Introduction
The Spencer County watchdog website has recently sparked a firestorm among residents after the author’s blog openly mocked public officials. Lawrence Trageser, the blogger, is known for giving public officials insulting nicknames and poking fun at anything and everything they do. But the sleazy content of the website is not limited to this. If you are interested in the local politics, you can check out my article about Spencer County’s Gestapo reaction to the spencer county watchdog.
Spencer County Animal Control director's job might be in jeopardy
The job of the Spencer County Animal Control director is in jeopardy because of a recent incident involving a dog. The animal control officer brought a chihuahua to Wood after it was reported to have a broken back and no back legs. He shot the dog to make it dead, but a neighborhood watch group called for an investigation.
A social media post by Woodson, who resigned from her position last week, made her resignation from the Spencer County Animal Control department a controversial topic. Her Facebook post led to a public investigation, but the state police did not find any evidence of criminal conduct. A county animal shelter or humane society is exempt from many animal cruelty statutes. But some animal welfare advocates want Spencer County to be a model animal shelter operation.
Spencer County sheriffs maintain a registry of convicted sex offenders
The Spencer County Sheriffs Department has a website that features a sex offender registry. This public database provides information on all convicted sex offenders in Spencer County. It includes a map showing where these individuals live and work. You can also use this website to find out more about a specific offender’s personal information. This page was created and is regularly updated by the Spencer County sheriffs.
Information on a convicted sex offender’s web site can be inaccurate. Current residence and status may not be accurate. Some of the information is provided by offenders themselves, and offenders may not always give the county an accurate account of their lives. To be sure, you can contact the Sheriff’s office in your county for verification. They will be able to check the information and help you avoid becoming a victim of a convicted sex offender.
The registry contains the name of individuals who have committed a sex offense, a violent crime, or have been adjudicated a delinquent child. It is not intended to serve as a means of retaliation, nor should the information be used for harassment. Attempting to contact an offender based on their information on the website may violate Indiana law.
While Spencer County sheriffs maintain a sex offender registry, they caution that the information is only for public information. If you attempt to use this information for intimidation or threats, you may be subject to criminal prosecution. As of June 5, 2022, there were 31 registered sex offenders living in Spencer. That ratio is 74:1 for the entire population of Spencer.
Spencer County sheriffs' office politicos
The Spencer County sheriff’s office is the law enforcement agency of Spencer County, Kentucky. They serve the community and court system in a professional manner. As a smoke-free facility, they operate with public safety as their highest priority. In addition, they enforce legal judgments and other court orders, including foreclosures and repossessions. Further, they enforce property taxes and other local ordinances.
Spencer County Watchdog Files Lawsuit Against City of New Hampton
A Spencer County watchdog has been announcing its plans to sue the city of New Hampton after a woman was attacked by the mayor’s dog while walking in downtown on April 2. The woman was usually chained up and was not alone. The attack was so brutal that animal control was called to the scene. Animal control took pictures of the woman’s deep bruises, including a large gash in her thigh. The mayor reportedly visited the dog while it was in quarantine.
Grissom's calls to individual trustees violated the law
Grissom and his employees were accused of a wrongful act by contacting individuals and urging them to make payments. This conduct violated the law, and the lawsuit has been filed against the trustees. Grissom is a former trustee of the state university. He argued that his actions were not retaliatory and that the law protects the rights of students.
While Grissom claimed he did not intend to evade the Open Meetings Law, a basic understanding of the Open Meetings Act should have dissuaded him from engaging in conduct that has been expressly prohibited since 1992. During mandatory training, trustees are given information about the law, including the right to open meetings. The Kentucky Attorney General’s Office has developed educational materials for public officials, including trustees, and university presidents are required to distribute them.
In a subsequent investigation, Grissom was approached by a parent who reported Talmage’s sexual conduct. Grissom recognized the woman as the daughter of his romantic partner. Grissom had also observed Talmage holding hands in public with the girl the previous summer. He did not believe that Talmage was engaging in behavior that her mother had not seen. He informed Talmage that he was the girl’s father.
During the investigation, Grissom confronts Dr. Gerard and accuses him of using shortcut forensics and investigation. He says he choose this path because of a poor investigation. If he is right, Grissom tells him to drop the case in the interest of the CSI team. The CSI team agrees. But the lawsuit continues.
Trageser's motion to remand granted
In this appeal, the City asserts that Trageser’s exempt memo was released without the court’s approval, which hurts the public interest. It also adversely affected the morale of City employees and staff. As a result, the City claims it has incurred costs in legal fees and lost production time, and is entitled to punitive damages for the damage done to its reputation.
The City claims that Trageser obtained confidential information from the City and improperly used the records for his personal benefit. The City contends that the documents were obtained by Trageser outside of the ORA by improperly accessing their email accounts. The City claims that they failed to turn over the requested documents in a timely manner, and that Trageser was aware or should have known that the memo was exempt from disclosure.
The district court’s remand order is effective once the state court receives a certified copy. Under Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of Am., the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to remand the case. Its remand order should be entered when the district court has mailed a certified copy. If it doesn’t, the state court has no jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
Bentley's motion for partial remand granted
The court granted Bentley’s motion for partial remande after a jury heard testimony from both sides and found that the evidence presented was insufficient. The evidence presented by Bunton included eight instances of Bentley’s corruption. Bunton cited the details of the allegations and obtained factual testimony from other witnesses. Bunton’s attorney summarized the allegations and laid out his arguments, which were consistent with his position throughout the trial.
In his written opinion, Bunton referred to Bentley’s actions as criminal only once, in an effort to dissuade people from reporting the case. While criticizing Bentley for releasing Curbo on personal bond and delaying final adjudication, Bunton did not refer to Bentley or the other parties as criminals. The jury could infer that both parties were involved in the crime, but Bunton’s arguments did not withstand a close scrutiny.
During the trial, Judge Bentley showed videotapes of a “QA” program. Gates appeared to be standing by, ignoring Bunton’s assertions about corruption. Gates then tried to correct Bunton’s misunderstanding of the role of the prosecutor and defense counsel. Then, Bunton interrupted Gates and stated, “Bentley is corrupt, number one.”
The judge concluded that the prosecutors’ attorneys did not follow proper procedural procedure. The court noted that Bentley had failed to report judicial misconduct. Judges Calhoon and Bournias failed to disclose that Bentley had contributed to the campaigns of county judges, who sit on county commissions court and are under the general supervisory control of district court. Furthermore, Bunton’s sentence was too light, denying Carroll Neal “good time” credit.
Mattingly's motion for partial remand granted
The majority of the Court ruled on Mattingly’s motion for partial reassignment. Yelvington argued that Mattingly did not establish his claim on the basis of work-related injuries, and requested additional findings of fact. Yelvington also requested additional medical evidence to establish that Mattingly is permanently totally disabled. The majority found that Yelvington failed to establish this element of his claim.
First Bank filed a motion for summary judgment. Mattingly timely filed a motion to alter or amend, arguing that the District Court failed to address important issues of fact. The District Court denied the motion to amend, and Mattingly appeals. On appeal, the Court holds that the District Court erred in granting First Bank’s motion for summary judgment. The court also finds that Mattingly had failed to prove that she breached the terms of the buy-sell agreement.
The court noted that Dr. Weinberg, Mattingly’s treating physician, found that the accident caused multiple injuries, including an amnestic condition. The report states that Mattingly is suffering from a Class 3 overall impairment based on the AMA Guides. Moreover, Dr. Khalily assessed Mattingly as having an additional right shoulder surgery and an injection to his right knee.
After denying the Drainage Board’s request to build a permanent structure on his property, Mattingly appealed the decision to remand the case. The judge determined that the Drainage Board did not follow due process by denying Mattingly’s request for a permanent structure on his property. He argues that the right-of-way was a violation of his rights under the United States Constitution.
