ILNews

7 semi-finalists still vying for Tax Court

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Seven attorneys remain in the running to be the next Indiana Tax Court judge, and they return for second interviews before the Indiana Judicial Nominating Commission Oct. 27. Here is a glimpse of the seven who made it past the first cut from the 14 who went through the first interviews.
 

George Angelone Angelone

George T. Angelone

Indianapolis attorney with the Legislative Services Agency who was admitted to practice in 1976.

Angelone has three decades of experience reviewing tax and public finance work. He knows the legislature, the legal environment, and workings of tax court caseload, and is committed to outreach to improve the profession. He can bring a methodical approach to analyze and apply the law, and knows how all the pieces fit together. He said more can be done locally to improve the tax law process because two- or three-year waits aren’t efficient.


Dan Carwile Carwile

Dan J. Carwile

Banking attorney who is senior vice president with Old National Wealth Management in Evansville. He was admitted to practice in 1983.

Carwile said his experience has prepared him for this post, and he emphasized his hard work and ethics as being important. He said he’d be sensitive to pro se litigants and small-claims issues.


Carol Comer Comer

Hon. Carol S. Comer

Administrative law judge with the Indiana Board of Tax Review who has been practicing since 1996.

Judge Comer’s entire career has been spent on the administrative side and she has handled all issues, including reworking the tax board’s procedural rules in 2007 because of the assessment law and agency structure changes. She said it’s important to be mindful of caselaw exemptions that can build up and prevent a big ruling like Town of St. John, and that the court could work with the legislature to ensure that it understands constitutionality.


Joby Jarrells Jerrells

Joby D. Jerrells

Second-career attorney admitted in 2003 who works in the Indiana Attorney General’s Office as a deputy prosecutor and also a self-employed attorney out of his home in Bloomington.

Jerrells discussed the variety of his workload and his work on the Trump and Aztar cases, which allowed him to use his policy-analysis skills and also showed him how the principles of the law apply more than the dollar amount.


Karen Love Love

Hon. Karen M. Love

Hendricks Superior judge since 1995 after practicing privately and working previously as a certified accountant. She was admitted to practice in 1986.

She discussed with commission members what she calls the “ABCs” of this position, which she described as meaning the attitude of a judge, the balance she can bring based on her experience, and those critical aspects of clarity, consistency, and communication. Judge Love helped draft the child support guidelines and she said her work on the domestic relations committee has been the most rewarding.


Melony Sacopulos Sacopulos

Melony A. Sacopulos

General counsel at Indiana State University in Terre Haute who has been practicing since 1988.

Sacopulos said her university experience means handling many different areas each day and having to make prudent judgment calls that impact someone’s life or career. The judge’s opinions that interpret statute should be the extent of the relationship between the court and legislature, she said.


Martha Wentworth Wentworth

Martha B. Wentworth

Tax director at the Greenwood-based multistate group Deloitte Tax LLP who’s previously served in roles that included clerking for the Tax Court in the early 1990s. She was admitted to practice in 1990.

Wentworth has seen the devastating impact on taxpayers from adverse tax decisions, and she has worked closely with the state Department of Revenue and knows how significant those rulings can be for the agencies and government. She wasn’t sure how she would have ruled on the Town of St. John case. She said access and transparency on the court is important in helping people understand these tax laws.•
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Falk said “At this point, at this minute, we’ll savor this particular victory.” “It certainly is a historic week on this front,” Cockrum said. “What a delight ... “Happy Independence Day to the women of the state of Indiana,” WOW. So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)

  2. congratulations on such balanced journalism; I also love how fetus disposal affects women's health protection, as covered by Roe...

  3. It truly sickens me every time a case is compared to mine. The Indiana Supreme Court upheld my convictions based on a finding of “hidden threats.” The term “hidden threat” never appeared until the opinion in Brewington so I had no way of knowing I was on trial for making hidden threats because Dearborn County Prosecutor F Aaron Negangard argued the First Amendment didn't protect lies. Negangard convened a grand jury to investigate me for making “over the top” and “unsubstantiated” statements about court officials, not hidden threats of violence. My indictments and convictions were so vague, the Indiana Court of Appeals made no mention of hidden threats when they upheld my convictions. Despite my public defender’s closing arguments stating he was unsure of exactly what conduct the prosecution deemed to be unlawful, Rush found that my lawyer’s trial strategy waived my right to the fundamental error of being tried for criminal defamation because my lawyer employed a strategy that attempted to take advantage of Negangard's unconstitutional criminal defamation prosecution against me. Rush’s opinion stated the prosecution argued two grounds for conviction one constitutional and one not, however the constitutional true threat “argument” consistently of only a blanket reading of subsection 1 of the intimidation statute during closing arguments, making it impossible to build any kind of defense. Of course intent was impossible for my attorney to argue because my attorney, Rush County Chief Public Defender Bryan Barrett refused to meet with me prior to trial. The record is littered with examples of where I made my concerns known to the trial judge that I didn’t know the charges against me, I did not have access to evidence, all while my public defender refused to meet with me. Special Judge Brian Hill, from Rush Superior Court, refused to address the issue with my public defender and marched me to trial without access to evidence or an understanding of the indictments against me. Just recently the Indiana Public Access Counselor found that four over four years Judge Hill has erroneously denied access to the grand jury audio from my case, the most likely reason being the transcription of the grand jury proceedings omitted portions of the official audio record. The bottom line is any intimidation case involves an action or statement that is debatably a threat of physical violence. There were no such statements in my case. The Indiana Supreme Court took partial statements I made over a period of 41 months and literally connected them with dots… to give the appearance that the statements were made within the same timeframe and then claimed a person similarly situated would find the statements intimidating while intentionally leaving out surrounding contextual factors. Even holding the similarly situated test was to be used in my case, the prosecution argued that the only intent of my public writings was to subject the “victims” to ridicule and hatred so a similarly situated jury instruction wouldn't even have applied in my case. Chief Justice Rush wrote the opinion while Rush continued to sit on a committee with one of the alleged victims in my trial and one of the judges in my divorce, just as she'd done for the previous 7+ years. All of this information, including the recent PAC opinion against the Dearborn Superior Court II can be found on my blog www.danbrewington.blogspot.com.

  4. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  5. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

ADVERTISEMENT