ILNews

East Chicago casino case still alive

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A years-long court battle over millions of dollars in East Chicago casino revenue remains alive after a Marion County judge vacated an earlier dismissal of the civil suit and blocked the release of $8 million in disputed funds that had been part of a settlement.

Marion Superior Judge David Shaheed on Thursday issued the latest decision in City of East Chicago and State of Indiana v. East Chicago Second Century Inc., No. 49D01-0504-PL-014394. He agreed with Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller that approximately $8 million in casino-revenue funds should not be released while the litigation is ongoing. He decided July 15 to set aside his earlier ruling in April that had dismissed the suit, because the city and for-profit organization known as Second Century didn’t include the AG in settlement negotiations.

The case dates back more than a decade to the administration of now-convicted former Mayor Robert Pastrick, who set up the casino money and local development agreement with Second Century and similar organizations. But the AG’s office has tried for years to delve deeper into that financial transaction to determine how that money has been spent once received.

In February, Mayor George Pabey announced he had reached a deal with Second Century, a for-profit economic development organization that would redirect $1.5 million in annual casino revenue from Second Century to the city. In return, the city would release its claim to approximately $4 million in payments intended for Second Century that have been delayed since 2005 while the lawsuit was pending.

But Zoeller objected to the settlement because he claims Second Century has not adequately shown how it has spent some $16 million in casino revenue it has received over the years.

The settlement was approved April 8, but Judge Shaheed's latest ruling stops the settlement from proceeding and permits the attorney general to participate in the revived lawsuit.

"From the beginning of the Second Century case, the goal of the Indiana attorney general's office has been to ensure that funds intended to benefit the citizens of East Chicago actually do so," Zoeller said in a statement. "The public needs assurances that these funds are not squandered or diverted back to political cronies or to an administration under investigation for corruption."

Pabey was indicted by federal officials in February on charges he conspired to embezzle city money and unlawfully used city workers for personal projects. His trial is scheduled for September.
 

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. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT