ILNews

Conour seeks pre-sentence release

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Former attorney William Conour has asked a federal judge who ordered him jailed last month in his wire fraud case to free him ahead of his Oct. 17 sentencing.

Conour pleaded guilty July 15 to government charges that he defrauded at least 25 personal-injury and wrongful-death clients of more than $4.5 million he received in negotiated settlements. He entered a plea a short time after he was jailed in June for dissipating assets in violation of terms of bond. Conour since has been held in the Marion County Jail.

The motion for release filed July 19 asks Chief Judge Richard Young of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana to free Conour until October because he doesn’t represent a flight risk, and because he has consented to the government taking possession of any assets that may remain from an inventory of his Carmel home.

“Therefore, the risk of dissipation which previously concerned the court will be eliminated as soon as the government takes control of the remaining assets,” public defender Michael Donahoe wrote in the petition.  

The government has not responded to the motion and Young had not acted on the request as of midday Thursday. The motion notes federal prosecutor Jason Bohm opposes the release request.

Donahoe argues that Conour also needs access to his computer, files and records to help enable more assets to go toward restitution and to defend himself in at least six civil cases in which he is a defendant.

Conour also has “health concerns which can best be addressed if he is released prior to sentencing,” according to the motion. Those include access to cholesterol mediation and “completing dermatology treatment for removal of cancerous and pre-cancerous lesions.”

The motion also states that Conour’s 25-room house on Sedgemoore Circle, currently subject to a foreclosure action, is exposed because of his absence. The motion says its vacancy “will cause a lapse in homeowners insurance coverage and renders the house vulnerable to vandalism and other potential damage by animals, fire, etc. In fact, during a prior period of vacancy the residence suffered extensive damage by squirrels and raccoons.”
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • FELON USE JAIL STAY TO PREPARE FOR PRISON!
    Squirrels and raccoons have more possessory rights to the mansion than Conour and will do less damage. Conour should use his jail time to prepare for the fun he will have in the prison's general population where he likely will be properly treated as the lord he thinks he is. Didn't Conour's sabbatical at the Scottish thological seminar prepare him for everything? Perhaps he doesn't feel well thinking about Cù Sìth or the Grim Reaper whose scythe can remedy a few skin problems.
  • Ridiculous motion
    If Conour robbed a bank of $4.5M and pled guilty, would the court set him free so he could go to his dermatologist and pick up his meds from CVS? Squirrels and lapsed home insurance? It’s not his house! His motion also states he needs to pack his ‘personal’ things, take care of personal affairs, and that incarceration will cause his Medicare to lapse. And the court should be sympathetic…why? All of this could have been taken care of during the long period of appeals he filed throughout the past year, extending the wait to trial. And what was he doing instead? He was spending victim restitution funds and proceeds from the sale of assets on himself. I suggest the judge give him another twenty for filing frivolous motions and wasting the time of the court.

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. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT