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. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  2. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

  3. This law is troubling in two respects: First, why wasn't the law reviewed "with the intention of getting all the facts surrounding the legislation and its actual impact on the marketplace" BEFORE it was passed and signed? Seems a bit backwards to me (even acknowledging that this is the Indiana state legislature we're talking about. Second, what is it with the laws in this state that seem to create artificial monopolies in various industries? Besides this one, the other law that comes to mind is the legislation that governed the granting of licenses to firms that wanted to set up craft distilleries. The licensing was limited to only those entities that were already in the craft beer brewing business. Republicans in this state talk a big game when it comes to being "business friendly". They're friendly alright . . . to certain businesses.

  4. Gretchen, Asia, Roberto, Tonia, Shannon, Cheri, Nicholas, Sondra, Carey, Laura ... my heart breaks for you, reaching out in a forum in which you are ignored by a professional suffering through both compassion fatigue and the love of filthy lucre. Most if not all of you seek a warm blooded Hoosier attorney unafraid to take on the government and plead that government officials have acted unconstitutionally to try to save a family and/or rescue children in need and/or press individual rights against the Leviathan state. I know an attorney from Kansas who has taken such cases across the country, arguing before half of the federal courts of appeal and presenting cases to the US S.Ct. numerous times seeking cert. Unfortunately, due to his zeal for the constitutional rights of peasants and willingness to confront powerful government bureaucrats seemingly violating the same ... he was denied character and fitness certification to join the Indiana bar, even after he was cleared to sit for, and passed, both the bar exam and ethics exam. And was even admitted to the Indiana federal bar! NOW KNOW THIS .... you will face headwinds and difficulties in locating a zealously motivated Hoosier attorney to face off against powerful government agents who violate the constitution, for those who do so tend to end up as marginalized as Paul Odgen, who was driven from the profession. So beware, many are mere expensive lapdogs, the kind of breed who will gladly take a large retainer, but then fail to press against the status quo and powers that be when told to heel to. It is a common belief among some in Indiana that those attorneys who truly fight the power and rigorously confront corruption often end up, actually or metaphorically, in real life or at least as to their careers, as dead as the late, great Gary Welch. All of that said, I wish you the very best in finding a Hoosier attorney with a fighting spirit to press your rights as far as you can, for you do have rights against government actors, no matter what said actors may tell you otherwise. Attorneys outside the elitist camp are often better fighters that those owing the powers that be for their salaries, corner offices and end of year bonuses. So do not be afraid to retain a green horn or unconnected lawyer, many of them are fine men and woman who are yet untainted by the "unique" Hoosier system.

  5. I am not the John below. He is a journalist and talk show host who knows me through my years working in Kansas government. I did no ask John to post the note below ...

ADVERTISEMENT