ILNews

No bankruptcy abuse by ex-mayor

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Rehearing

Reversing her earlier decision, U.S. Bankruptcy Trustee Nancy Gargula in the Northern District of Indiana determined March 7 that former East Chicago Mayor Robert Pastrick’s income is not too high to qualify for Chapter 7 bankruptcy and his filing should not be considered to be an abuse of the process.

That decision comes in an ongoing legal battle between the ex-mayor and state of Indiana. The Indiana attorney general’s office is trying to collect a $108 million judgment issued last year against the former political titan in a racketeering judgment. The trustee ruled Feb. 7 that based on an initial review of documents, there was presumed abuse in Pastrick’s bankruptcy case filed in December. She had 30 days to file a motion to dismiss the Chapter 7 case or convert it to a category that required repayment, but she changed her stance after reviewing the case material and other documents filed since then.

Responding to the trustee’s finding, the AG’s office issued a statement saying this doesn’t change the state’s position that the full racketeering judgment isn’t dischargeable by bankruptcy. Details haven’t been finalized on what would happen to any funds collected in this case, spokesman Bryan Corbin said, but he noted the AG’s office routinely collects debts and judgment amounts on behalf of government clients and has a process for handling that money.

The $108 million judgment stems from a sidewalks-for-votes scheme that played out in the 1999 Democratic mayoral primary election, to which Pastrick and two of his top aides admitted. Last year, U.S. Senior Judge James Moody issued a ruling in State of Indiana and City of East Chicago v. Robert A. Pastrick, et al., No. 3:04-CV-506, ordering the $108 million in damages. That collection activity has been put on hold by these bankruptcy proceedings.

 

Rehearing: "Bankruptcy delays collection effort" IL Jan. 5-18, 2011

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. A sad end to a prolific gadfly. Indiana has suffered a great loss in the journalistic realm.

  2. Good riddance to this dangerous activist judge

  3. What is the one thing the Hoosier legal status quo hates more than a whistleblower? A lawyer whistleblower taking on the system man to man. That must never be rewarded, must always, always, always be punished, lest the whole rotten tree be felled.

  4. I want to post this to keep this tread alive and hope more of David's former clients might come forward. In my case, this coward of a man represented me from June 2014 for a couple of months before I fired him. I knew something was wrong when he blatantly lied about what he had advised me in my contentious and unfortunate divorce trial. His impact on the proceedings cast a very long shadow and continues to impact me after a lengthy 19 month divorce. I would join a class action suit.

  5. The dispute in LB Indiana regarding lake front property rights is typical of most beach communities along our Great Lakes. Simply put, communication to non owners when visiting the lakefront would be beneficial. The Great Lakes are designated navigational waters (including shorelines). The high-water mark signifies the area one is able to navigate. This means you can walk, run, skip, etc. along the shores. You can't however loiter, camp, sunbath in front of someones property. Informational signs may be helpful to owners and visitors. Our Great Lakes are a treasure that should be enjoyed by all. PS We should all be concerned that the Long Beach, Indiana community is on septic systems.

ADVERTISEMENT