ILNews

Feds indict East Chicago mayor, former official

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Another East Chicago mayor is now being charged in the federal court for alleged misuse of public money, and defense attorneys say they'll go to trial to fight the charges.

Acting U.S. Attorney David Capp for the Northern District of Indiana Wednesday filed a grand jury indictment in the Hammond courthouse, charging East Chicago Mayor George Pabey and former city engineering department leader Jose Camacho with conspiring to divert city money and resources toward improving a house that Pabey owns with his daughter in Gary's Miller Beach neighborhood. Camacho is also charged with trying to persuade other city workers to lie to federal investigators about work the laborers allegedly did on the house while they were on the clock for the city, the indictment says.

In the 10-page indictment, prosecutors allege that Pabey used public money to do work on a Gary home bought as a foreclosure in late 2007. The indictment says that between late 2007 and August 2008, a crew of four "skilled laborers" supervised by Camacho worked on the home by pouring concrete, painting, and installing new appliances and furnishings. Camacho's accused of spending more than $5,000 in taxpayer money on materials for the project, and he also drew on an engineering department account. Once FBI agents starting investigating, Camacho told the other workers to either keep quiet or lie to the agents, according to the indictment.

The indictment accuses Pabey of two counts: a conspiracy charge and a charge that specifically accuses him of illegally diverting the city resources. Camacho faces the same charges and two counts of witness tampering.

East Chicago spokesman Damian Rico issued a statement Wednesday, saying the mayor did "nothing improper or illegal," that the allegations are false, and that Pabey has fully cooperated with federal investigators.

"I am shocked beyond expression that these allegations have been made by the government," Pabey said in the statement. "I will not be distracted by this event in continuing to conduct the business of my office on behalf of the people of East Chicago."

Gary attorney Fred Work and Merrillville attorney Scott King, a former Gary mayor, are serving as defense counsel.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Andrew Rodovich set a signature bond at $20,000 for both Pabey and Camacho, and lawyers stated to the media at the courthouse they anticipated going to trial.

Pabey took over as mayor in 2005 after outsting longtime political force Robert Pastrick in an Indiana Supreme Court-ordered special election. Pastrick went on to be the subject of a civil racketeering suit that's still pending before U.S. Senior Judge James Moody in Hammond. The Indiana Attorney General's Office declined to speak about that ongoing litigation, or what effect this federal case could have on that litigation.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT