Argus Leader: Speaker Deadrick stands with Klaudt as his attorney
The Argus Leader is reporting that Republican Speaker of the House Tom Deadrick is, for the moment, acting as attorney for Ted Klaudt, the former Representative who is now under investigation for multiple counts of rape and child abuse:
Read it all here.
I'm a bit surprised that any politicos would be coming to Ted's aid in light of the charges and the affadavit. But, I suppose we can respect the Speaker's commitment to friendship and fair justice for all.
He's accused of performing "ovary checks" and "breast exams" under the guise that he was helping young women donate their reproductive eggs, according to court records.
House Speaker Thomas Deadrick, R-Platte, accompanied Klaudt in court Friday, saying he was acting as Klaudt's lawyer only for Friday's court hearings.
"I'm here as a friend who happens to be a lawyer," said Deadrick, who served four years with Klaudt in the House.
Terry Pechota of Rapid City, a lawyer who has represented Klaudt, said he would not be able to comment on the case.
Read it all here.
I'm a bit surprised that any politicos would be coming to Ted's aid in light of the charges and the affadavit. But, I suppose we can respect the Speaker's commitment to friendship and fair justice for all.
Comments
Tom, you need to become Ted's former friend ASAP
I would not want to wor this case on the defending side.
This isn't merely a friend who got in trouble. He was a rising star in the Republican Party (PP had him as one of the top four politicians in the state to watch) who preyed on vulnerable kids as an elected official. And now, one of the most powerful elected officials in the state -- the Speaker of the House -- is coming to his assistance. Friend or no friend, the average voter out there isn't going to let this pass the smell test.
This is exactly what got Hastert in trouble over the Mark Foley incident (which pales in comparison to this). Instead of worrying about the safety of the pages, Hastert worried about his "friend" Mark Foley.
Deadrick ought to be convening meetings to reform the page program, and to give parents reassurance about the safety of their kids - not rushing to the courthouse to help out a friend whom he served with in Pierre. His priorities are completely out of whack here.
Those kids aren't safe. We've had two reported cases of molestation in the past year. And the Speaker of the House is more worried about whether or not his "friend" -- who damn near admitted to raping girls is OK.
All of this while the Senate Pro Temp dismisses any concerns over the administration of the page program, and the safety of the kids parents entrust to the state.
It's really unbelievable, and shows that the leadership of the legislature is ridiculously out of touch with reality.
Is he a friend or just a co-woker i wonder what Tom Deadrick really stated!
I just don't know how i would have handled it to be honest, i would of had to step back and relly ponder the involvement as a lawyer/friend/legislator/speaker.
I swear, I have never read a bigger piece of garbage on this site.
Of course YOU can admire Deadrick. Because he's a Republican leader. Of course YOU can admire Deadrick, because someone with "R" behind their name turns your automatic spin machine into high gear.
During the Sutton deal, every single time the Dems - in any way - said or did something that could be remotely construed as supportive, you stuck it to them.
Now, the House's top Republican is on the defense for Klaudt, someone who is somewhat guilty through his own admsission. It's not like the Sutton issue, where there was question.
He's the Speaker of the House and he's defending Klaudt.
He's there as a friend. He's there in support. He's there when no one else would be.
And if it were a Dem, PP, you'd be all over him for it. It's nice when people like you, PP, are able to point out at the beginning, whether the Dems would show the same kind of "compassion" in this situation as they asked for in the Sutton hearing.
The real question is - will the Republicans show the same kind of blood thirsty rage.
Of course not. Of course not.
And while you're comndeming the action, PP, you are doing nothing to attack the politics of the situation - something you clearly would have done if it were a democrat in shackles.
You let Deadrick slide. You let the people who took money from Klaudt's PAC slide.
Your're a partisan shame, PP.
PP ios not defending anybody, i would say that he is very upset over the matter.
It is amazing how you spin things and i would say you are not alone!
I feel you are wrong about your assumption(s)!
Poster 12:04
This is not PP but I do not think you are correct. I suggest reading some of the different post on this blog.
PP is not defending anybody, i would say that he is very upset over the matter.
It is amazing how you spin things and i would say you are not alone!
I feel you are wrong about your assumption(s
I think Jack is right. Deadrick is a lawyer, fine. But he's also the Speaker of the House for the State of South Dakota. If he were just some random lawyer, it'd be different.
This post is only here because the lawyer representing Klaudt happens to be the Speaker of the House.
Tim Johnson is a lawyer. But if he had represented Gary Condit or Mark Foley, no one would be saying "that's what lawyers do"
The hubris is that he thought first and foremost about his "friend" and "client," rather than the pages he, as leader of the House, is charged with protecting.
But even more remarkable, by inserting himself as a lawyer in this case, he has essentially prevented himself from being able to serve in any capacity in terms of investigating what happened. He now has a professional and legal obligation to conduct himself as Klaudt's advocate - an obligation that extends beyond his short term representation of Klaudt. The attorney-client privilege has already attached. He has injected himself into the case.
So now, the Speaker of the House, has professional responsibility that prevent him from investigating the crimes committed by a then-sitting member of the House against a page.
I am an attorney. And I don't understand why he would involve himself like this. Lawyers that serve in Pierre obviously have complex relationships to consider when accepting clients -- both political and substantive. Here, he's made it more difficult for the House to investigate what occured, and he's compromised his ability to participate in any subsequent civil proceedings that will likely arise from the matter.
And on top of all of that, the public won't buy the argument "that's what lawyers do" when a high ranking elected official is involved.
It just makes no sense any way you look at it.
Any legislator out there willing to take this eminently reasonable, logical, and ethical stand?
To protect the children and try to do what is best for all concerned including the state i would step to the plate!!!!
J.
Right.
To whom does the Speaker of House owe a commitment, the total House who elected him, the children that have been demonstratively injured or a friend?
Though I am a Civil Engineer, my experience in Legislature makes the points made by "Lawyer" at 11:43 really important. Why did the Speaker create this problem for the House?
Too bad Jerry Blackwell's gone. A cage match between him & Klaudt would have been good entertainment. (PP will get this even if you don't).
As far as Gene A. being the moral compass of anything or anyone - yeah, right! Maybe he can sell that type of an idea to his drinking buddies at Marso's or any other bar in the state - but no one who really knows him either believes it or can stand to listend to him and his babbling non-sensical positions. Thank goodness for term limitss!!