Corson County information on Klaudt Rape Charges
Here's some of the information on the Corson County Charges: COUNT I That on or about December of 2005, in the County of Corson, State of South Dakota, Ted Alvin Klaudt did commit the public offense of SECOND DEGREE RAPE (SDCL 22-22-1(2)) in that he did accomplish an act of sexual penetration with his foster daughter, A.M., through the use of force or coercion; and as to COUNT II That on or about July or August of 2006, in the County of Corson, State of South Dakota, Ted Alvin Klaudt did commit the public offense of SECOND DEGREE RAPE (SDCL 22-22-1(2)) in that he did accomplish an act of sexual penetration with his foster daughter, A.M., through the use of force or coercion; and as to COUNT III That on or about July or August of 2006, in the County of Corson, State of South Dakota, Ted Alvin Klaudt did commit the public offense of SECOND DEGREE RAPE (SDCL 22-22-1(2)) in that he did accomplish an act of sexual penetration, separate and distinct from the act alleged in Count II, with...
Comments
IMHO, the topic is directed towards the Rapid Mayor's race.
I have to admit that I am curious what the others spent.
I just may have to look it up if their reports are in.
I guess wierdness in RC politics is nothing new - it's been going on for years.
Just imagine all of the madcap adventures when RC has a new mayor doling out the patronage.
I will try to shed some light on the Schumacher/Rollinger entry.
This is yet another amendment to a previous report, Rollinger ran for a city council seat one year ago and he was defeated by L. Lacroix.
I can only assume Hamilton and Schumacher are having trouble keeping track of what lies they told to whom, this is from the same election that they shifted money to say Schumacher helped Kooiker, which he didnt.
this makes like 3-4 changes concerning that election and Hamiltons PAC,,, you gotta wonder how many changes before they get it right ?
It does not appear to be an amendment. I am saying it should have been an amendment. As I understand it, donations and expenses are for a particular campaign, or, for specific periods of time. The payment to Rollinger was for a period of time or election in the past, therefore, tht expenditure should have been reported as an amendment. If Hamiltons PAC had this much trouble with one election, maybe, the SOS should take a closer look ?