Local News|September 15, 2009 1:57 pm

Schrenker’s Public Defender an Old Annexation Foe

After Marcus Schrenker tells Hamilton County Magistrate Judge Najjar that he has no money, the court appoints Fishers Town Councilman Dan Henke as his public defender.

Henke was one of the Fishers Town Councilmen that supported the annexation of unincorporated areas around Geist; an area that included Schrenker’s last two homes in the Springs of Cambridge. In November of 2006, Schrenker attended Geist United Opposition meetings in support of the anti-annexation movement. Schrenker vowed to host fundraisers at his newly built home on Cocktail Cove to raise moneys for the GUO efforts in early December, 2006.

No one showed up.

Fast forward to September 17, 2007. GUO members were busily putting together paperwork to incorporate their area into the “Towns of Geist.” A surveyor working in the Hamilton County highway department caught wind that the GUO was getting a survey for their town application which had to be filed with the Hamilton County Commissioners. At the Fishers town council meeting that evening, Dan Henke does a first reading on the forced annexation ordinances preempting the GUO town filing by four days.

  • Share this post:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • Digg
Author: Tom Britt is the founder and Publisher of atGeist.com. Founded in 2004, atGeist.com quickly became the local voice of the Geist Reservoir Community. He lives in Crossing South, just off of 86th and Oaklandon Road, with his wife Jeanne and has four children: Stefanie, Robbie, Taylor and Tory.

2 Comments

  • Rachel Quade September 16, 2009 1:47 am

    hmmmm. the plot thickens. in defense of MS, the fundraiser that he and his wife offered to host was very quickly put together and at the holidays. The GUO had also just sent out a mailer the prior month asking for donations that did very well. Between the mailer and the timing of the holidays, people were kind of tapped out. As a member of the GUO, I appreciated all offers to help the cause.

    Reply
  • Joe Weingarten September 17, 2009 7:36 pm

    I also have to hmmmmmm and add a few more mmm's to Rachel. This has nothing to do with MS, but with having a fair defense. To have a attorney who was on the opposite side of his client during a hot debate and various legal actions somehow does not sound right. While Mr. Henke I am sure would do his best, this could open the door down the line for an appeal due to a conflict of interest. The Court and therefore the public would be best served if they changed his lawyer.

    Reply
atGeist.com