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. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT