ILNews

Attorneys to get big cut of $300K OmniSource settlement

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An OmniSource executive says the company wouldn't have made the settlement with the Marion County prosecutor if it knew more than a third of the cash wouldn't be going to Indianapolis police for training programs.

When Marion County Prosecutor Terry Curry announced he was dropping criminal and civil charges against scrap-metal recycling firm OmniSource Inc., he said the company had agreed to make a $300,000 contribution, as a show of good faith, to fund law enforcement training programs.

In reality, the funds are being processed like any other civil forfeiture involving an illegal business enterprise, and less than $200,000 of the settlement cash will actually make it to the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department.

First in line to be paid: Contingent-fee private attorneys Greg Garrison, who filed the initial civil forfeiture case while under contract with former Prosecutor Carl Brizzi, and Mark K. Sullivan, an outside attorney brought on by Curry as Garrison's co-counsel. The pair will split 15 percent of the settlement, or $45,000, plus filing fees.

The remaining $255,000 will be split, with 20 percent going to the prosecutor's office, 75 percent going to IMPD, and 5 percent for a joint fund administered by the prosecutor and director of public safety, said Chief Deputy Prosecutor David Rimstidt.

The total going to IMPD, about $191,250, does not sit well with OmniSource officials.

The company would not have agreed to the deal if they knew the settlement would pay an "ounce of tribute to this scurrilous investigation," said Ben Eisbart, a vice president at Fort Wayne-based Steel Dynamics Inc., OmniSource's parent company.

OmniSource intended the "donation" to be used for law enforcement programs, including training on how to prevent scrap-metal theft, an extension of the company's own more-than-$1 million investment in anti-theft measures at its five local scrap yards, Eisbart said.

"The citizens of Indianapolis will be infinitely better served by having well-trained individuals than by paying some lawyers," he said. "We're beside ourselves. We want to meet with the prosecutor to find out where it went off the track. This was never about money."

The $300,000 roughly matches the amount of cash authorities seized from local OmniSource scrap yards in 2009, after a year-long investigation into the company's alleged purchases of stolen cars, boats, gutters and wiring.

A Marion County grand jury returned a 16-page indictment against OmniSource in October 2010, charging the company with three counts of corrupt business influence and five counts of attempted receipt of stolen property.

There was plenty of evidence to prove employees of OmniSource bought stolen property, Curry said. The problem was proving employees knew the metal had been stolen. And after a judge threw out the corrupt business influence charge, that left just five counts of attempted stolen property.

Curry said he decided against investing the resources in pursuing the charges that at most would result in a fine of $10,000 per count and no jail time for anyone. The seized cash will be returned to OmniSource, which will then make its $300,000 contribution.

"It's fair to say there was a negotiation on all the terms of the ultimate agreement," Curry said. "We will process it as a civil forfeiture."

The prosecutor's office is no longer using outside contingent-fee attorneys to handle civil forfeitures, Curry noted, though he said he had no choice but to honor the prior agreement between Brizzi and Garrison.

Even though Garrison stands to collect a cut of the settlement, he said he was livid when he heard Curry would be dropping the charges.

In his forfeiture filing against OmniSource of behalf of Brizzi, Garrison wrote that the company buys millions of dollars worth of stolen metal per year as its “regular way of doing business” and operates in a similar fashion all over the state.

"Letting those guys go in the face of the powerful evidence that supported both the criminal and civil cases is inconceivable to me," Garrison wrote in an e-mail to Indianapolis Business Journal on Thursday. "Damn."

OmniSource had described the civil suit, which sought the forfeiture of five Indianapolis-area scrap yards and a foundry facility in Hendricks County, as part of a plan by Brizzi and Garrison to “extract money” under threat of civil forfeiture. Garrison filed the case during Brizzi's last week as prosecutor.

This story originally ran in the July 15, 2011, IBJ Daily. The IBJ is a sister pubilcation of Indiana Lawyer.
 

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

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