AG turns over $331k to East Chicago in RICO case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Racketeering litigation that began in 2004 against former East Chicago Mayor Robert Pastrick ended Thursday as Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller turned over more than $331,000 the state collected from Pastrick and co-defendants to the city.

Zoeller pressed a Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization case against Pastrick and other former city officials involved in a “sidewalks for votes” scheme that alleged the squandering $24 million in taxpayer funds. The case originated under former Indiana Attorney General Steve Carter and resulted in the 2009 judgment of $108 million against Pastrick and co-defendants. It marked the first time a U.S. city administration had been found to be a criminal enterprise under federal racketeering laws.

Funds Zoeller turned over to East Chicago Mayor Anthony Copeland Thursday as a partial payment included more than $145,416 liquidated from Pastrick after a bankruptcy court ruled his assets were not exempt from the judgment in the RICO case. Co-defendants provided $186,250 awarded in settlements and judgments.

“The loss of public trust is the legacy of the Pastrick regime, one that will take time to restore. In the end, our legal actions once again show that no one is above the law,” Zoeller said during a news conference. “Today marks a milestone in restoring public trust, and I salute Mayor Copeland for striving to have an ethical administration that seeks to earn the trust of the people.”

Copeland said the lessons of the Pastrick era won’t be repeated. “While history may record where we have been, the future will reveal that we have accepted our past.  But it will not determine our future.”

Pastrick was mayor of East Chicago for 33 years.

“I’m glad that the attorney general went after these funds, and I’m glad to see they are coming back to the residents of East Chicago,” said Lenny Franciski, president of the East Chicago Common Council.

The AG’s office in court complaints noted Pastrick’s administration operated through patronage to perpetuate an organization often called “the Pastrick machine.” To boost his re-election chances in the 1999 mayoral primary, Pastrick and his allies engaged in a scheme that spent $24 million on a pre-election sidewalk-paving and tree-trimming operation – some of it on private properties – to curry favor with voters. The massive expenditures depleted the city treasury.

Thursday's return of money to the city marks the end of the attorney general's office's direct involvement in this portion of the case.

In a separate East Chicago corruption case, the AG’s office argued last month that a Marion County judge should find principals of Second Century in contempt for failing to comply with discovery on what happened to $16 million in riverboat casino revenue it received under a financial arrangement unique among Indiana gaming operations.

Second Century’s principals Michael A. Pannos, a former Indiana Democratic Party chairman, and Thomas S. Cappas, a Lake County Democratic Party activist, were longtime allies of Pastrick, and the casino license was granted during Pastrick’s tenure.


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. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?