ILNews

Lawyers ask for $3 or $109 million in RICO case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A federal judge is being asked to impose damages ranging anywhere from $3 to $109 million in a landmark racketeering suit.

Those amounts came Monday in the findings of fact and conclusions of law, which U.S. District Senior Judge James Moody in Hammond had asked both sides to submit following a full-day hearing June 9.

Now, Senior Judge Moody will decide how to proceed on the damages award and request for relief. He hasn't set any court proceedings or announced when that decision may happen, but the filings in the Northern District of Indiana leave him with options.

With that monetary debate, a new player is trying to get involved in the 2004 civil racketeering case: the Foundations of East Chicago, a non-profit corporation that receives a portion of the East Chicago riverboat casino monies. The organization filed a motion with the court Monday to intervene, with attorneys for Indianapolis-based Barnes & Thornburg entering an appearance. Specifically, the Foundations of East Chicago is countering a key aspect of what the Indiana Attorney General's Office is going after - casino revenue money filtered through that organization by former Mayor Robert Pastrick, who used it for his own personal and political purposes.

While the 2004 case mostly centers on the $25 million of public money used to get votes for the 1999 primary election for Pastrick and his top aides, it also targets casino revenue money that the political machine is accused of misspending during the final years of Pastrick's 32-year reign.

Attorney General Greg Zoeller wants the judge to look beyond the monetary award and impose other relief allowed by the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) Act, specifically a state-supervised forensic audit of East Chicago finances and those casino funds.

According to the proposed findings filed, the state says that actual damages total $32,187,242, an amount that includes $1.6 million in fees paid to defense lawyers of a dozen city officials who've been convicted on federal criminal charges in the Sidewalk Six case. With treble damages, the amount would total $96.5 million - pre-judgment interest from the date the suit was filed in 2004 would boost that amount to nearly $109 million.

But Pastrick's attorney, Michael Bosch with Bosch & Dedelow in Highland, said the state failed to make its case, hasn't proved the damages it is trying to recover, and is wrongly going after the East Chicago casino organizations that aren't parties in this case.

Echoing a claim made during closing arguments at the June 9 hearing, Bosch wrote in his proposed conclusion that, "Based on the Plaintiff's utter lack of proof, or offer of good proof, this Court cannot award anything other than nominal damages" and should award them $1, or $3 if tripled by treble damages statute.

Arguing that the casino foundation isn't a party in this case, the organization's attorneys' 13-page motion asks the court to deny any state-supervised forensic audit that may involve that organization.

The brief states there's no legal basis for including Foundations and that the state is barred from seeking relief as it may relate to the casino organization.

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. 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!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT