The Indiana Judicial Nominating Commission is interviewing 14 people who’ve applied to be the state’s next Tax
Court judge, narrowing down the list to semi-finalists who will return for second interviews in October.
Starting at 9 a.m., the seven-member commission chaired by Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard has been questioning those interested
in the appellate tax court, which will for the first time since its creation in 1986 see a change in leadership once Judge
Thomas G. Fisher retires at year’s end. Fifteen had applied, but one person withdrew his name last week leading up to
these first-round interviews.
Before taking an hour-long lunch break, the commission had interviewed Martha Wentworth, George Angelone, Hon. Karen Love,
Andrew Swain, Hon. Bruce Kolb, Marilyn Meighen, Joseph Pearman, Joby Jerrells, and Melony Sacopulos. The five remaining following
lunch included Dan Carwile, Hon. Carol Comer, Randle Pollard, Michelle Baldwin, and Thomas Ewbank.
Each person appeared for a 20-minute interview. The chief justice greeted each applicant who came before the commission today,
thanking that person for applying and asking everyone about their interest in the judicial spot. The responses were all similar,
differing to a degree based on their own experiences but with many saying this would be a logical evolution in their legal
careers and that they wanted to continue the practice of having fair and concise caselaw that Judge Fisher has created during
the past 24 years.
“I’ve always enjoyed the intellectual puzzles that tax law presents,” said Melony Sacopulos, general counsel
at Indiana State University, as she discussed her work for a national tax office in Washington, D.C., that she said gave her
unique experience.
Commissioners asked some of the same questions to applicants, such as their views on the Tax Court’s mission and how
the court and judge should interact with the legislature on tax law and issues. Members also turned to applicants’ information
about their most significant legal matters and also how those experiences might have prepared them for the tax bench.
Hendricks Superior Judge Karen Love discussed what she calls the “ABCs” of this court, which she described as
meaning the attitude of a judge, the balance she can bring based on her experience, and those critical aspects of clarity,
consistency, and communication.
Deputy Attorney General Andrew Swain said he didn’t think that ADR Rule 2.7(b)2 applied to the tax court because the
attorney general and the governor must approve any mediated settlements. But in the next interview, Administrative Law Judge
Bruce Kolb said he wanted to examine why only one case during the past three years has been referred to mediation. Kolb also
said his experience with pro se litigants could be beneficial in an area that is sure to see an increase of those cases in
coming years.
Attorney George Angelone, who has spent three decades working for the Legislative Services Agency, said he focused on tax
and public finance work and that agency is one of the only places you can find a similar caseload to what the Tax Court faces.
He noted that two- or three-year waits on some tax issues at the local level isn’t good enough, and more must be done
at that stage to make the process efficient. The bar could help on that, possibly through continuing legal education, he said.
The commission is scheduled to finish interviews this afternoon and begin deliberating in executive session at 4 p.m., and
will then hold a public vote on who it chooses as semi-finalists. The second interviews are scheduled for Oct. 27, and the
commission will forward three names to the governor to make the final decision.














The court of appeals not only tries to rewrite or interpret the law to suit their fancy, now they choose play stupid as well. Every consideration must be given to pro se litigants, who are not held to the same standards as attorneys, as stated by,SCOTUS. I assume they didn't have a lawyer, since one wasn't mentioned and I strongly suggest thatb the rest of the, origional petitioners get back in there and fight for their rights.
the irony of situations like this is that the clients whom conour cheated are the ones who should be pulling hardest for him to remain free and keep his law license, so they have some hopes of him paying back. really bury the guy deep and then there will be little hope of restitution
Qualified immunity, means that if you wear a badge, you are exempt from law and free to do anything you please! The courts will back badge toting individuals, because they think they are above the law as well. They think, they have judicial immunity, they do not.
Deeply, deeply concerned? I'll bet if it was the judge's money that had been swindled we'd see deep concern with actual consequences. First a Ponzi scheme, then a shell game with the assets…c'mon, hasn't Conour abused the judicial system and his clients long enough? I say enough already.
Wow, just wow.