ILNews

RICO case against former East Chicago mayor nets $108M in damages

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share


A federal judge has ordered an ex-mayor and top allies to pay more than $108 million in damages for a voting scandal a decade ago, but in doing so he's rejected the Indiana Attorney General's most novel and far-reaching legal arguments in a landmark civil racketeering case centered on public corruption in East Chicago.

In issuing his 53-page decision in State of Indiana and City of East Chicago v. Robert A. Pastrick, et al., No. 3:04-CV-506, March 11, U.S. District Court Senior Judge James Moody criticized the state's top attorney for failing to flush out legal arguments or provide enough rationale, trying to basically bypass due process in targeting non-parties, and going beyond the scope of federal and state law regarding civil racketeering offenses.

But attorney experts specializing in racketeering law say that the recent ruling is one of first impression that's clearly a victory for the state and East Chicago, and it will be imitated nationally in cases targeting public corruption.

"We now know how much the corrupt administration cost the city, and I am confident that the litigation will be a precedent for other suits by other AG's," said G. Robert Blakely, a Notre Dame Law School professor who was an attorney on this case based on his experience as the nation's foremost expert on the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act. "To my knowledge, no other AG anywhere has successfully used federal RICO and his state RICO to sue a corrupt city administration and corrupt businesses to recover for the damages inflicted on the city."

The ruling comes in a 6-year-old case involving the decade-old "sidewalks-for-votes" scandal that helped end a Lake County titan's 33-year political career. The civil racketeering case went after the former mayor Robert Pastrick and his top aides for misusing $24 million in public money to pave sidewalks and driveways to gain votes in the 1999 Democratic primary.

While criminal cases ensnared most involved, former Attorney General Steve Carter in 2004 sued Pastrick and allies using the federal and state RICO statutes. Most defendants eventually settled, except for Pastrick, former aide James Fife III, and the now missing former city councilman Frank Kollintzas who almost pushed the matter to trial last year. But in days before that trial was to happen, Pastrick and Fife waived that right and the court entered a default judgment against them for running a corrupt enterprise in East Chicago. Judge Moody held a damages hearing in June, and he's been considering the damages amount and remedy since then.

In assessing the damages, Judge Moody counted the $27.3 million originally totaled from the sidewalks-for-votes scheme - $24 million plus legal fees and other financial costs - and added $8.7 million in prejudgment interest, which is four years worth at an 8 percent interest rate. With treble damages that he determined was allowed through his interpretation of state and federal law, the total came to $108,007,584.33. The judge also found that six corporations, all found liable for the sidewalk scheme in a separate decision by U.S. District Court Judge Allen Sharp, are now jointly liable with Pastrick and his aides for chunks of the $108 million.

But as current AG Greg Zoeller has publicly explained in the past, this case wasn't as much about money as it was about weeding out public corruption and finding a remedy to provide transparency and confidence for those in East Chicago. On that front, the AG's Office didn't get the judge's support.

In the legal points the AG made beyond the misused public money, Judge Moody rejected those proposed remedies and essentially told the state agency it was overstepping its authority. Most of the second-half of his order focuses on this, pointing out in multiple spots that the AG has failed to offer authority or missed the point of caselaw.

Judge Moody determined that the city couldn't recover salary or compensation from Pastrick or those aides because that isn't allowed by the civil RICO statute, that plaintiffs couldn't recover money paid to Fife's consulting firms, and that the court wouldn't issue an injunction banning the defendants from holding any public office anywhere in the U.S. He also admonished the AG for trying to open up the finances of for-profit and non-profit organizations - non-parties - that received casino money and provided some of that for local development projects. The AG had offered possible remedies the court might impose, such as civil forfeiture, a state-ordered "forensic audit" of non-party organizations, and having the court serve as a receiver if any money might be recouped from them.

"The obvious and most critical problem with plaintiffs' request is that it cannot be reconciled with principles of due process," Judge Moody wrote, relating to one of the AG's proposed remedies about a forensic audit. "These core, intertwined due process issues prevent the court from ordering the remedy plaintiffs seek in this case."

Chicago attorney Howard Foster, who runs a two-person firm specializing in civil RICO cases, said the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals hasn't set precedent on various aspects of RICO law raised by the Indiana AG and so the judge's rulings were consistent with what other District Courts have done. He described this as an impressive victory for Indiana, and this was how both the federal and state RICO statutes were meant to be used.

In the days following the decision, the Attorney General's Office was still reviewing the judge's ruling and declined to comment about specifics or whether it might be appealed on any points, spokesman Bryan Corbin said. But Zoeller described the decision as a victory for the state.

"I am enormously pleased that the federal judge awarded triple damages against former Mayor Pastrick and the other remaining defendants as a symbol of how brazen and shameless the public corruption was in the municipal government of East Chicago during the Pastrick regime," he said in a statement.

The state will now focus on collecting that judgment, which defense attorney Michael Bosch described as being mostly uncollectable - last year he'd dismissed the state's damages request and mocked the AG about treble damages, saying the judge should award $1 in damages and triple that amount.

Corbin said a bill of costs will be filed this month, which will include the $581,038 total invoiced by Chicago law firm Perkins Coie that represented the state; attorney Patrick Collins there served as a special deputy attorney general on this case. The AG now can file its brief outlining attorney fees and costs associated with the case.

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. Hmmmmm ..... How does the good doctor's spells work on tyrants and unelected bureacrats with nearly unchecked power employing in closed hearings employing ad hoc procedures? Just askin'. ... Happy independence day to any and all out there who are "free" ... Unlike me.

  2. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  3. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  4. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  5. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

ADVERTISEMENT