AG argues contempt warranted in East Chicago suit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller said two politically connected Lake County attorneys should be held in contempt for failing to disclose what happened to $16 million in revenue funneled to their private corporation from an East Chicago casino.

“It’s rare that this office has ever sought that,” Zoeller said in a recent interview joined by his predecessor, Steve Carter. “We’ve already been to the Supreme Court and back, and we’re still seeking discovery.”

IL_Casino01-15col.jpg Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller, left, and former Attorney General Steve Carter talk about years-long efforts to discover what happened to $16 million in revenue from an East Chicago casino steered to a politically connected company. (IL Photo/ Perry Reichanadter)

A hearing Feb. 15 before Marion Superior Judge David Shaheed could determine whether more will be known about what happened with the money, or whether the litigation Carter initiated in 2006 will begin another tour of the appellate courts.

Defendants East Chicago Second Century and its principals, Michael A. Pannos, a former Indiana Democratic Party chairman, and Thomas S. Cappas, a Lake County Democratic Party activist, were longtime allies of former Mayor Robert Pastrick, whose administration crumbled in a separate corruption scandal from which the current case arises.

Carter said as a native of Lake County he is accustomed to being jibed for the region’s reputation as a haven for crooked politicians and machine-style cronyism – “unfortunately it was well-deserved,” he said. His administration took aim at what he called the culture of corruption.

The anti-corruption efforts culminated in the fall of Pastrick’s 33-year administration against which Carter and Zoeller successfully pressed civil prosecution under state and federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations laws that led to a judgment of $108 million against Pastrick and members of his administration for the city of East Chicago.

During Pastrick’s tenure in the early 1990s, an East Chicago group was awarded a gaming permit for a riverboat casino. The permit included a provision unique among the state’s gaming licenses: 0.75 percent of casino revenue would go to a private corporation called East Chicago Second Century Inc.

Each Indiana casino permit includes percentages typically steered to localities or nonprofit foundations that use the money for economic development purposes. In the case of Second Century, Zoeller said there’s been no sight of that in East Chicago.

casinoThe unique nature of the East Chicago arrangement led Carter to bring a lawsuit against Second Century. Dismissed by the trial court and Court of Appeals, the Indiana Supreme Court in 2009 reversed, holding that it was within the attorney general’s powers to bring the case and pursue claims for constructive trust and unjust enrichment of Second Century and its principals.

On remand, Shaheed denied Second Century’s motion to dismiss, and Second Century has asked for interlocutory appeal on the motion. Zoeller answered with a motion to compel discovery and for sanctions at the judge’s discretion that could include a contempt finding. The state alleges that the Second Century players “continuously delayed discovery in this process without just cause. … They continue to throw up roadblocks and intentionally flout the discovery rules.”

Zoeller believes the conduct rises to a level that contempt is warranted. “Seeking sanctions is not part of our strategy,” he said. “It was uniquely appropriate under this circumstance.”

Carter said the resistance to discovery is telling. He said the parties should answer with an accounting of where the money went, “If this has been such a great deal for the public.”

Attorney Brady Rife, an associate with McNeely Stephenson Thopy & Harrold in Shelbyville, represents the Second Century defendants. He said he could not comment on pending litigation.

Second Century argues in its request for interlocutory appeal that Zoeller is overreaching, a claim he said was settled in favor of the AG’s powers by the Supreme Court.

“The Attorney General is pursuing claims which, under the current case law, have never been pursued previously against a private entity,” Second Century’s motion reads. “Indiana law provides no precedent allowing the Attorney General to pursue claims for unjust enrichment and disgorgement against a private company such as Second Century. Likewise, Indiana law provides no precedent allowing the Attorney General to seek discovery of highly private and confidential business and personal records from a private company such as Second Century under these circumstances.”

Carter said he’s cognizant of protests that the Republican AGs are pursuing a political beef in a traditional Democratic stronghold.

“That’s what everyone in Lake County argues when we try to bring in transparency,” he quipped.

But there appears to be a measure of cooperation with the administration of Mayor Anthony Copeland. “I have a new respect and relationship with the current mayor,” Zoeller said.

Copeland said he’s let the AG’s office lead, and the episode has illustrated the importance of accountability of public funds. “If it’s not overseen by someone, you wake up one day … chasing the trail of what happened to millions,” he said.

“No matter what the residual amount that’s remaining, in the end it could be returned to the rightful owners,” Copeland added.

Carter and Zoeller said that even though the city of East Chicago has settled with Second Century, the public statewide has a right to know what happened with funds collected for distribution as proscribed under gaming statutes.

“Part of the role of our office is to seek some public trust,” Zoeller said. “I think $16 million is still worth pursuing.”•


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  2. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  3. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  4. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.

  5. rensselaer imdiana is doing same thing to children from the judge to attorney and dfs staff they need to be investigated as well