ILNews

Sidewalk Six defendant settles with state

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

What began a decade ago and became known as the Sidewalk Six paving-for-votes scandal is now nearing an end as one of the three remaining defendants in the civil racketeering case has settled with the state.

On Friday, U.S. Judge James Moody dismissed former East Chicago city official Timothy Raykovich from the state suit. A status report filed May 13 shows that he reached an agreement in principle earlier in the week, as did contractor Calumet Concrete, who was named as a defendant in the suit.

Now, Pastrick and one of his top aides, James Fife III, are the two remaining defendants in the case and the Indiana Attorney General's Office notes in court filings that they aren't likely to settle before trial despite continuing "good faith" negotiations. Their estimated three-week trial is set to begin May 26 in federal court in Hammond.

Attorneys are bound by a gag order in the case and not allowed to speak about details, so the only public information comes from the court filings and docket entries. Chicago attorney Patrick M. Collins with Perkins Coie is acting as a special deputy for the state Attorney General's Office on this case. Highland attorney Michael W. Bosch represents Pastrick and Fife is representing himself, according to court filings.

The case was filed in 2004 under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), and alleged that former East Chicago Mayor Pastrick and multiple city officials and contractors spent $24 million of public money in a paving-for-votes scheme during the May 1999 Democratic mayoral primary election. Many settled, but Pastrick, Raykovich, and James Fife III did not and the trio wasn't criminally charged.

Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller has said that he doesn't expect the state will be able to collect all of the $24 million at issue in the case, but he hopes the suit will prove how deep the East Chicago corruption ran in those years.

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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT