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


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?