ILNews

AG files suit against former town employees

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Attorney General filed a suit Monday against former Chesterfield town officials seeking recovery of more than $259,000 in public funds they allegedly defrauded from the town government.

The charges were filed following an Oct. 26, 2009, certified audit by the State Board of Accounts examiners who discovered that the five officials defrauded the town of nearly $260,000. The AG is seeking recovery of the funds from former town clerk-treasurer and town manager Christopher Parrish; former town marshal James Kimm; former part-time Chesterfield police officer Joseph Brown, Kimm's half-brother; former town maintenance superintendent Christopher Walter; and Walter's brother James, who is also a former town maintenance employee.

The men are accused of getting paid by filing false mileage reimbursement claims, phony automotive-repair and building-repair claims, and for hours they never worked, among other claims.

The State Board of Accounts audit found Parrish and others got away with the scheme without the knowledge of the Chesterfield Town Council. The audit focused on records from Jan. 1, 2007, to Jan. 31, 2009.

The men are charged with several counts, including misappropriation of funds, unauthorized or wrongful payment of funds, and unauthorized payments. The state is also seeking treble damages.

Also charged in the suit are Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland and Ohio Casualty which had executed bonds to Parrish during the time examined by the audit. The state seeks payment of the employee-theft insurance the town had on the employees, and to redeem surety bonds obtained on Parrish and Kimm.

The lawsuit is a part of a stepped-up effort by Attorney General Greg Zoeller to fight public corruption and misuse of tax dollars by elected officials and government employees.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT