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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT