The Newly elected Coroner of Brown County is at it again. This time, she had to reap what she sowed. In a previous post, we shared the Brown County Press coverage of Jilted Judith Varnau, new Brown County Coroner, who is hellbent on continuing her husband's insane vendetta against Sheriff Dwayne Wenninger. Well, now it has affected business in the county. Varnau, who basically mouths whatever her conspiracy nut husband tells her too, never agreeing to interviews but only communicating via email or memo, ruined the relationship between the sheriff's office and the coroner. She questioned the ability of sheriff deputies to be able to process evidence or handle death scenes. Well, her chickens have come home to roost, and she is the only one looking like an arse. From intrepid editor Wayne Gates of the Brown County Press:
Varnau has complained about the actions of the Brown County Sheriff's office in an e-mail to the Brown County Commissioners.She is also asking the commissioners for a $500,000 increase in her budget. Meanwhile, Brown County Prosecuting Attorney Jessica Little has asked the commissioners to appoint special counsel for Varnau and allow her to withdraw.
In a letter to the commissioners dated Jan. 23, Little wrote; "It has come to my attention that the Coroner, Dr. Varnau, is claiming that I breached attorney-client privilege...It appears to me that I cannot continue to represent a statutory client that has made such claims against me and the county." The basis of the complaint of violation of attorney-client privilege stems from Little complying with public records requests submitted by The Brown County Press.
Brown County Commission President Tony Applegate said that the board sees no reason to grant the request of Little at this time. He added that the 2013 budget of the Coroner has been set and that an increase at this time would not be forthcoming.
So, Varnau has besmirched every law enforcement county official. She claims Little violated attorney client privilege for complying with a public records request. Gee, Mrs. Varnau, what have you to hide? Are you part of a great Varnau conspiracy? But it gets better. Following is info from the Press article about why she wants the 500k increase to her budget:
On Jan. 30, the body of Rhonda Cheesman, who had been reported missing from Georgetown, was discovered near Russellville. Varnau wrote the following e-mail to the Brown County Commissioners on Friday, Feb 1. It was obtained through a public records request.
Commissioners Applegate, Woodruff, and Gray:
On January 30, 2013, I was called out to the scene of Ms. Cheesman's car in the middle of a field, at least a quarter mile off-road, on McNoun Road. The deputies escorted me to the scene and relayed that it was a coroner's death scene and refused to be involved. Although I remarked that as agreed upon January 3rd, the coroner's scene should be the immediate area surrounding the body. So, the entire car in the field was not the coroner's scene. The deputies stated that if the Sheriff's Office was needed for further assistance, I would have to request it through the prosecutor's office. They left me alone out in the field with a locked car containing a dead body with no way of accessing the body, so I could not do my job of determining the manner and cause of death. I then called for a towing company, Shafer Towing, and Carl Shafer and his assistant "Dennis" responded to the location. Carl assisted in getting the car unlocked. I made a cursory exam of the body and noted what appeared to be potential bruising on the decedent's hands and moisture content surrounding the body, causing me to think that it was a suspicious death, but could be a suicide with special circumstances (normal procedure is to investigate all suspected suicides as potential homicides). I called the Communications Center to contact Jessica Little so that I could summon SO assistance on the scene. She stated she would contact the SO. After waiting more than an hour, I contacted the Communications Center to get an estimated time of arrival (ETA) of the SO, only to find that there was no request made to the SO to respond. In calling Jessica Little again, she stated that she left a message on my phone (my home phone) while I was out in the field at the scene, not leaving a potential crime scene unattended which would have broken any chain of evidence present. In contacting her again, she stated that she needed my written report and a written request for what kind of evidence the SO would need for me from the scene. She also stated that it was my responsibility to preserve and secure the scene and obtain evidence for use in any potential trial. I explained to her that I was out in the field (in the rain, sleet, mud, and cold), keeping the scene secured without capabilities to write and/or fax a coroner's report for her to request SO assistance at the scene. She stated she was sorry but could not do anything since I did not sign the SO policy. Apparently, more new policies were developed (that I was not informed of prior to this incident) that I had not signed. I then contacted the Communications Center, asking them to contact the Sheriff for me. I got a reply call from Chief Schadle. He said that the SO would not assist until after the autopsy report confirmed that it was a homicide, due to the new policy developed because I would not sign the prior SO policy. I told him I was not aware of a new policy different from our agreements made at the January 3, 2013 meeting. I then contacted the Communications Center to have them contact BCI to get an investigative unit out to the scene. I first responded to the scene at 1550 hrs by call from the Communications Center at 1530 hrs.
I remained on the scene along with Carl Shafer and my husband (who I called to come help, arriving at the scene about 1730 hrs), waiting for BCI to show up, keeping the scene secure for investigation. (Sgt. Hency from Russellville PD also came out around 1945 hrs with heavier coats, gloves, rain gear, and flashlights, after he called my husband to find out if we needed anything. He remained on the scene with the three of us until the vehicle was removed from the field and put on the rollback tow truck). When BCI arrived, they did a cursory scene assessment in the field where there was so much mud and water around the vehicle that it would be impossible to make any determination of tire tracks, etc, and they decided that it would be best to remove the car from the field and take it to a garage where the vehicle and body could be processed by the BCI agents, as the only scene now was inside the vehicle. The vehicle was towed to Mount Orab Maintenance Building for processing, which was completed about 0150 hrs, and I left to notify the next-of-kin on Hamer Road from about 0200 to 0315 hrs.
Now, remember, it was Dr. Varnau who raised issues about deputiees being liable for handling death scenes and how death scenes were her territory. Sheriff Wenninger and Co. were following the letter of the law. After all, we wouldn't want to violate the law and be subject to charges by Varnau, who does have the power to charge law enforcemement with breaking rules of evidence, etc. But yet, she calls her husband to come to a crime scene and I don't believe he is a law enforcement official, just an attorney. So isn't her calling in her husband to a potential crime scene a possible break in the chain of evidence? Ms. Varnau goes on to complain that she was unaware of changes to policy, when my sources tell me every effort has been made to get her to come to some type of agreement with the sheriff's office. Ms. Varnau's statements do not match fact, as in her claim she made no request to Jessica Little to ask the Attorney General to rule of Wenninger's qualifications for duty, even though her attorney did indeed make a request (kind of stretches plausible deniability, don't you think?). She has shown that she cares more for this vendetta than in doing her job. But here is where the 500K request comes in:
After consulting with two coroners, Clermont and Montgomery Counties, they said that I could had no power to make the SO do their duty, but if I was going to have to perform what had to be done on this type of scene regularly, then I would need about $500K to establish the necessary personnel and equipment to handle death scene cases. It was suggested that since the SO has been being paid to handle all these scenes in the past, this $500K might be deducted and/or moved from the SO budget over to the coroner's budget. The scope of my investigation was to determine the cause and manner of death. Any other investigation of a potential crime scene was the responsibility of the SO. For the coroner's office to possess the investigative capabilities, including evidence collection and storage at a coroner's office here in Brown County, I would need extra funding and change in the law to cover any assumption of these law enforcement's duties, not being a "law enforcement officer."
According to the Attorney General opinion, AGO 88-035: Scope of investigation; discretion: Neither the coroner, nor his staff may go beyond the investigative tasks necessary to determine the manner, mode, and cause of death; however, it is within the coroner's discretion to determine which investigative tasks are necessary.
When I determined that it was a suspicious scene, and that investigative protocol was necessary, the SO should have responded upon a verbal request through the Communications Center. If this were a crime scene and the perpetrator had returned to that remote field, and harmed or killed me being alone, or, if I were attacked by a pack of wild dogs or coyotes without any means to protect myself, would CORSA cover the liability incurred by the SO dereliction of duty? I, and my husband, do not think Det. Moore would have left his wife, or any other individual or elected official by themselves, out in the field unprotected from the elements and whatever could possibly happen at such a remote location."
So, what Varnau is going to do, is she is going to end up suing the county or some such nonsense claiming she is unable to do her duty. More vengeance by the Varnaus, who can't get over the fact that the County has rejected Dennis Varnau for public office again and again! Sheriff Wenninger, for his part, is trying to stay above the fray:
"If she is going to a scene and she feels that there may be a safety issue, she can call 9-1-1 and request help. We will respond if there is any danger of life and limb to her." Regarding the tensions between the two offices, Wenninger said he has no choice but to follow Ohio Law. "She insisted on going exactly by the law at the beginning of all this, so we are going to go exactly by the law as well.", he said. "If we both go exactly by the law, we'll be just fine."
Regarding her difficulty at the Cheesman death scene, Wenninger was unsympathetic. "She wanted the job and she's got it. It's up to her to do it. If she doesn't want to do the job, if it's too much for her, let her resign and get somebody else." He also said that due to recent decisions by Varnau, he cannot operate with the same level of trust with her that he has operated under with previous coroners. "I can go down a list and show you how many times she's approved our policy and then go home and come back and change her mind two or three times."
He also said he was disturbed by things Varnau has reportedly said. "She's made statements like 'If anybody touches the body, how do I go about filing charges on people'. When you have those type of statements and you can't agree on anything, it's not a good situation. We've had more problems in the past 30 days than we've had in the last 24 years with other coroners."
Wenninger said that after working with Varnau since she's taken office, he cannot go back to the way the sheriff's office operated with previous coroner Dr. Tim McKinley. He said his new policy of only assisting Varnau on homicide cases is firm and permanent. "I will not bend one bit. These type of people, if you bend a little bit to help them, they'll use it against you", Wenninger said. He added, "(Varnau and her husband Dennis) are just looking for any chance they have to get at me, and I'm not going to put my people at risk because they have a personal vendetta."
And that is what is causing all this. One man's childish vendetta because he can't get what he wants. Pathetic! And because she has earned the distrust of those who were willing to help in the past, she wants the taxpayers to pay for her seeking of vengeance and its repercussions. Dr. Varnau needs to be removed as coroner. She is a disgrace, a laughingstock, and a huge liability for the county.
Bill Cornetet has an excellent editorial regarding this at the News Democrat, and letters have been coming in to both papers asking for Varnau to be removed.....
Dr. Judith Varnau is at it again...and this time, there is a bit of a paper trail showing, shall we say, some muddling or misrepresentation of the truth...
Intrepid Editor Wayne Gates has the story at the Brown County Press:
Brown County Prosecuting Attorney Jessica Little is asking the Ohio Attorney General for a formal opinion on the qualifications of Brown County Sheriff Dwayne Wenninger to hold that office.
Little took the action after receiving a request to do so from the attorney of Brown County Coroner Dr. Judith Varnau...but Varnau herself is denying that she wanted an official Attorney General opinion on the matter.
In an e-mail to the Brown County Press, on Jan. 23, Varnau wrote "I did not request Ms. Little to forward my request (for an opinion) to the Attorney General (AG), as she has already provided me with her official legal opinion, on January 18th, that is completely sufficient to cover my concern on liability I potentially faced without it."
Brown County Prosecuting Attorney Jessica Little is asking the Ohio Attorney General for a formal opinion on the qualifications of Brown County Sheriff Dwayne Wenninger to hold that office.
Little took the action after receiving a request to do so from the attorney of Brown County Coroner Dr. Judith Varnau...but Varnau herself is denying that she wanted an official Attorney General opinion on the matter.
In an e-mail to the Brown County Press, on Jan. 23, Varnau wrote "I did not request Ms. Little to forward my request (for an opinion) to the Attorney General (AG), as she has already provided me with her official legal opinion, on January 18th, that is completely sufficient to cover my concern on liability I potentially faced without it."
So, Doctor Judy would have you believe that she has nothing to do with this request, that this is all overreach and sensational journalism. What are we supposed to believe, that her lawyer acted alone? Come on now, this is a bit much! These Varnaus are some of the most vindictive, pathetic sore losers I have ever seen. Evidently, Judy doesn't like to talk, so the Press had to do email exchanges. Makes one wonder, is Judy afraid she will deviated from Dennis's storyline, or is Dennis doing the typing?...more from the story:
In her e-mail on the matter, Varnau continued, "I asked her for the same legal opinion that I requested of the AG, on the AG's suggestion for me to consult with her."
When responding to the written question "Do you have a response to her decision?", Varnau replied "That's her decision not my request. I did not ask her to do that."
To the written question "If the Attorney General responds as they did last week, that the sheriff is qualified to serve, what will be your next step?", Varnau replied "There is no next step. I am completely satisfied with Ms. Little's official legal opinion. Ask her for a copy of that opinion."
(Little declined to release her opinion to The Brown County Press, citing attorney-client privilege to Varnau. Varnau was asked directly for the opinion via e-mail and a response had not been received at press time.)
Varnau was then asked in the e-mail: "If the Attorney General responds that the Sheriff is not qualified, what will your response be?"
Her reply: "It does not matter to me what the AG may say, as I already have an opinion from Ms. Little, legal counsel for county coroner. It's finished as far as I am concerned. My question has been satisfactorily answered."
Varnau was asked other questions via e-mail. At press time, answers to the following questions had not been received:
"Jessica Little and Dwayne Wenninger are both maintaining that you have an agenda against the Sheriff. How do you respond to that?"
"Do you believe that a productive working relationship with Wenninger is possible? If not, why not?"
"Little is saying you disparaged her character in your Dec. 30 letter to the Attorney General. Do you feel you did so?"
(Varnau wrote in the Dec. 30 letter "The county prosecutor, however worked diligently to prevent the unsealing of Mr. Wenninger's trial record..."
This last section refers to the schizophrenic paranoid notion that Dennis Varnau has that there is a vast conspiracy against him and protecting Wenninger.
Back to the article:
"The Sheriff has also issued policy that states that no BCSO investigation will take place at the scenes of accidental deaths, natural deaths or suicides. Are you concerned that having to generate investigation requests for the prosecutors office will add to the workload and time commitment of the coroners office?"
"Are you prepared to store evidence and comply with chain of custody issues?"
As referenced in the questions above, the Brown County Sheriff's Office has changed certain procedures regarding death scenes.
Among the changes are no investigations will be conducted at death scenes where the death has been ruled to have been by natural causes, accident or suicide.
Any investigation of those scenes will fall to the coroner's office. Retired Ripley Police Officer Don Newman has been named as Varnau's investigator.
If the coroner feels that a criminal investigation needs to take place, Ohio Revised Code states that the coroner must request such an investigation from the Prosecuting Attorney, who would then forward the request to the agency with jurisdiction.
Retired Ripley Police Officer Don Newman has been named as Varnau's investigator.
At Homicide scenes, Wenninger has declared that BCSO personnel will secure any weapon used in the interest of safety and will process evidence outside the declared death scene.
The size and scope of the death scene is at the discretion of the coroner.
The policy also states that "Upon the Coroner's order to remove the body, photos and documentation of injuries will be completed with the permission of the Coroner."
Wenningers policy also clearly states that at all death scenes "The body and the area near the body shall not be disturbed."
According to Ohio Revised Code, if a coroner determines that a body has been disturbed without permission, a person found to have done so can be charged with a fourth degree misdemeanor.
Another major change is that notification of next-of-kin in all death cases is now the exclusive responsibility of the coroner, as stated in Ohio Revised Code.
"That's part of her job and we used to do that as a courtesy to Dr. McKinley, but we are short-staffed and we are going to be turning that back over to her.", Wenninger said.
Regarding the request that Little forwarded to the Attorney General, Wenninger said of Varnau, "They are just grasping at straws. I have won every legal challenge and I have nothing to hide."
Little said that she feels that Varnau is already operating as if Wenninger is not legally qualified to serve.
"She already believes the sheriff is not the legal sheriff. She is not asking the Attorney General to assume that. She believes that. She just wanted to know how she should handle the evidence because he's not the lawful sheriff."
Little added, "I'm very disappointed that Dr, Varnau has maintained this belief that the sheriff is not the lawful sheriff of the county."
She also questioned the working relationship between Varnau and the BCSO.
"I am very suspect of her motives in light of that letter that she sent to the Attorney General. It was my belief that when she took office that she wanted to communicate and that she wanted to work together and that letter shows me that that was not her plan.", Little said.
She said she believes that Varnau's stance will eventually become a problem as time goes on.
"Since Dr. Varnau believes that the sheriff is not the lawful sheriff of the county and that his deputies are not legally sworn, I am very concerned because I don't know how there can be a working relationship if you don't believe that a person has a role or a place in the proceedings."
Wenninger agreed, saying "It's obvious there is another agenda, but I have a sheriff's office to run and she has a coroner's office to run. She has indicated several times that she wants to go by the letter of the law, so that's what we're going to do...We have some people on the staff that do not trust her. We will work with her, but we don't trust her. That's why we've made some policy changes."
Wenninger added that he thinks Varnau's agenda stems from the long running court battle her husband, Dennis Varnau, waged against Wenninger regarding his qualifications to serve as Sheriff.
"If they think they can go through the coroners office to try to get me, they have another think coming, because it's not going to happen because we go by the rules and we do what's right."
Little is exactly right. Despite numerous court cases and the will of the electorate of Brown County in several elections, she is acting as if Wenninger is not qualified to hold office. This is not the stance of someone who "says the matter is finished and wants to be a team player" as Varnau has said she has wanted to do. This woman, whether of her own volition or at the insistence and demand of her sore loser husband, is using the powers of her office for a personal agenda against the sheriff that will cost the integrity of county law enforcement and the taxpayers. But, to the Varnaus, who cares about the citizens? After all, Dennis wanted to be annointed Sheriff after the voters rejected him.
The article concludes with an emailed statement from Dr. Judy:
DR. VARNAU'S RESPONSE TO BROWN COUNTY PRESS ARTICLE
Here's my response to all the prating contained in The Brown County Press article published in the January 20, 2013 issue, "Sheriff to Coroner: 'No trust at all.'"
For more than the last four years my husband was involved in a legal challenge of Mr. Wenninger's credentials to hold and execute the office of sheriff. The facts presented in the court record created are simple enough for most lay persons to understand and come to the same conclusion as I. He did not initially meet the requirements to be a valid candidate, and that initial deficiency led to a complete loss of his police certificate by operation of law all within his first term in office. This is clear to anyone interested and intellectually honest enough to "connect the dots." One does not have to be legally trained to understand this fact. A modicum of common sense and logic are the only requisites necessary to reach the same conclusion.
Every forum presented with the question of Mr. Wenninger's legality avoided addressing the issue on its merits and instead dismissed every petition on procedural grounds. That left the issue in question "legally" unanswered. Instead, every decision specifically held that Mr. Wenninger's qualifications could not be challenged by Dennis Varnau. Therefore, the underlying question of qualifications survives every court decision made to date. I know this to be a fact even though others, including some attorneys, may have difficulty understanding this legal reality.
Therefore, I asked the Attorney General's (AG's) Office for a legal opinion on my personal dilemma to protect me from any future legal liability, in my performance as coroner, knowing what I knew to be irrefutable fact. I was aware the county prosecutor would have a genuine "conflict of interest" handling the question under her professional code of conduct as counsel representing many independent county office clients simultaneously. The question was solely my personal concern; it did not affect the sheriff's office since my husband's case had become final when the U.S. Supreme Court decided not to accept his case for review.
The maligning of my intent and motivation to become coroner started with an article published in The News Democrat that accused me of having an "agenda." That accusation was nurtured into an "agenda against Mr. Wenninger." Then it was the Chief Deputy who started accusing me of being out to bring charges against him and his deputies in the performance of my duties. This concern of the Chief Deputy led to three separate meetings to discuss "my policy" as coroner. The third meeting, which included the sheriff, resulted with an overall understanding between all parties involved. I thought everything was settled from that point onward.
I asked the prosecutor the same question presented to the AG, and received her formal legal opinion that completely settled the matter for me forever, as far as I was concerned. Never did I ever expect the prosecutor, knowing the unnecessary tensions that had previously been
present between the SO and my office, would unilaterally inform the SO of my personal request for an opinion to the AG to cover my personal legal concerns. I still don't know why she chose to reveal the existence of my AG letter to the sheriff's office without first consulting me before doing so. What would be her "agenda" in poisoning the past strained relationship anew after it had already been settled during the last meeting with the sheriff present on January 3, 2013?
I had earlier signed a memorandum of understanding with the Chief Deputy in the presence of the prosecutor, but found, after my first death scene on New Year's Day, that I should not be involved in approving another office's policies, where I found that doing so could result in the perception that I approved of what had transpired on that day.
Mr. Irvin had passed away during his sleep. Mrs. Irvin called her neighbor around 1100 hrs to inform him of Mr. Irvin's death. The neighbor responded to the Irvin's home within about 10 minutes, only to find Mrs. Irvin had shot herself. 911 staged the Fayetteville EMS at its station within minutes of the call. The police chief was standing by with the squad awaiting clearance from the SO to accompany its squad to the scene. After a while the EMS and police chief took it upon themselves to stage on the highway close to the residence, which was about a five minute drive away from the fire station. More than 30 minutes had passed. The neighbor flagged the squad down to come assist Mrs. Irvin, because she was still alive. The squad and police chief then immediately responded to Mrs. Irvin's bedside to administer first aid. The squad took Mrs. Irvin to Clinton Memorial and arrived about 1206 hrs. Mrs. Irvin passed away the next day at Miami Hospital. The first deputy did not arrive on the scene until 1155 hrs.
That incident left me with a deep concern that the "county mutual aid agreement" approved by the prosecutor and SO may have contributed to Mrs. Irvin's death as she laid there bleeding and in pain from a self-inflicted gunshot wound to her chest. That's when I realized that I should not be approving policies outside of my own office where they may at the very least be defective and incompetently drafted to potentially create constitutional claims of civil liability against the county and those involved in delivering emergency medical care. This unfortunate incident was probably instrumental in the resignation of the Fayetteville Fire/EMS chief.
I fail to understand why my own dilemma of personal legal concern had to be blown up into a "big news item" as the top story on the front page, where the whole article was presented in such a way to denigrate my reputation and that of the Coroner's Office. Nothing has changed in the way business is accomplished by the coroner, except that I, my deputy, or investigator, will be present at death scenes more frequently than that of the last administration.
Dr. Judith A. Varnau
Brown County Coroner
Do you smell what the coroner is cooking? Yep, more BS. She doesn't think questioning the qualifications and ability to serve of the main law enforcement officer of the county is a "big news item"? Is this woman incompetent, naive, or just a puppet of her vindictive husband? Who knows, but it makes the county look bad. The citizens of Brown County deserve better than a vindictive coroner who cares more for a vendetta that for serving the county.
At WMD, we have highlighted the self important, arrogant, self righteous campaign by Dennis Varnau to be crowned Sheriff of Brown County. When he tried to run against Sheriff Dwayne Wenninger, he was humiliated with a huge margin of defeat. However, thinking himself too good to lose, and that the electorate is too ignorant, Dennis Varnau went through a myriad of complaints and court cases that eventually reached the United States Supreme Court. Varnau cited conspiracies between people and state officials, between judges even. This guy makes some of Tin Foil Dennis Kucinich's stuff seem plausible. And what happened each time Dennis tried to circumvent the will of the people of Brown County and have himself immaculated Sheriff? He got stomped and was told to quit wasting the government's time. One would think after the US Supreme Court gives you the STFU that you would go off and spout your conspiracy theories in your drink of choice. But not Dennis. No, he decided he would get his wife Judith into the act.
Judith, you see, is a medical doctor. For some reason, she decided to run as a write-in candidate for coroner when no one from either party expressed an interest in filing a petition. So, all she needed were complimentary votes, just the type of slanted election Mr. Varnau would love. And what do you think Coroner Judith did on her first day in office? Did she get to know the staff, take a tour, meet with law enforcement? Nope. She continued her husband's psychotic vendetta against Sheriff Wenninger. Intrepid Editor Wayne Gates of the Brown County Press has the story:
On her first day as Interim Brown County Coroner, Dr. Judith Varnau sent a letter to Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine questioning the qualifications of Brown County Sheriff Dwayne Wenninger.
That letter, along with ongoing discussions on policy and procedure at death scenes, have severely strained the working relationship between the Coroner's Office and the Sheriff's Department.
"There is no trust here at all", said Brown County Sheriff's Office Chief Deputy John Schadle.
Wenninger said when he learned of the letter that "I wasn't surprised because Mr. Varnau can't let (his legal fight with Wenninger) go. He's lost every court case and I feel like they are trying to do whatever they can to get back at me."
Prior to the Press receiving copies of the letter to the Attorney General and the response, Dr. Varnau was asked about the relationship between the two parties. She said, "My only agenda is to take care of the deceased and their families."
A telephone call requesting comment on the letter sent to the Attorney General was not returned.
If the only agenda is to take care of the deceased and families, then why did the letter basically engage in rehashing the entire court mess your husband was in, Dr. Varnau? Did you even really write the letter, or did you just take dictation for your husband? Back to the Press coverage:
In the letter to the Attorney General, Varnau lays out the legal case pursued by her husband, Dennis Varnau against Wenninger over the past several years.
The letter begins "The mandatory duty to turn over firearms to the current sheriff of Brown County presents a legal dilemma for me where the sheriff's claim and legal credentials to hold office have...never been specifically addressed by any court of competent jurisdiction."
The Varnau case against Wenninger ended last September when the U.S. Supreme Court refused to take the case.
Prior to that, Varnau lost in the Ohio Supreme Court.
Never been addressed by a court of "competent jurisdiction?" She just insulted the Ohio Supreme Court, the 12th district court of appeals, as well as the original court that issued decisions. Wow, the gall of this woman, and on her first day on the job! She has never held a governmental office before, to my knowledge. She has been an MD and I believe mostly in the field of women's health like gynecology and pregnancy. So, what would she know about jurisdiction, or for that matter competence, given her choice in lifemates? This shows you this woman did not want to serve the people of Brown County. She just wants to make Wenninger's job impossible. I guess she and Dennis hope Wenninger just quits or something. Pathetic that the people of Brown County are being served by a vindictive shrew who only wants to see her Dennis immaculated as sheriff. Maybe it's because he never shuts up about it and she wants some relief, I don't know. But this is just beyond the pale. And now she wants the state Attorney General to waste the people's time and money:
Varnau then asks the Attorney General to intervene in the case, writing "The history of concealment and complete failure to address Mr. Wenninger's legal qualifications is significantly suspect beyond probable cause, leaving only one individual left with the legal authority, duty and power, to take the case before a court of competent jurisdiction for a decision on the actual facts and merits present - the Attorney General."
The letter then lays out the timeline of the case and legal arguments used by Mr. Varnau.
On the last page, Varnau writes "My main concern is knowingly breaking the chain of custody on crime scene evidence by turning over confidential evidence to an unqualified "civilian" or one of his illegally-sworn deputies that are not legitimate Ohio peace officers-by law."
So, now she is insulting every member of the Sheriff's deputies. Wow, way to establish a solid relationship there, Judith! What did the AG's office say?
Kevin McIver, the Chief of the Opinions section of the Attorney General's office, sent a one page reply, dated January 15.
He replied, "At the county government level Attorney General DeWine issues written opinions on questions of law to the prosecuting attorney only. We do not provide opinions to the other elected officials of county government, for which the prosecuting attorney is designated legal counsel."
The letter continues, "Further, the decision of the Ohio Supreme Court in State ex rel. Varnau vs Wenninger...affirming the denial of a quo warranto writ to oust the Brown County Sheriff from office confirms the legality of his service as county sheriff."
Regarding Varnau's concern about turning over firearms to Wenninger, McIver writes, "in fulfilling your responsibilities... to deliver firearms to the county sheriff, you will be insulated from charges of malfeasance, misfeasance or nonfeasance."
In other words, SHUT UP AND DO YOUR JOB, JUDITH, AND QUIT USING YOUR OFFICE FOR A PERSONAL VENDETTA!!!
Wenninger, to his credit, just wants to do the work he was elected to do and serve and protect Brown County:
Wenninger has requested that Varnau provide a written statement to his office that she agrees that the sheriff's office policy on death scene procedure meets with her approval.
At press time, Varnau had declined to do so.
Wenninger said in light of the letter to the Attorney General's office, he was requesting that an emergency meeting be held between himself, Schadle, Varnau, Brown County Prosecutor Jessica Little and Common Pleas Court Judge Scott Gusweiler.
"We can't move forward without written confirmation that we agree on procedure", said Wenninger.
Regarding death scene policy, Wenninger said "We are still going to go by the law, but I want something from her in writing that we are all on the same page. Right now, her word isn't very good."
When asked about the working relationship between the sheriff's office and the coroners's office, Wenninger said "No matter what her feelings are, I'm going to do whatever is in my power and legally right to give the citizens the best service possible."
Coroners in Ohio have broad powers over death scenes. Varnau could raise a stink and seriously limit the ability of the sheriff to do his job. Then, I wonder who would be screaming from the rooftops that Wenninger is ineffective? You betcha, Dennis the Menace.
More on the issues and Dr. Judith's childish behavior and attitudes:
The coroner can decide how large the death scene is, what is contained in it and when it can be released to law enforcement for investigation.
"We need a permissive order from the coroner to remove anything from the scene. I don't want my people afraid they are going to be charged with a crime for doing their jobs", Schadle said.
If someone violates a death scene, they can be charged with a fourth degree misdemeanor.
Little has examined the procedures that the sheriffs office has outlined for death scenes and determined that the policy is in compliance with state law.
Schadle is still concerned about the working relationship between the two offices saying that without a written agreement to fall back on, Varnau could change her mind at any time at a death scene.
"We don't need to be at these scenes nitpicking back and forth for political gain", Schadle said.
"We need to work out a procedure that everyone agrees with and stick to it."
Varnau has said that she is not required to approve the policies of another agency.
"It's not my place to sign off on someone elses procedures", Varnau said.
"I'm responsible for my office and they are responsible for theirs."
With the assistance of Little, a Memorandum of Understanding on death scene procedure was signed between Varnau and Schadle on Dec. 30.
The agreement attempted to address the need for a "permissive order" from the Coroner to allow law enforcement officers access to death scenes.
It states in part "...both the Coroner and the Sheriff agree that this permissive order is given for these death scenes and the sheriff's investigation can proceed immediately, with the understanding that the "body" cannot be moved or disturbed other than a good-faith effort to render life-saving assistance. Both the Coroner and he Sheriff agree that no police officer, deputy sheriff, fireman, emergency medical tech or member of any emergency response team will be held accountable by criminal means or otherwise in the performance of their duties."
Varnau withdrew from the Memorandum of Understanding on Jan. 1 after visiting a death scene.
And look at this email Dr. Varnau sent to the press regarding her Office:
She sent an e-mail to the Brown County Press regarding her office that states in part "The coroner's office is here to assist law enforcement, fire and EMS personnel while being supported through their efforts in return...My office is sincerely here to cooperate as a "team player" for any agency requesting our presence at death scenes."
I don't know what her definition of team player is, but most people's definition would not include backstabbing the sheriff on your first day in office because your husband is a loser....I'm just saying....
Throughout my time in the Ohio House of Representatives, I have tried to be as responsive to the constituents I serve as possible. There are many times I talk with people like you to see where you stand on the particular issues of the day. There are also times that a new issue is brought to my attention so that I can draft legislation on the topic.
House Bill 569 is certainly an instance of acting on the concern of some of those back home. It deals with quarter auctions, which I admit I had never heard of before being told about them this year. These are auctions where people bid with quarter coins to purchase a numbered paddle that corresponds to a particular item. You can win the item by that number being drawn from a bin of chips or tokens, much like bingo.
In fact, the bill I introduced would classify the quarter auctions as bingo under Ohio’s gambling laws. Why is this important? Because without classifying the quarter auctions as bingo, they are technically illegal under current law.
Jessica Little, the Brown Country prosecutor, was one of the people who brought this issue to my attention, because these auctions take place in our area. Quarter auctions aren’t used to win big bucks, though. They are typically a type of charitable activity to raise money for non-profits, and we don’t want to prosecute those who are trying to do good.
House Bill 569 recently had a hearing by the Ohio House State Government and Elections Committee. Prosecutor Little, along with Jean Pieper, from St. Michael’s Church, and Pat Hopkins, from the Brown County Hospital Foundation, were gracious enough to testify in favor of the bill at the Statehouse, and I’m thankful that they were able to make it.
This is the type of situation in which legislators are counting on the people they serve to bring issues to their attention, and I’m hopeful that we can get the legislation dealing with quarter auctions passed by the end of this General Assembly.
During the past eight years, I have done my best to be your voice in Columbus, and I am optimistic that I will be able to serve you at another point in time. Until the end of the year, please remember that you can contact me with any questions, concerns, or problems you have relating to state government.
After the first of the year, I will be very pleased to be able to call Doug Green my state representative, and he will be sworn into the 130th General Assembly on January 7th. Congratulations, Doug!
Georgetown, OH---April 22-28 is National Crime Victims’ Rights Week, a time to honor crime victims and our Nation’s progress in advancing their rights. The Brown County Prosecutor’s Office in conjunction with YWCA of Greater Cincinnati are holding a Balloon Release in honor of all crime victim’s on Monday, April 23, 2012 at 5:00 p.m. on the front steps of the Common Pleas Court House in Georgetown.
More than 30 years ago, the victims’ rights movement launched a community movement to help crime victims. Then and now, crime victims endured physical and emotional wounds, costly financial burdens, an often hostile criminal justice system, and an alarming public tendency to blame them for the crimes against them. The vision was to create and promote fair, compassionate, and respectful responses to victims of crime.
We urge everyone to come out in support of crime victims and take the time to learn more about the services offered in Brown County. For example, the Brown County Prosecutor’s office has a victim advocate on staff. “The primary responsibilities for our victim advocate is to keep victim’s informed about their cases and court dates, help prepare them for trial, and accompany victim’s to court appearances. Our victim advocate, Jessica Roush does a wonderful job explaining the court process and making the judicial process easier for victims”, said Prosecutor Jessica Little. “Our office also sets up referrals for counseling and other resources to help aid victims during a very trying time”, said Jessica Roush.
Also serving Brown County is the YWCA of Greater Cincinnati. Their office is located in Georgetown and they provide numerous services to victims. The YWCA offers case management services for victims of sexual assault and domestic violence, and their staff provides court advocacy if needed. The YWCA runs a shelter in located in Clermont County and they provide individual and group counseling to victims.
“This is an important event to show community support for victims of all crimes and chance for the citizens to learn more about the services provided in Brown County”, said Prosecutor Jessica Little. “We hope to reach out and let the crime victims know that we care about them and that we can help them”, said Little.
The balloon release represents victims of all crimes and there will be a moment of silence in remembrance of those we have lost. We urge the community come and stand together in a show of support!
