ILNews

Feds indict East Chicago mayor, former official

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Another East Chicago mayor is now being charged in the federal court for alleged misuse of public money, and defense attorneys say they'll go to trial to fight the charges.

Acting U.S. Attorney David Capp for the Northern District of Indiana Wednesday filed a grand jury indictment in the Hammond courthouse, charging East Chicago Mayor George Pabey and former city engineering department leader Jose Camacho with conspiring to divert city money and resources toward improving a house that Pabey owns with his daughter in Gary's Miller Beach neighborhood. Camacho is also charged with trying to persuade other city workers to lie to federal investigators about work the laborers allegedly did on the house while they were on the clock for the city, the indictment says.

In the 10-page indictment, prosecutors allege that Pabey used public money to do work on a Gary home bought as a foreclosure in late 2007. The indictment says that between late 2007 and August 2008, a crew of four "skilled laborers" supervised by Camacho worked on the home by pouring concrete, painting, and installing new appliances and furnishings. Camacho's accused of spending more than $5,000 in taxpayer money on materials for the project, and he also drew on an engineering department account. Once FBI agents starting investigating, Camacho told the other workers to either keep quiet or lie to the agents, according to the indictment.

The indictment accuses Pabey of two counts: a conspiracy charge and a charge that specifically accuses him of illegally diverting the city resources. Camacho faces the same charges and two counts of witness tampering.

East Chicago spokesman Damian Rico issued a statement Wednesday, saying the mayor did "nothing improper or illegal," that the allegations are false, and that Pabey has fully cooperated with federal investigators.

"I am shocked beyond expression that these allegations have been made by the government," Pabey said in the statement. "I will not be distracted by this event in continuing to conduct the business of my office on behalf of the people of East Chicago."

Gary attorney Fred Work and Merrillville attorney Scott King, a former Gary mayor, are serving as defense counsel.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Andrew Rodovich set a signature bond at $20,000 for both Pabey and Camacho, and lawyers stated to the media at the courthouse they anticipated going to trial.

Pabey took over as mayor in 2005 after outsting longtime political force Robert Pastrick in an Indiana Supreme Court-ordered special election. Pastrick went on to be the subject of a civil racketeering suit that's still pending before U.S. Senior Judge James Moody in Hammond. The Indiana Attorney General's Office declined to speak about that ongoing litigation, or what effect this federal case could have on that litigation.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT