ILNews

Second Century suit can proceed

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Rehearing

A Marion Superior judge has lifted a stay on the litigation involving East Chicago’s accounting and use of casino revenue, allowing the state to proceed with discovery and ask the court to require a for-profit organization to turn over documents relating to millions in casino revenue.

On Oct. 25, Marion Superior Judge David Shaheed granted the Indiana Attorney General’s motion to lift a stay that had been put in place earlier in the year on the years’ old litigation, originally filed by AG Steve Carter against East Chicago Second Century. The suit is aimed at getting the organization to fully account for $16 million in revenue it had received during the course of a decade from its .75 percent cut of the revenue from the city’s riverboat casino. Second Century opposes the disclosure, but the Indiana Supreme Court last year ruled the lawsuit could go forward. The AG’s Office in July blocked the city’s attempts to settle the litigation and split the approximately $8 million in revenue that remains in a separate account, without an accounting of the money. Judge Shaheed has not yet ruled on a request to release the segregated funds to pay Second Century’s attorneys fees.

Zoeller intends to subpoena documents and records from Second Century, and he also intends to support legislation in 2011 that requires financial transparency of all entities receiving casino money from local development agreements that led to this situation. Similar legislation has failed in the past two legislative sessions.

While not directly connected to this case, Zoeller maintains this funding relates to larger corruption patterns in East Chicago that has been ongoing for years – evident from a $108 million default judgment against former mayor Robert Pastrick because of a paving-for-votes scheme, and a federal jury verdict on theft and conspiracy in September against Mayor George Pabey, who’s now been removed from office following the verdict that he used city money to pay for personal home improvements.

Rehearing "Court revives casino revenue lawsuit" IL Aug. 4-17, 2010

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. 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?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT