Isabella County Michigan Sheriff Responds to Salem-News Article About Government Theft of Veteran's Home

Isabella County Sheriff Responds Over Visner Case

visner4sheriff.com

(SALEM) - Many readers have been following the story of Ted Visner, the Michigan man who was buying a home from a sheriff's office employee in Isabella County, only to return from a weekend outing with his family to find a padlock on his door, and his property vanished.

Ted Visner says the Isabella County Sheriff's Office and the sheriff himself, Leo Mioduszewski, are directly complicit in the theft of his family's property, and the subsequent marital breakup that followed this extremely unusual event.

The story I wrote about Ted Visner's saga is one of the most viral articles we have carried at Salem-News.com in our ten-year history. (see: Sheriff's Department Takes Family's Home and Contents Using a Fake Eviction)

The article referenced above went viral again this month, almost a year after it was published. The Sheriff of Isabella County wrote to me this week, attaching a document detailing the progress of the Visner case. See the document the sheriff is referring to here)

Isabella County Sheriff Leo Mioduszewski, wrote:

"I have attached the results of Mr. Visner’s court case against Isabella County and the Sheriff’s Department. I’m sure you would love to know the outcome of his case. As you’ll see on page 11 of the court case, the Judge dismissed all of Mr. Visner’s allegations against the County because no material facts exist as to any of his claims.

"In the interest of updating your readers, I would hope you pass along the information to them."

Thank you,

Leo

The following is my reply to the sheriff:

Hi Sheriff Leo,

I see initially that the Isabella County Sheriff's Office was immune from the plaintiff's tort claim, this is a technicality that works perfectly in the agency's favor. This immunity does not build the public's confidence in any way that I can see, because the rules are designed to protect this governmental agency.

I see that your deputy, Steinart, didn't even remember how many times he advised Mr. Visner via telephone not to use 911, what is this?

What tax paid employee finds authority to arrest when they don't even keep a simple notebook record of calls made in an important case like this?

Very convenient isn't it for you and yours?

Not to mention the terrible message that sends out, arresting an individual seeking your agency's services seems absurd. Of course I bear in mind the vast number of connections that exist between your agency and the courts.

Don't your own deputies have a direct role at that courthouse?

I find most interesting, the quote from Sweet, "She claims that the plaintiff's complaint and first-amended complaint were convoluted due to their contents and format." Were Mr. Visner's observations and criticisms of Sweet published in the document? I sure didn't see them and he had many, but including that quote colors the character of Mr. Visner in an unfair manner, from everything I know, he did nothing to initiate the action against him.

Another question. Why was this not moved to a different venue? That seems the only possibility in attaining any level of fairness.

Any family who came home to find that a sheriff's office employee looted and stole and gave away the contents of their home is entitled to as many 911 calls as it takes to receive the services your mission statement states you provide. All I see is that your connections and a lot of legal mumbo jumbo.

I also see your agency and Sweet laying heavily on expired statues of limitation; there are reasons, Mr. Visner explains, that the time delays happened, and many he tells me, were not in his hands at all, but in the county's hands.

Finally, I have discussed this case with the FBI, a significantly larger legal organization than yours, and I will state that they were interested, in spite of what your local court ruled on behalf of your agency and employees.

Sincerely,

Tim King

We have another story under development...