feel, I want it to be known that Dan is a great man and the reason that he is not proclaiming his innocence form the roof top is because he is too nice and too caring to want to harm any person, especially one that he trusted and was kind too. Let us not forget that it was the accuser that asked Dan to write his letter of recommendation for school and that is was also Dan that helped me extricate myself from a situation that I was too scared to tell my parents, he set up a meeting with my parents so he could help tell them what I did and how this would affect me for at least the next 18 years, if not more. I remember spending countless nights at Sutton’s house and he never made any type of advances on me and he never groomed me, his only intention is to help the youth of Flandreau, because he truly does care. He also realizes by helping the progeny of the hands that feed him, he is better able to help many people. Dan has shaped my life and helped me realize what I want to be when I grow up, a task that has not been done by many. So before you rip Sutton or myself think about what you say, because when he gets to proclaim his innocence, in a courtroom like it should be, you might be sorry at some of your comments, so please consider what you say. For this is a good man who has been convicted in the court of public opinion and will have to fight to prove his innocence, which is the opposite of how life should be.
Bob said…
anon 1:08

Your experience with him may have been positive, and that's great. But the bottom line is NONE of us knows the nature of his relationship with anyone else. Unless we were present to personally witness every single interaction between him and anyone else, we simply don't know for sure. We can speculate, but that's it.

But let's also keep in mind that a bank robber doesn't rob every bank he sees, and a child molester doesn't molest every child he/she encounters.

I'm glad that you have found him helpful in the past and did not experience any inappropriateness with him-thank goodness. And I believe wholeheartedly that you believe in his innocence. But you cannot be 100% sure of it anymore than anyone else can say they are 100% sure of his guilt. We just don't know.
Anonymous said…

When I grew up, there was myself and about 10 other guys who like myself thought of Dan as an older brother and we frequently stayed at his house. It did not matter what state we were in his house could be a safe sanctuary for us and I know that out of the 10 of us, he never made any advances on us, because we would have all said something to him or to one of the other men, because like any normal person, when you feel you are violated you say something or leave. So consider that in your thoughts, but yes we do not know what he did with every kid that he met, but the percentages of that being true are under 2% after what we all went through at his house.
Bob said…
Again, thank goodness your experience and that of your friends was positive. But if what you said prior is true and he has come in contact with "hundreds, possibly thousands" of kids, then the small group of 10 that you speak for really isn't even a drop in the bucket.

Again, nobody REALLY knows for sure either way...
Anonymous said…

Nope, I am the one that was defending Sutton last night and I did not post anything today, until now. So, sorry to burst your bubble, but their obviously are more than one Sutton supporter out there.
Anonymous said…

Their is a few other people posting re: supporting Sutton. So, I am the one that referred to Sutton working with hundreds, possibly thousands of kids. I am also the one who complained about flandreaudem's ability to spell. So, I guess for less confusion, I should probably just sign in.

I will be known as "I Support Sutton and that's not an allegation!"

I urge other anonymous posters to sign in with a user name so that people can see that their is not just one person on here who supports Sutton.
Hopefully, now that I actually signed in people will be able to tell that all Sutton Supporters are not the same person.
Anonymous said…
I bet we could have a FHS All-School Reunion with all of the posters on this thread. I know most of you through the things you've said and they way they've been stated.

It's fun to play the investigator - and welcome Fliers!

I do know for a fact that Anon 12:12am is refering to the wrong person. That post was not made by Mr. RW. Thought I'd just clarify that.

Keep up the healthy discussion...
Bob said…
I agree with the suggestion to use unique id's to minimize confusion.

Sorry for the mix-up on my part.

Having said that, I stick to my position that nobody really knows for sure, including me. All we can do is speculate.

Keep me posted on the details of the FHS Reunion... =)


We probably could have reunion. I think a lot of people from Moody County and people that know Dan are following this rather closely. What year did you graduate? Do I know you?
L.F.E. said…
It just doesn't look to me like the Sutton team is fighting for a fair trial/hearing. It looks to me like they are trying to avoid answering the questions altogether. And this would beg the question "why?".
JP said…
Attn: I Support Sutton...and that's not an allegation!:

Umm, sorry to break this to you but you can't spell either, and your grammar isn't all that:

"Their is a few other people posting" should read "There are a few other people posting".

It's a bummer to lose at your own game, huh?
Anonymous said…
Anon 7:16

I know you. But just to double check...what's the second letter of your first name? :)

...this thread goes to show how divided our town has gotten. Everyone has their own reasons why to pick may be because of families or it may be because of friends. So many variables play into this...and it's sad that it's taking our little town and completely dividing us.

I'm very anxious for this to be over matter what the outcome. It's not fun.

I realized that I had mistyped right after I posted it, but what was I supposed to do? I couldn't delete it. So, I guess at least I realized I made a mistake. That is what multi-tasking will get you.

The person that I was criticizing was acting like they "knew" what they were talking about in regards to sexual abuse victims, perpetrators, groping etc. And, well...they just don't know what in the heck they are talking about.


Oh, and you did not respond to my question pertaining when you graduated?
jp said…
I Support Sutton...and that's not an allegation!:

Your criticism of the person was clearly aimed at spelling. Specifically, you became pretty vicious about his misspelling the word "predator". True, you also challenged the points about sexual abuse and survivors of it, but the criticism of the spelling and the connection you made between it and IQ are unmistakable.

I am wondering why you would dismiss your mistake so quickly, while lampooning the other blogger for his. Seems a little hypocritical.
Anonymous said…
And furthermore...the following sentence written by "I Support Sutton...and that's not an allegation!" is not a question and should therefor be ended with a period:

Oh, and you did not respond to my question pertaining when you graduated?

