ILNews

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.”•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Applause, applause, applause ..... but, is this duty to serve the constitutional order not much more incumbent upon the State, whose only aim is to be pure and unadulterated justice, than defense counsel, who is also charged with gaining a result for a client? I agree both are responsible, but it seems to me that the government attorneys bear a burden much heavier than defense counsel .... "“I note, much as we did in Mechling v. State, 16 N.E.3d 1015 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied, that the attorneys representing the State and the defendant are both officers of the court and have a responsibility to correct any obvious errors at the time they are committed."

  2. Do I have to hire an attorney to get co-guardianship of my brother? My father has guardianship and my older sister was his co-guardian until this Dec 2014 when she passed and my father was me to go on as the co-guardian, but funds are limit and we need to get this process taken care of quickly as our fathers health isn't the greatest. So please advise me if there is anyway to do this our self or if it requires a lawyer? Thank you

  3. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  4. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  5. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

ADVERTISEMENT