By: Master James Allen
March 27, 2025
One of the three middle-aged sons of our family friends has been ostracized by local authorities in his own home town for pathetic "charges" which have all involved no harm to anyone or anyone's property. The basis of many false accusations takes root in harmless political ideologies and American state national origins. The spirit of the law is one in which we turn to our Bible to help us live in harmony on God's planet Earth, at the same time through stewardship we harm no one.... unless, of course, we were just like the evil greedy people at the sham South Dakota Justice System. More specifically Codington County, South Dakota.
Only now, the people being harmed with malice aforethought at the hands of the South Dakota justice system, are the man himself, his former wife, his daughter, his Mother, his Father and his other brothers. I am hearing first hand what a stacked deck full of losers think they're some kind of lawful or legal authority.
Based on this report, we are going to delve into numerous counterclaims, numerous questions to pose on cross examination and numerous additional matters to bring before the Courts to defend this man, and to appeal any fictional "charges" being interposed all over an otherwise good man; as well as to see to it that the fullest administrative remedy can take place to discipline bad actors in the so-called law-enforcement community, in the so-called justice system and the so-called law-fare communities -- albeit the jokes they've all become over an extended period of time.
Table of Contents
Charges As Listed In Codington Sheriff Office. 2
22-11-4 - Resisting Arrest > Cash Only - $7525.00 - Judge Means. 3
22-42-6 - Possession of Marijuana 2 oz or less > Cash Only - $2525.00 - Judge Pesall 5
32-12-65 - Driving While Revoked. 7
32-12-67 - Possession of Revoked, Altered or Fictitious License. 8
22-42-5 - Possession Controlled Drug or Substance. 10
22-7-8.1 - Habitual Criminal (3+ Felony Convictions None w/Violence) 11
23A-43-31 - Felony Failure to Appear 13
22-11-6 - Obstructing Officer, Jailer, Firefighter 15
Charges As Listed In Codington Sheriff Office
22-11-4 - Resisting Arrest > Cash Only - $7525.00 - Judge Means
22-42-6 - Possession of Marijuana 2 oz or less > Cash Only - $2525.00 - Judge Pesall
32-12-65 - Driving While Revoked
32-12-67 - Possession of Revoked, Altered or Fictitious License
22-42-5 - Possession Controlled Drug or Substance
22-7-8.1 - Habitual Criminal (3+ Felony Convictions None w/Violence)
23A-43-31 - Felony Failure to Appear
22-11-6 - Obstructing Officer, Jailer, Firefighter
22-11-4 - Resisting Arrest
23A-43-31 - Felony Failure to Appear - Arrested
22-7-8.1 - Habitual Criminal (3+ Felony Convictions None w/Violence)
22-42-6 - Possession of Marijuana 2 oz or less
22-11-4 - Resisting Arrest
32-12-65 - Driving While Revoked
32-12-67 - Possession of Revoked, Altered or Fictitious License
22-42-5 - Possession Controlled Drug or Substance
22-11-4 - Resisting Arrest > Cash Only - $7525.00 - Judge Means
South Dakota Statutes 22-11-4: Overview and Explanation
- South Dakota Codified Law (SDCL) 22-11-4 pertains to the crime of “resisting arrest” in the state of South Dakota. This statute outlines the legal consequences for individuals who intentionally resist or obstruct a law enforcement officer in the performance of their duties, particularly during an arrest.
Step-by-Step Breakdown of SDCL 22-11-4
Definition of Resisting Arrest:
- Under this statute, resisting arrest occurs when an individual knowingly and willfully resists or obstructs a law enforcement officer while they are attempting to perform their lawful duties. This includes any physical or non-physical actions that hinder the officer’s ability to carry out an arrest.
Key Elements of the Crime:
To be charged under this statute, certain elements must be proven:
- The individual acted intentionally
- The resistance or obstruction was directed at a law enforcement officer
- The officer was performing their official duties at the time (e.g., making an arrest)
- Both physical resistance (e.g., struggling against being handcuffed) and non-physical resistance (e.g., refusing to comply with verbal commands) can fall under this statute
Legal Consequences:
Resisting arrest is classified as a Class 1 misdemeanor in South Dakota.
A Class 1 misdemeanor is the most serious level of misdemeanor in the state and can result in penalties such as:
- Up to one year in jail
- A fine of up to $2,000
- These penalties may vary depending on the circumstances surrounding the offense, including whether additional charges are involved (e.g., assaulting an officer)
Scope and Application:
- The statute applies broadly to any situation where a person interferes with an officer’s lawful duties, not just during arrests but also potentially during other official actions like serving warrants or conducting investigations
- However, it does not apply if the officer’s actions are unlawful or exceed their authority
Defenses Against Charges:
Common defenses against charges under SDCL 22-11-4 include:
- Proving that the officer was acting outside their legal authority
- Demonstrating that there was no intentional resistance or obstruction
- Showing evidence that any alleged resistance was due to misunderstanding rather than willful intent
Importance of SDCL 22-11-4
This statute underscores South Dakota’s commitment to maintaining public order by ensuring that law enforcement officers can perform their duties without interference. It also provides clear guidelines for what constitutes unlawful resistance, helping both citizens and officers understand their rights and responsibilities during interactions.
South Dakota Statutes 22-11-4 defines resisting arrest as knowingly obstructing or interfering with a law enforcement officer’s lawful duties, punishable as a Class 1 misdemeanor with potential penalties including up to one year in jail and/or fines up to $2,000.
22-42-6 - Possession of Marijuana 2 oz or less > Cash Only - $2525.00 - Judge Pesall
South Dakota Statutes 22-42-6: Possession of a Controlled Substance
South Dakota Codified Law (SDCL) 22-42-6 pertains to the possession of controlled substances. This statute makes it unlawful for any person to knowingly possess a controlled drug or substance unless the individual has a valid prescription or is otherwise authorized by law. Below is a detailed breakdown of this statute:
Key Provisions of SDCL 22-42-6
1. Prohibition on Possession
The statute explicitly prohibits the possession of any controlled drug or substance that falls under Schedules I through IV as defined by South Dakota’s controlled substances laws. These schedules categorize drugs based on their potential for abuse, accepted medical use, and safety under medical supervision.
2. Knowledge Requirement
For a person to be convicted under this law, they must “knowingly” possess the controlled substance. This means that the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual was aware of both the presence and the nature of the substance in their possession.
3. Exceptions
Individuals who have a valid prescription issued by a licensed healthcare provider are exempt from prosecution under this statute.
Other lawful authorizations, such as those granted to certain professionals (e.g., pharmacists or law enforcement officers), may also serve as exceptions.
4. Penalties
Under SDCL 22-42-6, possession of a controlled substance is classified as a Class 5 felony in South Dakota. However:
- If the substance involved is marijuana in an amount less than two ounces, different statutes apply (e.g., SDCL 22-42-7)
- A Class 5 felony carries potential penalties including up to five years in prison and/or a fine of up to $10,000
5. Aggravating Factors
Certain circumstances can lead to enhanced penalties:
- Repeat offenses
- Possession near schools or other protected areas
- Possession with intent to distribute (which would fall under separate statutes like SDCL 22-42-2)
Legal Implications and Considerations
The statute reflects South Dakota’s strict stance on drug control and aims to deter illegal drug possession while allowing legitimate medical use through prescriptions. Defendants charged under this law often face significant legal consequences, making it critical for them to seek legal counsel promptly.
Conclusion
South Dakota Statute 22-42-6 criminalizes the knowing possession of controlled substances without proper authorization or prescription, classifying it as a Class 5 felony punishable by up to five years in prison and/or fines up to $10,000. Exceptions exist for individuals with valid prescriptions or lawful authorization.
32-12-65 - Driving While Revoked
Overview of South Dakota Statute 32-12-65
South Dakota Codified Laws § 32-12-65 addresses the offense of driving a motor vehicle while one’s driver’s license or driving privilege is revoked, suspended, or canceled. This statute outlines the legal implications and penalties associated with such actions.
Key Provisions of SDCL 32-12-65
- Definition of Offense: The statute specifies that any person who drives a motor vehicle on public highways in South Dakota while their driving privilege is revoked, suspended, or canceled commits a misdemeanor. This means that the act itself is considered illegal regardless of the circumstances surrounding the suspension or revocation.
- Legal Consequences: The consequences for violating this law can include criminal charges that may lead to fines, additional suspension periods, or even jail time depending on the severity and frequency of the offenses.
- Related Statutes: This statute is often referenced in conjunction with other laws concerning driver licensing and penalties for violations related to driving under the influence (DUI) or other serious traffic offenses.
- Implications for Drivers:
Driving with a revoked, suspended, or canceled license not only poses legal risks but also endangers public safety. The law aims to deter individuals from operating vehicles when they are not legally permitted to do so.
In summary, any person who drives a motor vehicle on any public highway of this State at a time when his privilege is revoked, suspended, or canceled commits a misdemeanor under South Dakota Codified Laws § 32-12-65.
32-12-67 - Possession of Revoked, Altered or Fictitious License
Overview of South Dakota Statute 32-12-67
S.D. Codified Laws § 32-12-67 addresses the legal implications surrounding the possession of certain types of driver licenses in South Dakota. This statute is part of the broader framework governing motor vehicles and driver licensing in the state.
Key Provisions of the Statute
Definition of Offense: The statute specifies that it is a Class 1 misdemeanor for any person to:
- Display or cause to be displayed,
- Have in their possession, or
Permit to be displayed, any Driver License that is:
- Canceled
- Revoked
- Suspended
- Fictitious, or
- Fraudulently altered
Legal Consequences:
Being charged with a Class 1 misdemeanor can result in various penalties, which may include fines and potential jail time, depending on the specifics of the case and prior offenses.
Purpose of the Law:
The underlying purpose of this law is to maintain the integrity of driver licensing by preventing individuals from using invalid or fraudulent licenses. This helps ensure public safety on the roads by ensuring that only qualified individuals are permitted to drive.
Implications for Individuals:
- Individuals found in possession of a revoked or altered license face serious legal repercussions. It is crucial for drivers to understand that possessing such documents not only violates state law but also undermines public trust in the licensing system.
- In summary, it is a Class 1 misdemeanor for any person to display or cause or permit to be displayed or have in that person’s possession any canceled, revoked, suspended, fictitious, or fraudulently altered driver license.
Authoritative Sources
S.D. Codified Laws § 32-12-67 [Source]
Justia Law [Source]
22-42-5 - Possession Controlled Drug or Substance
Overview of South Dakota Statute 22-42-5
Unauthorized possession of a controlled substance is classified as a felony in South Dakota. According to South Dakota Codified Laws § 22-42-5, no individual may knowingly possess a controlled drug or substance unless it has been obtained directly or through a valid prescription or order from a licensed practitioner acting within the scope of their professional practice. This statute is part of the broader framework governing controlled substances in the state.
Key Elements of the Statute
- Definition of Unauthorized Possession: The law clearly states that possession is unauthorized if the individual does not have a valid prescription or order from a licensed medical practitioner. This means that any possession outside these parameters is considered illegal.
- Classification as a Felony: A violation of this statute constitutes a Class 4 felony. This classification indicates that the offense is taken seriously under South Dakota law, and it carries significant penalties.
- Historical Context: The statute has undergone various amendments since its inception, reflecting changes in societal attitudes towards drug use and regulation over time. The original enactment dates back to 1970, with subsequent revisions aimed at addressing evolving concerns regarding controlled substances.
- Legal Consequences: Being charged with unauthorized possession can lead to severe legal repercussions, including imprisonment and fines. As a Class 4 felony, individuals found guilty could face substantial prison time and financial penalties, which are designed to deter illegal possession and promote public safety.
Conclusion
In summary, the unauthorized possession of a controlled drug or substance in South Dakota is classified as a Class 4 felony, emphasizing the state’s strict stance on drug control and regulation1. Individuals must ensure they possess drugs only through legitimate channels to avoid serious legal consequences.
Authoritative Sources
Source: South Dakota Codified Laws § 22-42-5
22-7-8.1 - Habitual Criminal (3+ Felony Convictions None w/Violence)
Overview of South Dakota Statute 22-7-8.1
South Dakota Codified Laws § 22-7-8.1 addresses the sentencing enhancement for defendants who have been convicted of three or more felonies, provided that none of these prior convictions are classified as crimes of violence. This statute is part of the habitual offender laws in South Dakota, which aim to impose stricter penalties on repeat offenders.
Key Provisions of the Statute
Eligibility Criteria:
A defendant must have three or more felony convictions in addition to the principal felony for which they are currently being sentenced.
Importantly, none of these prior felony convictions can be for a crime of violence as defined in subdivision § 22-1-2(9).
Sentence Enhancement:
- If the criteria are met, the sentence for the principal felony will be enhanced by two levels.
- However, this enhancement cannot exceed the maximum sentence for a Class C felony.
Parole Eligibility:
- A defendant sentenced under this statute is eligible for consideration for parole if their sentence is less than life imprisonment, as outlined in § 24-15A-32.
Implications of the Statute
- The implications of this statute are significant for individuals with multiple felony convictions. It serves as a deterrent against repeat offenses by increasing potential penalties while also providing a pathway to parole under certain conditions. The focus on non-violent felonies allows courts to differentiate between types of criminal behavior when determining appropriate sentences.
In summary, South Dakota Codified Laws § 22-7-8.1 enhances sentences for defendants with three or more non-violent felony convictions by two levels but caps enhancements at Class C felony limits and allows parole eligibility under specific conditions1.
Authoritative Sources
South Dakota Codified Laws § 22-7-8.1 (2011). [Justia]
23A-43-31 - Felony Failure to Appear
Overview of South Dakota Statute 23A-43-31
South Dakota Codified Laws 23A-43-31 addresses the consequences for individuals who fail to appear in court after being released on bail. This statute outlines the penalties associated with such failures based on the nature of the original charges against the individual.
Key Provisions of SDCL 23A-43-31
Failure to Appear: The statute states that any person who has been released pursuant to this chapter and fails to appear before any court or judicial officer as required will forfeit any security given for their release.
Classification of Offenses:
- If the individual was released in connection with a charge of a felony, they will be guilty of a Class 6 felony.
- If the individual was released in connection with a charge of a misdemeanor, they will be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
- If the individual was released as a material witness, they will also be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
Implications of Failure to Appear
- The implications of failing to appear are significant, as it not only results in forfeiture of bail but also leads to additional criminal charges that can affect an individual’s legal standing and future interactions with the justice system.
Conclusion
In summary, under South Dakota law, failing to appear in court after being released on bail can result in serious legal consequences, including being charged with either a Class 6 felony or a Class 1 misdemeanor depending on the nature of the original charges.
The statute aims to ensure compliance with court appearances and maintain order within the judicial process, thereby promoting public welfare by preventing disruptions caused by missed court dates.
Authoritative Sources
South Dakota Codified Laws 23A-43-31. [LawServer]
State v. Vogel, 315 N.W.2d 324 (S.D.1982). [Case Law]
22-11-6 - Obstructing Officer, Jailer, Firefighter
Overview of South Dakota Statute 22-11-6
South Dakota Codified Laws § 22-11-6 addresses the offense of obstructing law enforcement officers, firefighters, or emergency management personnel. This statute outlines the actions that constitute obstruction and the legal consequences associated with such actions.
Key Elements of the Statute
- Definition of Obstruction: The statute defines obstruction as any intentional act that impairs or hinders the enforcement of criminal laws or the preservation of peace by a law enforcement officer, jailer, firefighter, or emergency management personnel acting under color of authority. This includes using or threatening to use violence, force, or physical interference.
- Scope of Authority: The term “acting under color of authority” refers to officials performing their duties within the scope of their assigned responsibilities. This means that even if an officer’s actions are later deemed unlawful, it does not provide a defense against charges of obstruction if they were acting in good faith based on the circumstances at hand.
- Classification of Offense: Violating this statute is classified as a Class 1 misdemeanor in South Dakota. This classification indicates that it is considered a serious offense but is less severe than felony charges.
- Exceptions: The statute mentions exceptions provided in other sections (specifically §§ 22-11-4 and 22-11-5), which may outline different circumstances under which obstruction might be evaluated differently.
Legal Implications
- The implications for individuals found guilty under this statute can include penalties typical for Class 1 misdemeanors in South Dakota, which may involve fines and potential jail time. The law emphasizes the importance of compliance with lawful orders from officials and underscores the seriousness with which obstructive behaviors are treated within the legal system.
In summary, South Dakota Codified Laws § 22-11-6 establishes clear guidelines regarding obstructing law enforcement and emergency personnel, detailing what constitutes obstruction and outlining its legal ramifications.
Authoritative Sources
S.D. Codified Laws § 22-11-5 - Unlawful arrest no defense if officer acting under color of authority with reasonable force [source]
South Dakota Codified Laws Title 22 - Crimes Chapter 11 - Obstruction Of The Administration Of Government [source]
The foregoing content serves as the springboard for an open dialog whereby we post many questions which need to be asked dirrectly to every one of the involved "so-called law enforcement operators" while they are placed under oath in front of the Jury of our Peers.
The US Department of Justice
Complaints are being submitted to the US Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility
https://www.justice.gov/opr/webform/how-file-complaint-office-professional-responsibility
To Whom It May Concern:
Judge CARMEN MEANS, aka Carmen Means, has been notified that defendant Travis John Stadheim is required to testify as a key witness in the prosecution's case regarding allegations of racketeering and conspiracy within the South Dakota Unified Judicial System. This matter has been filed and served upon the multiple defendants.
TRAVIS JOHN STADHEIM, aka Travis Stadheim, a defendant in multiple civil and criminal cases, is facing coordinated attacks from the SD UJS, the US Marshals Service, the Colorado State Police, and other agencies, with sixteen charges based on false allegations centering around an apparent vendetta over the man's political ideologies concerning sovereignty. This Judge is obstructing justice, by preventing evidence from being presented that could prove the man's innocence, in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act and the Civil Rights Act.
Additionally, Travis John Stadheim has been physically assaulted and injured while restrained in court in handcuffs and leg irons. He has chosen to represent himself pro se but has been compelled to accept a incompetent public defender and a not guilty plea against his will. He has been warning officials of their multiple counts of violating his rights in many areas concerned herein. His warning results in their forcing his silence.
In unrelated matters, this Watertown, South Dakota, man shares a daughter with a local woman who has deep connections to the family of a County Sheriff Deputy. The mother learned through hearsay that her former husband's parents were selling unneeded real estate. Given the woman's tendency for unjust enrichment and knowing her ex-husband was incarcerated, she decided to approach Judge Carmen Means. Then, due to her familial ties, she was secretly invited into the Judge's chambers to discuss filing new child support claims without informing her own legal counsel who offices at the opposite end of the state. Judge Means accommodated and conspired to find ways to extract more resources from TRAVIS JOHN STADHEIM. His ex-wife lost her legal representation due to this action and we have the counsel's written resignation. Meanwhile, Judge Means is practicing law from the bench, providing legal advice to potential litigants on unrelated matters while a wrongfully incarcerated man awaits their scheme targeting his parents, who are successful local business owners and land owners.
After Judge Means learned that the defendant would testify in a federal case involving multiple active litigants under RICO violations, the following day, the defendant's parents, both in their mid to late 60s, were arrested on trumped up felony charges for aiding and abetting their son. Their intention was solely to assist in their son's defense against what appears to be valid racketeering occurring within the South Dakota Unified Judicial System by attempting to secure competent legal counsel to support their son's pro se motion to dismiss and counterclaims.
Charges are being filed in Codington County against this man who was arrested while not present in South Dakota. His parents were not involved in any criminal activities. This situation involves harassment across multiple jurisdictions and numerous interagency task forces. The U.S. Marshals Service is pursuing bail arrangements as TRAVIS JOHN STADHEIM awaits extradition from Colorado to South Dakota. It is crucial for him to assist in investigating allegations of racketeering to halt these criminal conspiracies.
A recent case has entered federal litigation in South Dakota, involving multiple individuals. We believe that the state's attorney's office is shielding corrupt practices within the lower courts. In one instance, a judge is married to a deputy state attorney currently employed in the state attorney's office.
A key issue in the RICO claim involves an individual representing the state attorney's office in various land grab conspiracies against lawful landowners. This situation highlights unlawful land grabs, civil rights violations, criminal conspiracy, and judicial overreach, including acting on hearsay evidence and practicing law from the bench without proven personal jurisdiction.