You can dish it out. Can you now take it?
Anonymous said…
I see we have a grammatical cat fight. Can't we all just get along?

Wait, that would be impossible.

Sure can. I was trying to get my point across that they did not answer the question, so really I was asking a question in a question and therefore ending it with a question mark. Or, re-asking a question in a statement.

Does that make sense? Probably not, but I would image that you get the point that I am trying to make.

Yes, you are correct that I did get upset with the word predator...which was spelled wrong. And, like I stated before, the person typing was acting like they knew what they were talking about. When, in all actuality, if they can not spell the word predator correctly, they most likely have no idea what they are talking about.

I can take your crap, because I deserve it. I made a mistake and am willing to own up to it.
Anonymous said…
I'm not going to tell you the year I graduated. I'm posting as anonymous because I would like to stay that way.

If you guess the second letter of my first name i might fess up.

I'm just trying to liven this thing up a bit.

oh, and grammar sucks. I admit it so don't bash it.
And yes, before you jump all over me, I realize that I wrote "image" instead of "imagine." It has been a long day today. I apologize.
Anonymous said…

I have no idea. We probably don't even know each other. Or, maybe we do. Who knows. Perhaps you haven't even graduated yet. There are just too many possibilities.

Even if you were to tell me a class, that wouldn't narrow it down much. Flandreau High School isn't that small.
Anonymous said…
"I support Sutton:"

Are you the same person as 1:08pm? Was that your Anon before you changed your 'blogger name'?
Anonymous said…
Hey, "I Support Sutton...and that's not an allegation!"

So if a person spells a word wrong, it must mean he/she has no idea what it means????? You went after Flandreaudem with guns blazing because of his spelling errors, but your own mistakes don't count because you're "multi-tasking" or "it's been a long day?"

What about ascertaining IQ from spelling and grammar? If you're going to do that, what IQ score would that give you, given your mistakes? What gives?

(Sorry to keep beating this already VERY dead horse, folks, but I'm going for principal here. Nothing like calling out a hypocrite to cap off an entertaining evening of blogging! Please bear with me.)
Anonymous said…

Good point. Touche

Give it a rest. I made a mistake and so did you. "principal" should be "principle"

We even yet?
Anonymous said…
too much excitement for one day. i'm outta here...and you guys should be too.

Take a break!
Anonymous said…
I Support Sutton...and that's not an allegation!

Now that you don't have a legit answer you want me to give it a rest?

Excellent job at evading the question. I'm starting to see why you support're cut out of the same cloth...

Thanks for bearing with me, guys. It's been fun helping this person paint himself into a self-righteous corner! I couldn't resist but I'm done with it. We'll give him the last word (I know it's coming!) and the Great Grammar War will be over.

Good night all!!
Anon 10:06-

Also, you messed up when you wrote the following: "is not a question and should therefor be ended with a period:"

Therefore needs a "e" at the end. So, we are human and both make mistakes. I am done with this argument. It is getting really old and I have better things to do than argue about spelling and grammar.

In case you didn't notice, my posts to flandreaudem also had other points. My main argument isn't re: his ability to spell or use grammar correctly.
LJ said…
I think the reason people are so passionate about this issue is because none of wants to even think that we may have grown up with/gone to school with/attended church with/worked with a sexual predator. It's a frightening thought.
or a liar...if you dont believe Austin and support Sutton.
LJ said…
I think the reason people are so passionate about this issue is because none of wants to even think that we may have grown up with/gone to school with/attended church with/worked with a sexual predator. It's a frightening thought.

(And btw: I Support Sutton...and that's not an allegation!: you gave that poster exactly what he wanted)
Anonymous said…
I Support Sutton...and that's not an allegation!

What year did you graduate? I suspect we may have been in the same class.
p said…
Can anyone speak to the issue of jurisdiction re: criminal charges? I heard today that Larry Long may be getting a bum rap for letting this go on so long without filing charges. The person who made this claim said it was never up to LL to file charges, but rather up to the State's Attorney serving the county where the alleged crime took place. Does anybody know?
Anonymous said…
I graduated in '01. that's when i thought you did.
Anonymous said…
PP, can't these people carry this on at the Flandreau diner? This thread is adolescent and out of control.
P said…
I for one think this discussion makes for great reading. Keep the conversation going, guys!

Let's assume for a minute that Sutton is innocent (and I agree that nobody really knows for sure). He still showed incredibly poor judgement in sharing his bed with a young man over whom he did have at least some power.

Even if this was completely innocent and simply a gesture of generosity, I'm not sure I'm comfortable having someone with such poor judgement representing me in Pierre.

Just my opinion.
Anonymous said…
Yes, Sutton probably did show some for of bad judgment, but that is besides my point. PP, what is the biggest # of responses one of your blogs has gotten, is this one even close. If you know I would love it if you could tell us.

PS: Keep up the Flandreau Battle Royal, because it gives certain alumni a chance to sit back and laugh.
Anonymous said…
Yes, life in Flandreau is a laugh a minute these days...
lj said…
I Support Sutton...and that's not an allegation! 11:15 PM

A liar I could live least I wouldn't have to worry about a lair preying on my children.
Anonymous said…
It's all how you look at it. Your children at 18 are free game. Deal with it.
lj said…
I'm not talking about adults. I'm talking about CHILDREN. Under 18.

Geez, can't anybody else have an opinion? Support Sutton all you want, but have a little tolerance for somebody who might not agree.

Popular posts from this blog

Why should we be surprised?

That didn't take long