ILNews

Daily News -- Sept. 25, 2013 issue

September 23, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Friends and family honor IBF Legendary Lawyer Henry Ryder

The reception honoring retired Indianapolis attorney Henry Ryder included lots of stories.

About 120 friends, family and colleagues gathered at the downtown office of Barnes & Thornburg LLP to recognize Ryder on his selection to receive the Indiana Bar Foundation’s 2013 Legendary Lawyer Award.

ryder Ryder

Before Ryder was presented with the plaque, attorneys told stories about how they met him, different aspects of his life, his ability to sing Purdue University’s Alma Mater and how he convinced them to serve on boards.

They also acknowledged his distinguished career. Samuel “Chic” Born said as an attorney Ryder was known from the Ohio River to the shores of Lake Michigan and up and down the banks of the Wabash.

“You’re a successful man. You’re an honorable man. You’re a good and faithful servant,” Born said. “I’m glad you’re my friend.”

Ryder practiced law for 54 years before retiring a partner and of counsel at Barnes & Thornburg. In 1960, he and William Roberts founded the firm Roberts & Ryder where Ryder focused his practice on labor and employment law.

Along with practicing law, Ryder served as a trustee for Purdue University and Hanover College and he helped found PRIDE (Peaceful Response to Indianapolis Desegregated Education), an organization whose mission was to bring equal opportunity into schools during the desegregation era.

Ryder’s son, David, an attorney in Washington state, told stories detailing the adventures of growing up in the Ryder household. He pointed out that stories – myths even – can build up around individuals dubbed “legends,” but his dad stands up to the scrutiny.

“I’m so proud of you dad and proud to call you my dad,” he said.

 AG seeks to reinstate misconduct charges against former IURC chief

The former head of the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission could again face criminal charges in connection with his alleged actions surrounding Duke Energy’s Edwardsport power plant in 2010.

Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller announced Sept. 9 that his office has filed an appeal to the dismissal of official misconduct charges against David Lott Hardy. The attorney general is asking the Indiana Court of Appeals to reverse the trial court’s dismissal of the official misconduct charges against Hardy and reinstate them.

zoeller-greg.jpg Zoeller

Zoeller’s office argued that the Marion County Superior Court was wrong in ruling that the 2012 amendment to Indiana’s misconduct statute was retroactive.

“We respect the trial court but contend its ruling is incorrect, the 2012 change is not retroactive and the defendant can and should face charges under the law in effect in 2010,” Zoeller stated in a press release. “We ask the Court of Appeals to reinstate the charges so that the trial can proceed and a verdict can be rendered.”

Hardy’s attorney David Hensel, of Pence Hensel LLC, could not be reached for comment.

Hardy was indicted by a Marion County grand jury in 2011 on four counts of Class D felony official misconduct. He was accused of lobbying Duke Energy to hire then IURC administrative law judge Scott Storms, and of having ex parte communications with the power company about the Edwardsport plant in 2010.

On Aug. 12, Marion Superior Judge William Nelson granted Hardy’s motion to dismiss all charges. Nelson held the Indiana General Assembly’s changes to the criminal official misconduct statute which became effective July 1, 2012, were meant to be retroactive.

Man who bilked banks of $10 million sentenced

A southern Indiana man who defrauded Indiana banks of more than $10 million by supplying bogus financial information from family members to obtain multi-million-dollar loans for real estate, an airplane and a yacht will spend five years in federal prison.

Todd Van Natta of Seymour and Columbus also was ordered to pay almost $7 million in restitution after he pleaded guilty to 10 counts of bank fraud and two counts of tax fraud. U.S. District Judge William T. Lawrence of the Southern District of Indiana imposed sentence.

Van Natta was the president and manager of the Seymour-based Van Natta Asset Management, LLC, along with a variety of related companies, according to a statement from the office of Joe Hogsett, U.S. attorney for the Southern District. Van Natta’s company was involved in commercial and residential real estate projects, as well as the aviation business.

Van Natta was accused in July of devising a scheme to defraud financial institutions from 2007 to 2009, obtaining large sums of money by preparing and submitting numerous false documents to banks throughout central and southern Indiana, including local financial institutions headquartered in Bartholomew, Decatur, Washington, Morgan and Monroe counties.

The documents included tax returns and were used to obtain loans, including two loans of more than $3 million for property in Evansville and multiple parcels in Fort Wayne, as well as a $2.1 million bank note for properties in Seymour. He also got bogus six-figure loans to buy a 1970 Cessna Aircraft and a 2007 Fantasy yacht, according to Hogsett’s office.

Van Natta also defrauded a Utah resident of thousands of dollars by falsely claiming he owned an airplane listed for sale.

The government has moved to seize Van Natta’s assets gained by criminal activity. Senior litigation counsel Steven D. DeBrota and Assistant U.S. Attorney MaryAnn Mindrum prosecuted the case that resulted from an investigation that included the FBI and Internal Revenue Service.  

Judge: Suit challenging Marion County judicial slating may proceed

A federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a state law that has given rise to the Democratic and Republican slating system under which Marion Superior judges are elected will go forward.

Chief Judge Richard Young of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana this month denied a motion to dismiss brought by state officials and interests named in a suit brought by Common Cause and the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana.

Common Cause, a nonpartisan group whose mission is to promote open, honest government and voting rights, seeks an injunction against enforcement of Indiana Code 33-33-49-13. The suit says that law, which sets forth the process for electing judges in the Marion Superior Courts, is “unique in Indiana, and perhaps in the nation.”

“Common Cause has Article III and prudential standing to bring its claim; the Defendants are not immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment; and Common Cause states a plausible claim for relief,” Young wrote in the Sept. 6 order.

Slating of Marion Superior judge races has drawn criticism because each candidate who earned the party’s endorsement on the primary ballot paid identical amounts to the county party before his or her party’s slating convention prior to the primary. For Democrats, the contribution was $13,100; for Republicans, it was $12,000, according to a review of campaign contributions last year by Indiana Lawyer.  

The statute all but guarantees an equal split of Marion Superior judgeships for Democratic and Republican candidates. For the current 20 judgeships, each party may nominate 10 candidates for the general election, and voters may select 10 from each party. Unslated candidates rarely win, and Young noted that while candidates may run as independents or as third-party candidates, no one has since 2002.

Young’s ruling rejected state arguments to remove parties to the case and that the complaint was of a type more appropriately addressed in the Legislature. In rejecting the state’s argument on standing, he wrote, “Instead, Common Cause brings a constitutional challenge involving its members’ and other Marion County voters’ First Amendment right to cast a meaningful vote for Marion Superior Court judge.”

The state’s argument on failure to state a claim also was unpersuasive. “Although Indiana’s ballot access statute … has been found constitutionally adequate … the court is not convinced that the statute’s constitutionality with respect to a candidate’s access to the ballot applies here with equal force, where the claim is not ballot access, but whether a citizen’s vote in the general election matters.”•
 

ADVERTISEMENT

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. I like the concept. Seems like a good idea and really inexpensive to manage.

  2. I don't agree that this is an extreme case. There are more of these people than you realize - people that are vindictive and/or with psychological issues have clogged the system with baseless suits that are costly to the defendant and to taxpayers. Restricting repeat offenders from further abusing the system is not akin to restricting their freedon, but to protecting their victims, and the court system, from allowing them unfettered access. From the Supreme Court opinion "he has burdened the opposing party and the courts of this state at every level with massive, confusing, disorganized, defective, repetitive, and often meritless filings."

  3. So, if you cry wolf one too many times courts may "restrict" your ability to pursue legal action? Also, why is document production equated with wealth? Anyone can "produce probably tens of thousands of pages of filings" if they have a public library card. I understand this is an extreme case, but our Supreme Court really got this one wrong.

  4. He called our nation a nation of cowards because we didn't want to talk about race. That was a cheap shot coming from the top cop. The man who decides who gets the federal government indicts. Wow. Not a gentleman if that is the measure. More importantly, this insult delivered as we all understand, to white people-- without him or anybody needing to explain that is precisely what he meant-- but this is an insult to timid white persons who fear the government and don't want to say anything about race for fear of being accused a racist. With all the legal heat that can come down on somebody if they say something which can be construed by a prosecutor like Mr Holder as racist, is it any wonder white people-- that's who he meant obviously-- is there any surprise that white people don't want to talk about race? And as lawyers we have even less freedom lest our remarks be considered violations of the rules. Mr Holder also demonstrated his bias by publically visiting with the family of the young man who was killed by a police offering in the line of duty, which was a very strong indicator of bias agains the offer who is under investigation, and was a failure to lead properly by letting his investigators do their job without him predetermining the proper outcome. He also has potentially biased the jury pool. All in all this worsens race relations by feeding into the perception shared by whites as well as blacks that justice will not be impartial. I will say this much, I do not blame Obama for all of HOlder's missteps. Obama has done a lot of things to stay above the fray and try and be a leader for all Americans. Maybe he should have reigned Holder in some but Obama's got his hands full with other problelms. Oh did I mention HOlder is a bank crony who will probably get a job in a silkstocking law firm working for millions of bucks a year defending bankers whom he didn't have the integrity or courage to hold to account for their acts of fraud on the United States, other financial institutions, and the people. His tenure will be regarded by history as a failure of leadership at one of the most important jobs in our nation. Finally and most importantly besides him insulting the public and letting off the big financial cheats, he has been at the forefront of over-prosecuting the secrecy laws to punish whistleblowers and chill free speech. What has Holder done to vindicate the rights of privacy of the American public against the illegal snooping of the NSA? He could have charged NSA personnel with violations of law for their warrantless wiretapping which has been done millions of times and instead he did not persecute a single soul. That is a defalcation of historical proportions and it signals to the public that the government DOJ under him was not willing to do a damn thing to protect the public against the rapid growth of the illegal surveillance state. Who else could have done this? Nobody. And for that omission Obama deserves the blame too. Here were are sliding into a police state and Eric Holder made it go all the faster.

  5. JOE CLAYPOOL candidate for Superior Court in Harrison County - Indiana This candidate is misleading voters to think he is a Judge by putting Elect Judge Joe Claypool on his campaign literature. paragraphs 2 and 9 below clearly indicate this injustice to voting public to gain employment. What can we do? Indiana Code - Section 35-43-5-3: Deception (a) A person who: (1) being an officer, manager, or other person participating in the direction of a credit institution, knowingly or intentionally receives or permits the receipt of a deposit or other investment, knowing that the institution is insolvent; (2) knowingly or intentionally makes a false or misleading written statement with intent to obtain property, employment, or an educational opportunity; (3) misapplies entrusted property, property of a governmental entity, or property of a credit institution in a manner that the person knows is unlawful or that the person knows involves substantial risk of loss or detriment to either the owner of the property or to a person for whose benefit the property was entrusted; (4) knowingly or intentionally, in the regular course of business, either: (A) uses or possesses for use a false weight or measure or other device for falsely determining or recording the quality or quantity of any commodity; or (B) sells, offers, or displays for sale or delivers less than the represented quality or quantity of any commodity; (5) with intent to defraud another person furnishing electricity, gas, water, telecommunication, or any other utility service, avoids a lawful charge for that service by scheme or device or by tampering with facilities or equipment of the person furnishing the service; (6) with intent to defraud, misrepresents the identity of the person or another person or the identity or quality of property; (7) with intent to defraud an owner of a coin machine, deposits a slug in that machine; (8) with intent to enable the person or another person to deposit a slug in a coin machine, makes, possesses, or disposes of a slug; (9) disseminates to the public an advertisement that the person knows is false, misleading, or deceptive, with intent to promote the purchase or sale of property or the acceptance of employment;

ADVERTISEMENT