ILNews

Judge: Conour to stay behind bars before sentencing

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Former attorney William Conour will remain jailed pending his sentencing in a little more than two months, a federal judge has ruled.

Chief Judge Richard Young of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana on Monday denied Conour’s motion for release, indicating he will remain in custody of U.S. marshals pending sentencing on Oct. 17. Conour is being held in the Marion County Jail.

Conour pleaded guilty July 15 to government charges that he defrauded at least 25 personal-injury and wrongful-death clients of more than $4.5 million he received in negotiated settlements. He entered a plea a short time after he was jailed in June for dissipating assets in violation of terms of bond.

Young also on Aug. 1 approved an order clearing the way for Indiana University to deposit with the court $450,000 that Conour had donated to the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law, which since has excised the honorary naming of the William and Jennifer Conour Atrium.


 
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Ms Ogynist
    Misogynist definition: 90% of UrbanDictionary.com male users. Back to the article above; finally the judge is denying a motion and letting Conour know he’s not special nor deserves special treatment…he’s just another convict.
  • HOUSEWIFEING-WHAT ATE THE DOCUMENTED FACTS?
    Housewife has been defined: "Housewife: An uneducated woman with no self-esteem and no life who thinks she has to devote herself to rearing children, her husband, the home and the pets." URBAN DICTIONARY If this does not fit [except for "uneducated"]90% of Carmel "stay at home moms" would be surprising. Not speaking of anyone in particular but Carmel h
    • Politically Correct
      Housewifing? But REALLY working not JUST Housewifing? All things considered, that’s probably as “politically correct” as a misogynist can get. Probably uneducated in other areas as well, you may want to look at documented facts before you make accusations and assumptions in a public forum…otherwise you look like a, what’s the politically correct term for it? Oh, yes…moron.
    • Er Allein ist Schuldig
      Conour’s latest motion is likely a harbinger of how his time will be spent in jail. And each new motion will probably put his unfortunate family back in the press, open to attacks from antagonists who have little understanding or sympathy of what he and his crimes did to his family members. From what has been reported and what is available in public records, he sent all properties into foreclosure and left nothing for his family but debt. A reporter should look into why the Disciplinary Commission allowed Conour to practice law after his illegal practices were reported. An attorney who worked with him reported him in 2008 and Conour’s frauds date back to at least 1999. I agree with Paul Ogden…that’s the red-flag that needs further investigation. And taking a quote from Ogen’s posting, “Throughout history, it has been the inaction of those who could have acted; the indifference of those who should have known better; the silence of the voice of justice when it matter most; that has made it possible for evil to triumph.” Haile Selassie.
    • RED FLAG IF EX-WIFE IS NOT WORKING!
      It is a big waving flying red flag if the ex-wife is not working [outside the home to be politically correct--but really working not just housewifing] but continuing her role as a Carmel housewife; then there is likelihood she is living on moneys acquired from Conour which were stolen and belong to clients/others. There were mentions in this paper that Conour had considered bankruptcy; no mention of Conour AND wife/ex-wife filing. I suggest that a reporter see if she has a real job.
      • HA! HA! CONOUR!
        Imperious, arrogant self-important William Conour can leave the house and Bentley and whatever to the squirrels and raccoons! Apparently he has already squirreled away his clients' money, likely in his divorce! Is anyone looking at ex-wife's or Conour's spawn's assets and the source of those assets? If it was clients' moneys or moneys or clients it should be restored to the clients. If it means taking things from a [former] domestic engineer [stay at home mom or whatever eupehemism for Carmel housewife who does not work] and horse farm manager and her kids, so be it. Conour can now use his time acclimating to being with the guys. Enjoy your time. Squirrel

      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. Applause, applause, applause ..... but, is this duty to serve the constitutional order not much more incumbent upon the State, whose only aim is to be pure and unadulterated justice, than defense counsel, who is also charged with gaining a result for a client? I agree both are responsible, but it seems to me that the government attorneys bear a burden much heavier than defense counsel .... "“I note, much as we did in Mechling v. State, 16 N.E.3d 1015 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied, that the attorneys representing the State and the defendant are both officers of the court and have a responsibility to correct any obvious errors at the time they are committed."

      2. Do I have to hire an attorney to get co-guardianship of my brother? My father has guardianship and my older sister was his co-guardian until this Dec 2014 when she passed and my father was me to go on as the co-guardian, but funds are limit and we need to get this process taken care of quickly as our fathers health isn't the greatest. So please advise me if there is anyway to do this our self or if it requires a lawyer? Thank you

      3. 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.

      4. 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.

      5. 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)

      ADVERTISEMENT