AG targets East Chicago corruption

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Attorney General's Office wants a federal court to order an audit of East Chicago that might reveal the need for more oversight of a city that's endured a racketeering vote-buying enterprise carried out by a former mayor and multiple city officials.

Filing a memorandum on damages and injunctive relief in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, late Tuesday, a Chicago attorney acting as a special deputy attorney general for the state seeks the audit in the 5-year-old case against former East Chicago Mayor Robert Pastrick and top aides. The defendants have now all settled and admitted civil liability for at least a portion of the $25 million in public funds used in a vote-buying scheme a decade ago.

Using the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, Patrick Collins, special deputy attorney general - on behalf of Attorney General Greg Zoeller - is proposing that the State Board of Accounts conduct an expedited audit of city government to "review, assess, and report" to the court its findings as to the full economic damages caused mostly by a "Sidewalks for Votes" scandal, and any injunctive relief or remedy that may be warranted. The audit would review the current financial conditions of East Chicago, the amounts and purposes of casino funds disbursed, and any other structural or systemic problems in the city.

The brief stops short of asking for a specific resolution but indicates there is a range of civil remedies available to the court once the agency's audit is complete. Options used in other cases and jurisdictions include asset forfeiture, as well as the appointment of a trustee or constructive trust to monitor and oversee the business involved in racketeering.

If a receiver or trustee method was used and the State Board of Accounts continued in an auditing role, it would essentially mean the agency and the presiding judge would be guarantors of public confidence by monitoring the city's financial decision-making.

While the brief doesn't allege any corruption by the current administration, it says the current city government and members of the public are still burdened by the pattern of corruption that's existed in East Chicago through the years during the Pastrick administration.

Senior Judge James T. Moody in the Northern District of Indiana's Hammond Division will consider this request and hear testimony about the proposal during a hearing at 9:30 a.m. CST June 9.

Former Attorney General Steve Carter launched the suit in 2004 against East Chicago's former Democratic Mayor Robert Pastrick, multiple city officials, and contractors on claims that the group dubbed the "Sidewalk Six" misspent public money on a scheme to pave sidewalks and driveways for election votes. That eventually led to a federal indictment of more than a dozen of Pastrick's administration officials and contractors. This civil suit sought to recoup the misspent money, and the Attorney General's Office reported that most defendants have settled and about $1.2 million has been collected from them. The state has also obtained another $18 million in default judgment orders against other defendants.

But defendants Pastrick, James Fife III, and Timothy Raykovich were the holdouts. Raykovich settled with the state May 13 - a week before the other two decided to not defend themselves in court - and the charges against Raykovich were dismissed with prejudice. Pastrick and Fife officially waived their right to a jury trial May 26. Judge Moody entered default judgments Tuesday against the pair, as well as another co-defendant Frank Kollintzas, a former city councilor who has since been convicted in the related criminal case; authorities believe Kollintzas has fled the country.

Zoeller has said previously he doesn't expect to recover the $25 million - or any larger amount including any possible treble damages - in this case but instead hopes to use this suit to show how deep the East Chicago corruption went and find a way to restore public confidence, locally and statewide.


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. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

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

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.