A judge ruled Thursday that the circuit court lacks jurisdiction to intervene in the work of a committee weighing the fate of a suspended Juneau County Sheriff's Department lieutenant.

The decision by Adams County Judge Charles Pollex was a win for the county and Sheriff Brent Oleson in a long-simmering dispute with Lieutenant Jeremy Haske.

 "And now the way is clear for us to finally get down to business," Juneau County attorney David Lasker said after Thursday's ruling.

Haske was suspended for five specific allegations Aug. 7, 2008 by Oleson, who asked for his termination. The allegations have not been released to the public. Haske's fate is now in the hands of the county's three-member Sheriff's Committee, which will hear his case behind closed doors July 30 and 31. The committee is a quasi-judicial panel of the county's Board of Supervisors.

Shawn Mutter, Haske's attorney, said after Thursday's hearing in an Adams County courtroom that her client isn't done fighting for his job.

"It's unfortunate that the taxpayers of Juneau County are going to have to pay considerable expense to hear untimely charges, which I believe the circuit court will dismiss when the case is appealed," Mutter said.

Mutter said she planned a new court filing to demand documents she says the county has withheld from her that she claims are necessary for Haske's defense.

Pollex also granted the request of attorney Michele Ford, Oleson's lawyer, to dismiss the lawsuit brought by Haske against Oleson last February after Oleson filed his official complaint.

Among other things, Haske's lawsuit against Oleson asked the court to toss out three of the five charges against him.

The three charges are said to have occurred more than a year before Oleson filed his complaint and are therefore not actionable under Juneau County rules.

On June 2 the three-member Sheriff's Committee met behind closed doors to consider Mutter's request to dismiss the three so-called untimely charges against Haske, and also to obtain the documents from the county she claims are necessary for Haske's defense.

The committee did not release its June 2 decisions, but it was apparent from arguments in court Thursday that the committee denied both of Haske's requests.

The judge's ruling Thursday did not address the merits of any of Haske's claims or requests. The judge only ruled that the court has no jurisdiction in the dispute until after the work of the Sheriff's Committee is final.

The Sheriff's Committee is a county entity and functions separately from the court.

Pollex's ruling came after a nearly one-hour hearing in which lawyers on both sides argued fine points of the law. Essentially, the arguments revolved around the issue of whether the court had the power to intervene in Sheriff's Committee work before the committee's work is final.

In her argument Thursday Mutter signalled that she planned to appeal to the circuit court if the Sheriff's Committee rules against Haske in July.

She argued that a decision by the court not to review the committee's actions now would only delay the inevitable and cost all parties, including Juneau County taxpayers, more money.

 But Lasker said that state statutes didn't support Mutter's request for the court to intervene.

"Arguments that it would be better [for the court to act now] don't trump the law," Lasker said.

The judge agreed but acknowledged that the court's role isn't spelled out in law.  

"I'm satisfied that the law is not sufficiently clear to avoid motion hearings such as the one here today," Pollex said.

Also at issue Thursday were other motions filed by Mutter not considered by the Sheriff's Committee June 2.

Specifics are not available because Pollex previously ordered court filings sealed and ordered participants not to discuss details.

But a brief discussion in court Thursday about the role of Juneau County Supervisor Herbert Carlson on the Sheriff's Committee  suggested that Mutter had asked the court to review his participation. Carlson is related to Oleson by marriage.

Lasker told the court that he had learned that Carlson's wife is a fourth cousin of Oleson.

The law, Lasker said, stipulates that a legal conflict of interest only exists in such matters if a participant is a third cousin or closer relative.

"I don't know what degree of relationship exists and I'm not prepared to rule on that," Pollex said.

 Mutter said after Thursday's hearing that she had no evidence that Lasker's description of Carlson's relationship to the sheriff was wrong. "Nor do I have information that it's right," she said.