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

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. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT