Morning interviews wrap up

September 27, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

From reporter Michael Hoskins:

Joseph Pearman
Though he lives in Carmel now, Joseph Pearman said he’s from northern Indiana and that means he is the only applicant to offer representation of that part of the state. The Tax Court would be a challenge and would complement his diverse career, legally and otherwise. He explained his work in drafting pensions and defined benefit or contributions plans in divorce cases. He also delved into what he saw as the impact of the Town of St. John case and that tax rates had to be raised. Pearman also went into his views about how judges shouldn’t be activists and legislate from the bench, and the judiciary and legislature must have a careful dialogue without collaborating because they are two separate branches.

 

Joby Jerrells
Joby Jerrells discussed his present work with the Attorney General’s Office and also his limited practice out of his home in Bloomington, where he has permission from the state agency to represent civil and criminal clients and do some pro bono work. Though he’s been practicing for only seven years, he sees his diverse caseload as a benefit and describes his work as being a “large body of work” in all areas of law. He discussed his work on the Trump and Aztar cases, which allowed him to use his policy-analysis skills and also showed him how the principles of the law apply more than the dollar amount. Jerrells also talked about his not including any references from the AG’s Office; he explained that was because he didn’t ask because he did not want to put the office into a position of having to choose between the applicants from its office.

 

Melony Sacopulos
Melony Sacopulos talked about how she’s always enjoyed the “intellectual puzzles that tax law presents,” and pointed to her diverse tenure with Indiana State University. Her experience at the university means handling many different areas each day and having to make prudent judgment calls that impact someone’s life or career. She discussed being in Washington, D.C., attending night school and also working for a national tax office, handling many issues that were uncommon. She views the tax judge’s job as being one of issuing decisions that are prompt, well-written, and concise. She also finds the Internet makes the court’s job even easier because more people have access to tax information from governments online. The judge’s opinions that interpret statute should be the extent of the relationship between the court and legislature, she said.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

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
  1. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  2. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  3. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  4. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  5. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

ADVERTISEMENT