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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT