Witches Brew Trouble for Taxpayers in Pennington County October

James Bialota | Investigation | Nov. 1

Taxpayers now seem to be footing the bill for a pet project of Pennington County State's Attorney Lara Roetzel.

Additionally, Roetzel and Pennington County are already being sued by one individual. How many more will be suing for additional constitutional rights violations? The State’s Attorney’s recent fail at press intimidation at the Pennington County Commission meeting on 10/6/2026 compounds the issue, as Commissioner Hadcock tried to bail her out by attempting to invent separate rules for different press.

Lara Roetzel, the elected Pennington County States Attorney (PCSA) (prosecutor), was filmed trying (several times) to intimidate, harass and antagonize a member of the press from the Bialota Network, an investigative journalism media company.

Why? The owner of the Bialota Network, James Bialota, had just outlined to the County Commission several felonies that Lara Roetzel appears to have recently committed.  Bialota’s Public Comments focused on 2 serious issues - the 1^st amendment and forgery.

The Pennington County States Attorney’s office is accused of 1^st amendment violations, such as deleting public comments on Government social media pages.  Deleting public comments from official social media accounts in South Dakota generally violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. 

Proof of the allegations (which we are in possession of) shows that the Pennington County State’s Attorney’s Office (PCSAO) deprived citizens of their 1^st amendment rights under the color of law, which violates 18 USC 242, a federal felony.  It appears it was carried out by the PCSAO media specialist (Katy Urban) on behalf of Lara Roetzel. A federal prosecutor could also charge Roetzel with conspiracy to deprive rights under the color of law, 18 USC 241 - another federal felony since more than one person was involved in the action to intentionally deprive people of their God-given constitutional rights.

When observing case law regarding deleting and blocking the public on government social media accounts and the accounts of elected officials, it is quite clear that actions such as these have been ruled unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court.

1. Lindke v. Freed (2024): The US Supreme Court ruled that if a public official uses their personal page to create official posts, such as exclusive government business that they have the legal authority to manage, then deleting a user's comment or blocking them violates the First Amendment. 

   1. Official Agency & Office Pages: For an official page (e.g., "SD Attorney General" or "Pennington County States Attorney"), the Lindke threshold is automatically met. The account clearly carries actual state authority. On these pages, blocking users from viewing content or selectively hiding/deleting comments based on their viewpoint is strictly unconstitutional.

2. The 8th Federal Appellate Circuit ruled in Felts v. Reed (2024) that public officials are still civilly liable even if they restore the rights or if the official resigns.

Bialota did not stop there. Fresh evidence from the County Commissioner's office suggests that Lara Roetzel forged a document in the Rhoden case against Bialota, which is currently on appeal. In that case, additional evidence of serious judicial, prosecutorial, and law enforcement misconduct is coming out.  The document in question assigned a special prosecutor to target Bialota, listed an oath of office to be impartial, and included a public surety bond as insurance.   

However, the bond was canceled long before the Document was filed in 2026. The County Commissioners requested answers, not once but twice from the State’s Attorney. Our investigator went to request the records from the Prosecutor's office under SDCL 1-27-1, which states that they can be viewed during office hours. The office demanded a written request for these financial records, which isn't required. The eventual answer? The Bond had been canceled since January 2017, almost a decade prior.

Then there's the separate perjury issue on the oath to be impartial; we already know the Special State’s Attorneys own comments on the record were perjured. The attorney in question publicly admitted on the court record a desire to jail Bialota for accusing him and the SD Attorney General of crimes, rather than jailing him for the charged offense. The investigation report into Marty Jackley (which appears validated by the independent investigation by the North Dakota Bureau of Criminal Investigation) clearly shows the case was closed because the prosecutor declined to prosecute, not that Jackley did not commit the offenses.

This is called prosecutor discretion, meaning the prosecutor can decide whether or not to prosecute someone for (allegedly) breaking the law. It was never designed to be a free pass for elected officials, or protection for the prosecutor's friends. Records show that this prosecutor from Hughes County had worked with Jackley on at least one higher profile case. Under United States v. Goodwin, 457 U.S. 368 (1982), prosecutorial vindictiveness is an absolute bar to a conviction. So, will the Bialota conviction be overturned based on the clear evidence of vindictive prosecution? Time will tell.

Additionally, forgery per SDCL 22-39-36 is a class 5 felony, punishable by up to 5 years in prison. Offering the forged document to the court is a class 6 felony, punishable by up to 2 years in prison per SDCL 22-11-28.1. Other charges could also be possible, such as SDCL 16-18-26, misconduct by attorney (a misdemeanor).

Immediately after James Bialota finished speaking about this at the County Commission meeting, Bialota pulled out his phone to film the reaction of Lara Roetzel after outing her personal crimes against the public.

Her response was immediate: Roetzel in a hysterical outburst, yelled “What's your problem?” Bialota explained calmly he was press and simply recording a public meeting, which is completely protected by the 1^st amendment. The Commission, unsure as to who caused the outburst, called on Bialota, who approached the podium again and stated it was States Attorney Lara Roetzel who made the outburst. After leaving the podium, Roetzel again attempted to antagonize, retorting "bye James" as Bialota walked by, as if she had been the cause for Bialota's exit.

This is a reoccurring theme with Roetzel. In 2025 she pulled the same move and had Sheriff Brian Mueller escort Bialota from a public meeting for her own outburst, again after Bialota had finished public speaking. Roetzel previously blamed on Bialota for simply being there. After Roetzel’s past tantrums, Bialota made sure to record ahead of this attempt.

Deb Hadcock of the Pennington County Commission then called out Bialota for silently standing and filming, claiming that Bialota was disturbing a public meeting. Bialota returned to the Podium after being personally attacked, citing Roberts Rules of Order. Bialota pointed out that there were other members of the media there doing the same or similar thing to him, and they had not been called out. Bialota then told Deb Hadcock to be quiet and sit down. When Bialota returned to film, it appeared Roetzel realized she had been embarrassed, and didn't have any more comments. Bialota's challenge of Commissioner Hadcock displayed that the press and Pennington County's citizens would no longer take disrespect from those they elected.

Now, why do the State's Attorney and her employee Katy Urban desire to block certain investigative journalism? It appears that they don't want the cost of their pet project, the "Justice in Action" podcast, to be exposed to the taxpayers. At the price of thousands of dollars, Katy Urban and Lara Roetzel have been busy producing their own taxpayer funded show that violate election campaign finance laws. 

How is the show a violation of the law? The prosecutor and her staff are using the taxpayer funded show to plug election issues on the taxpayer’s dime, specifically the School Bond that is up for a vote November 3rd. SDCL 12-27-20, titled "public funds to influence election outcome prohibited," and SDCL 12-27-21, titled "contribution or loan from public or foreign entity—prohibition" state that using tax funds for activities such as this is illegal.

It appears that the County or State's Attorney was prohibited from doing this, and did so anyway. Who will prosecute her? Did the Commissioners know how much the County was paying for this unethical self-promotional series? Why are taxpayers paying for this, and do they know that they are?

Unfortunately, this is not the 1^st time Pennington County blocked free speech or media at Commission meetings. A previous viral video of a county meeting on 9/2/2025 showed Deb Hadcock ordering the removal of Bialota from a public meeting for naming names in corruption, which is a constitutionally protected activity. The Sheriff, Brian Mueller, then threatened Bialota with arrest if he did not leave a public meeting during his public comment period of 3 minutes.

See the video here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmVPNwvyLQQ

Bialota was shut down immediately, and never allowed to start or complete his comment on the record during his allotted time. During the incident, Brian Mueller and one of his Lieutenants were caught trying to turn off the microphone, before making an unlawful threat of arrest over a constitutionally protected activity (which was captured on the hot mic).

The video was shared nationwide and reshared by nationally famous You-Tubers and bloggers who applauded Bialota for standing up for his rights and naming names for the crimes they were committing. The video accumulated well over a million views across platforms.

Local press, however, never reported, which is a significant problem we face. Have other members of the press been threatened to play ball? Do campaign ads from the accused individuals guide the local media’s press reporting decisions?

SDCL 1-25-1, official meetings open to public, includes requirements for public comment, with a violation punishable as a misdemeanor. Federal Law makes it a felony to deprive someone of their constitutional rights under the color of law (18 USC 242), such as the 1^st amendment right to free speech, redress of grievances, press, petition and assembly. If Bialota had prayed, they would have violated all five major principals of the 1^st amendment.

Commissioner Hadcock, Sheriff Mueller, & Lt Henrick appear to have obviously broken the law in 2025, not to mention a county employee who came up behind Bialota with a German Sheppard and appeared to be shaking a can of mace. All this for the crime of speaking when called upon at a public meeting.

What does the public do when rights are taken away with threats of violence? Bialota has already served an intention to sue Pennington County over Roetzel and Deb Hadcock’s prior actions. Bialota stated; “everything going forward shows a pattern and practice of misconduct to personally violate the 1^st amendment and retaliate.” The complaints included blocking free speech, press and the right redress of grievances at public meetings, being threatened with arrest for naming names in corruption, and banning press and individuals from commenting and viewing the government funded-State’s Attorney's official government social media accounts. 

Are we at the point that the DOJ should get involved, especially the new SD federal prosecutor?  The local sheriff isn’t just not doing his job, but is actually participating in some of the civil rights violations.  Will he make amends and act to uphold the law, or turn his back on the public to save political allies?

James Bialota has publicly declared he has a way to address the corruption in South Dakota, statewide, and plans to release a plan before the November election. The idea is purported to cost the taxpayers nothing, and instead, save taxpayers money.

For real investigations, stories no one else will break, and honest, real reporting, follow the Bialota Network.