ILNews

How the Brizzi public-corruption case unraveled

Cory Schouten
November 5, 2013
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

SOUTH BEND—Federal authorities suffered a near-complete defeat in their efforts to prosecute the players in an unusual real estate deal in Elkhart, a setback that ultimately doomed an ambitious public-corruption case targeting former Marion County Prosecutor Carl Brizzi.

U.S. District Court Judge Robert Miller Jr. sentenced Indianapolis defense attorney Paul J. Page to probation on Monday, nine months after a South Bend jury returned not-guilty verdicts against two co-defendants. Page pleaded guilty before trial.

Federal prosecutors and an FBI-led task force had hoped to use the Northern District of Indiana case—and a Marion County case against a former deputy prosecutor—to turn defendants they believed could help convict the former prosecutor for accepting bribes.

But the three-year-old case unraveled when the government's best hope for providing information implicating Brizzi, the real estate broker John M. Bales, beat the 13 felony charges he was facing. And Page and a former Brizzi leutenant who also struck a deal in exchange for cooperation maintained they had no evidence to suggest Brizzi took bribes.

Newly filed court documents detail for the first time the government's strategy as investigators built a case against Brizzi that never made it to a courtroom.

Most notably, Brizzi is alleged to have pocketed more than $48,000 in distributions from his ownership of the state-leased office building in Elkhart, even though he was never officially listed as an owner. Prosecutors had hoped to prove the ownership interest was a bribe from Page, a defense attorney who received favorable treatment from the Marion County Prosecutor's Office.

Of particular interest was a drug case involving a Page client, Joseph Mobareki. Brizzi personally ordered a lenient plea deal for Mobareki and for the return of $10,000 of seized drug money to Page for attorney's fees.

Eight days after the plea agreement and 14 days after the Prosecutor's Office had returned the cash, Brizzi and Page each received $25,000 from their interest in the Elkhart property. Brizzi didn't put up any cash or co-sign a loan on the bulding.

Brizzi and Page each went on to receive an additional $23,300 in distributions from the Elkhart property in 2010 and 2011. The cash distributions to Brizzi were revealed for the first time in a Nov. 1 court filing in a case involving former deputy prosecutor David Wyser.

But Page insisted in interviews with investigators that he gave the equity to Brizzi as a "finder's fee" for bringing him the deal, not as a bribe. Brizzi had heard about the deal through Bales, a friend and business partner who floated the down payment Page used to buy the building.

Page did not disclose to his lender the $362,000 down payment he had received—and would have to repay to Bales—which led to Page's wire fraud conviction. He'll spend two years on probation and pay a $10,000 fine for the crime.

Prosecutors argued the deal violated an agreement between Bales' firm, Venture Cos., and the state that barred the company from direct or indirect ownership of properties where state agencies leased space. Venture had a contract to handle the state's leasing.

But the jury in Elkhart didn't hear anything about Brizzi, leaving a fraud case that seemed to hang on technicalities and lacked an identifiable victim. They acquitted both Bales and busines partner William E. Spencer.

Separately, prosecutors believed Brizzi accepted $25,000 in campaign contributions from the father of a convicted murderer, Paula Willoughby, as a bribe to modify her prison sentence.

But David Wyser, Brizzi's top deputy, told authorities it was he who approved the sentence modification that set Willoughby free.

Wyser agreed to plead guilty to a single bribery charge—for a $2,500 donation toward his run for Hamilton County prosecutor—and cooperate with the government in exchange for leniency. He's facing up to two years in prison and is scheduled for sentencing Nov. 25.

In a Nov. 1 filing, the government described how Wyser accepted the bribe and approved the release of Willoughby, who wound up serving less than 20 years on a 70-year prison sentence.

The early release in July 2009 was the result of a lobbying campaign by local attorney Jennifer Lukemeyer, who has not been charged in the case. She exchanged several emails with Wyser with the subject line "Free Paula!" according to a sentencing memorandum.

In emails, Wyser was hardly veiled about his interest in collecting campaign funds from Willoughby's father.

“What will Paula do to make me feel warm and fuzzy?" he wrote in one email.

“You should convince him to write me a check on behalf of the whales," Wyser wrote in another, referencing the movie Free Willy.

But it was a phone call on the morning of May 29, 2009, that likely sealed Wyser's fate. Based on testimony from Lukemeyer, Wyser called her that morning and said: “I want him [Willoughby’s Father] to give and you can tell him.”

Willoughby's father, Harrison Epperly, wrote the $2,500 check the same day. It was the largest direct contribution to Wyser's campaign during the 2009 reporting period.

Wyser cashed it on June 22, and he filed the sentence-modification agreement the next day. A few months later, Lukemeyer hosted a fundraiser for Wyser at her home, where she says Wyser sought another campaign contribution from Epperly.

Wyser has maintained that he did not solicit the donation but "corruptly accepted it as a reward."

Investigators discovered Wyser had deleted about 60 emails, including incriminating messages between he and Lukemeyer, from his Prosecutor's Office account.

Epperly and Lukemeyer also met on more than one occasion with Brizzi, who is referred to as "The Prosecutor" in Wyser's sentencing memorandum, but investigators failed to turn up any direct evidence implicating the two-term prosecutor.

Federal prosecutors led by U.S. Attorney Joe Hogsett feared the mostly circumstantial case against Brizzi would not hold up in front of a jury or on appeal. So they opted against charging him despite convictions of his business partner Page and former deputy Wyser.

Hogsett in October announced he would not pursue charges but described Brizzi's actions as "unacceptable." In a statement, Brizzi said "Hogsett's baseless aspersions ... are a continuation of his disregard for the boundaries of his office."

Brizzi has maintained his innocence and says the lack of criminal charges supports his position that he conducted his business affairs "both ethically and legally."

Monday's sentencing hearing for Page in South Bend was another setback for prosecutors.

They had argued Page should serve a 14-month prison sentence for a wire fraud count. But the judge scoffed at the sentencing request, noting the crime resulted in no losses to either the lender or the state.

Page's attorney, Robert W. Hammerle, described the offense as an "isolated technical violation" that is actually quite common. The judge seemed to agree, noting that he hadn't seen "many or any" cases with "less aggravating circumstances."

Without a conviction to give Bales strong incentive to cooperate against Brizzi, prosecutors feared a similar ending to a trial of the former prosecutor.
 

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT