If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!


August 10, 2012

Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor
The Ohio Supreme Court
65 Front Street
Columbus, OH  43215-3431

Dear Chief Justice O’Connor:

I own and operate an electronic newspaper, The Post & Email, which focuses on government corruption in all forms and at all levels.

I am writing regarding my concerns about the case decided in your court on January 26, 2012, State ex rel. Varnau v. Wenninger, 131 Ohio St.3d 169, 2012-Ohio-224, on which I have reported at The Post & Email on several occasions, the most recent of which states that the case has been appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

I have read the court’s opinion and have the following questions:

  1. How does the court conclude that plaintiff Varnau should have filed an objection to defendant Wenninger’s candidacy for office in 2000 when Varnau did not reside in the state of Ohio at that time?
  2. Are you aware that it has been proven that Wenninger did not possess the requisite educational requirement when he first sought the office of sheriff?  Is it not a concern that this fact was concealed from the voters of Brown County?
  3. In late 2004 and just prior to the election in which Wenninger was running for his second term despite having been ineligible for the first term, a law was passed hastily by the Ohio legislature which “made” Wenninger eligible by virtue of establishing a lower standard for the educational requirement for sheriff.  Does that not indicate an admission that, in fact, Wenninger was being accommodated so as to fit the new eligibility guidelines?
  4. Varnau has established that Wenninger’s Peace Officer certificate, which is a requirement of the sheriff position, had lapsed during his first term in office, thereby apparently rendering Wenninger ineligible to hold the office.  Don’t all Ohio sheriffs have to each possess a legally valid Peace Officer certificate in order to hold the office?
  5. Why was Wenninger’s file from his trial on falsifying his candidate documentation allowed to be sealed when Wenninger was serving as a public official whose position was funded by the taxpayers?
  6. Does the court’s opinion rely too heavily on case law and precedent rather than the historical concept of laches?
  7. Is justice being denied to Ohio citizens because of technicalities, case law citations which do not necessarily reflect the intent of the state constitution and U.S. Constitution, to which you have sworn an oath to uphold?
  8. Had this challenge been able to be submitted to an Ohio grand jury without obstruction from a prosecutor, might the outcome have been different?
  9. If a Board of Elections places a candidate’s name on the ballot, does that necessarily mean that the candidate’s eligibility has been scrutinized?  We have a similar situation with Barack Hussein Obama:  historical research reveals that the definition of “natural born Citizen” involved the citizenship of the candidate’s parents so as to avoid foreign allegiances.  Secretary of State and ambassador to Italy under President Woodrow Wilson, Breckinridge Long, claimed in his essay entitled “Is Mr. Charles Evans Hughes a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ Within the Meaning of the Constitution?” written in 1916 that a person born on U.S. soil to foreign-citizen parents did not meet the eligibility requirements of Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, which states, “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.”  Despite the Congressional Research Service’s attempts to “make” Obama appear eligible by virtue of being born on U.S. soil to a foreign-citizen father, if, in fact, the father is who Obama has claimed, Obama can never be considered a “natural born Citizen.”  Does the fact that he has usurped the office of President justify his doing so for a second term?

Does it not concern the highest court in the state of Ohio that Wenninger was serving as sheriff without a valid Peace Officer certificate for several years and that every court in Ohio has placed its stamp of approval on his obvious lack of qualifications?

I look forward to receiving your response on this matter.

Sincerely yours,


Sharon Rondeau, Editor
The Post & Email
P.O. Box 195
Stafford Springs, CT  06076



Join the Conversation


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. Yes, what could have prompted a 7-0 decision with reasoning that does not fit the facts? How could an unqualified person be allowed to stay in office for over a decade, and no one else recognized the fact over that time span? What would cause seven experienced justices to unanimously decide a case that they obviously could not have read in light of the erroneous reasoning they all agreed to in support of their decision? Smells like a huge RICO case to me with all seven of the Ohio Supreme Court justices as co-conspirators. Their decision summarily rejects all three principles: case law, precedent, and laches. Indict, try, and sentence all seven justices to serve out the mandatory five year prison term just like any other criminal involved in corrupt activities.

  2. Just another corrupt Judge among a majority. She is obviously young and has been educated in the liberal progressive education system that has ruined our youth. There is no more “rule of Law” in this country.