[Rivertontalk] Response to Mr. LeBrun

[kirijo]

     After having reviewed Mr. LeBrun’s response to the comments I made last
week, I thought that I would make a few brief observations.  First, Mr.
LeBrun represents that he was in private practice for seven years before he
came to the Fremont County Attorney’s Office.  If he was in private
practice, he would either have no criminal experience or if he had criminal
experience it would be as a defense attorney.  Both of which make it clear
that at the time he entered the employment of the Fremont County Attorney’s
Office, he would have had substantially less experience than Mr. Bennett.  
     Mr. LeBrun lists several agencies that he has worked with as a Deputy
County Attorney.  With regard to each of those agencies, his function would
have been that of a prosecuting attorney not an attorney giving them legal
advice about how to proceed regarding policies, procedures, employment
issues, and various other legal matters that a county attorney would be
involved in.  Based on the information he has provided, there is no
indication he has acted as counsel for an agency beyond that of a
prosecutor.  
     However, of most interest is his reference to Brian Varn, a name which
apparently he hopes will garner favor with the voters.  It is important to
note that one of the criticisms Mr. LeBrun bears for Mr. Bennett is that he
was appointed to this position; that would also be true of Mr. Varn as well. 
Mr. Varn was initially appointed to serve as the county attorney after the
previously elected county attorney resigned.  To some insights into Mr.
Varn, I will tell to you about another case.  In order to appreciate Mr.
Varn’s involvement in this matter it is necessary for me to set out some
initial facts for your consideration.  Wade LeBeau, the same Wade LeBeau
that raised so much havoc with the Shoshone Business Counsel, had a
restraining order which prevented him from having any contact with his
former wife.  Mr. LeBeau had his sister pick up his son for his Fourth of
July Holiday visitation.  Mr. LeBeau took the minor child to the Wind River
Indian Reservation.  After the visitation was over, Mr. LeBeau refused to
return the child to the child’s mother demanding that she drop the
restraining order that was in place against him.   He kept the boy for 7
days.  Literally, Mr. LeBeau kept the boy on the reservation thereby
avoiding County and State law enforcement.  
     Mr. LeBeau was placed under arrest when he came to Lander pursuant to
an Order issued by the Lander Circuit Court for a violation of the
restraining order.  Only at that juncture was the child’s mother able to
recover her son.  There was no justification for Mr. LeBeau to retain
custody the minor child and his conduct constituted a violation of Wyoming
Statute §6-2-204(a)(ii), Interference with Custody, a felony punishable by a
maximum of 5 years.  Mr. Varn, who was personally involved in the decision
to prosecute Mr. LeBeau, took many months to make the decision to bring
charges.  Once the charges were brought, Mr. Varn agreed to defer the
prosecution against Mr. LeBeau in accord with Wyoming Statute §7-13-301.  
     The significance of that decision is that at the end of Mr. LeBeau’s
probation, he would have no criminal history as a result of his refusal to
return the minor child to his mother.  Now, some would say that this is an
appropriate sanction for the parent of a child.  However, the Statute is
designed specifically to address those, including parents, who interfere
with the custody of a minor child.  But for the parent/child relationship,
Mr. LeBeau’s conduct would constitute kidnapping, punishable by
incarceration not less than 20 years.
	My client made it very clear to Mr. Varn that she opposed the decision he
had made to offer Mr. LeBeau a deferred prosecution and believed that at a
minimum he should be obligated to admit before the Court what he had done. 
Mr. Varn’s agreement allowed Mr. LeBeau to stand silent during his
sentencing and at the completion of his probation; the charges against him
were dismissed.
	I have never been involved in a case where a mother has been placed under
such distress for the welfare of her son and under circumstances where she
was completely without fault.  Literally, the only relief she received was
from the Circuit Court not from Mr. Varn, a person where Mr. LeBrun learned
about “Justice first”.
	I cannot describe for you my frustration in trying to secure justice for my
client, for her son, and frankly for the custodial parents throughout
Fremont County, all of whom apparently are at risk of having their children
withheld from them even when they have a lawfully obtained Order placing
that child in their custody and control.

Sincerely,
Vance Countryman




--
View this message in context: http://riverton-talk.974171.n3.nabble.com/Response-to-Mr-LeBrun-tp4025382.html
Sent from the Riverton Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.