ILNews

State wants detailed audit of corruption money

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2009
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In the first minutes of a federal court hearing Tuesday, U.S. District Senior Judge James Moody told attorneys he wasn't going to order a state-supervised audit of East Chicago's finances, as the Indiana Attorney General's Office was asking. But his stance may have changed.

Following five hours of testimony and arguments in the civil racketeering case, Judge Moody realized the scope of the action being proposed in the suit against former Mayor Robert Pastrick and top aides - mainly six Pastrick political allies now known as the Sidewalk Six - who've been found civilly liable for running a corrupt enterprise.

Arguing on behalf of the Indiana Attorney General's Office, Chicago attorney Patrick M. Collins - who is acting as a special deputy attorney general - tried to convince Judge Moody that Pastrick and James Fife III could be held liable for more than $100 million in the case targeting the years of corruption that lingers in some form today.

Aside from the sidewalks-for-votes money used in the 1999 primary election, the suit also focuses on the Second Century and the Foundations of East Chicago, for-profit and non-profit recipients, respectively, of casino money. Both are embroiled in ongoing state court litigation as the attorney general and current East Chicago mayor fight to get those organizations to publicly disclose what the casino cash was used for during the Pastrick administration.

In a memorandum for injunctive relief filed June 2, the Attorney General's Office proposed that the State Board of Accounts review and report to the court what the full economic damages have been from the Pastrick corruption. The audit would assess the current financial conditions of East Chicago, the amounts and purposes of casino funds disbursed, and any other structural or systematic problems in the city, the brief stated.

As the hearing opened Tuesday, Judge Moody said he'd reviewed the brief and wasn't going to order an audit because he didn't find enough legal justification, that he wasn't convinced the Attorney General's Office could do it on its own accord, and that he didn't see it justified at such a late stage in this case.

But Collins argued that the start of the remedy phase was the only time that part of the remedy could be used, not during the trial preparation, and that any testimony at trial also could be used in the damages and remedy phase.

The state called five witnesses, including the former city controller Ed Maldonado, who's serving 130 months in prison after his conviction in the criminal Sidewalk Six case. He testified that Pastrick and Fife headed a political machine that misguided millions of dollars; while he signed the checks and knew of the activity, they were ultimately the ones leading the corruption. A state Board of Accounts auditor testified that she'd reviewed the city finances before; however, because casino monies were diverted to for-profit and non-profit trusts or organizations, she couldn't fully see the scope of the Pastrick activity. A former Internal Revenue Service agent and two other city officials also testified about how East Chicago is still recovering from the Pastrick legacy.

"The Pastrick political machine essentially took over the city and ruled it for personal and political gain of Mayor Pastrick," attorney Joel Levin said for the state during closings. "The city was the epitome of a political machine, and politics influenced this city in every way, shape, and form. But Your Honor can do something to unwind that legacy."

Notre Dame University Law School professor G. Robert Blakey, a racketeering law expert who helped draft the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act about four decades ago, told the judge that this is a case of first impression nationally. The judge is basically able to do anything he wants as allowed under the expansive RICO statute, Blakey said. He asked the judge to order a forensic audit - one that goes beyond the numbers and includes interviews and extensive research - to determine how the casino money was used under Pastrick's agreement. That could reveal the extent of damages that should be repaid to taxpayers, he said.

Blakey urged the judge to consider all remedial options possible under the RICO statute, including the use of liens, a trustee, constructive trust, or asset forfeiture. Typical antitrust cases have used inspection audits, and that could be ordered here also, he said.

"There's something about a federal court," Blakey said. "People pay a lot of attention to a federal court order. What we're asking is that you do justice ... for the people of East Chicago."

While Pastrick didn't appear Tuesday, his attorney Michael W. Bosch represented him in court and Fife represented himself. Neither presented specific arguments, but they did question specific aspects of the state's case during witness testimony.

Bosch said during closing the state has given the former mayor "a free pass," and that Pastrick should be held responsible for nominal damages.

"You get a buck," he said. "Triple that, you get three bucks."

Attorneys have until June 22 to file their findings of fact and conclusions, and Judge Moody will then consider what happens next.

More coverage about this case can be found in the June 10-23, 2009, issue of Indiana Lawyer.

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. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  2. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

  3. The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners. Far too many people are sentenced for far too many years in prison. Many of the federal prisoners are sentenced for marijuana violations. Marijuana is safer than alcohol.

  4. My daughter was married less than a week and her new hubbys picture was on tv for drugs and now I havent't seen my granddaughters since st patricks day. when my daughter left her marriage from her childrens Father she lived with me with my grand daughters and that was ok but I called her on the new hubby who is in jail and said didn't want this around my grandkids not unreasonable request and I get shut out for her mistake

  5. From the perspective of a practicing attorney, it sounds like this masters degree in law for non-attorneys will be useless to anyone who gets it. "However, Ted Waggoner, chair of the ISBA’s Legal Education Conclave, sees the potential for the degree program to actually help attorneys do their jobs better. He pointed to his practice at Peterson Waggoner & Perkins LLP in Rochester and how some clients ask their attorneys to do work, such as filling out insurance forms, that they could do themselves. Waggoner believes the individuals with the legal master’s degrees could do the routine, mundane business thus freeing the lawyers to do the substantive legal work." That is simply insulting to suggest that someone with a masters degree would work in a role that is subpar to even an administrative assistant. Even someone with just a certificate or associate's degree in paralegal studies would be overqualified to sit around helping clients fill out forms. Anyone who has a business background that they think would be enhanced by having a legal background will just go to law school, or get an MBA (which typically includes a business law class that gives a generic, broad overview of legal concepts). No business-savvy person would ever seriously consider this ridiculous master of law for non-lawyers degree. It reeks of desperation. The only people I see getting it are the ones who did not get into law school, who see the degree as something to add to their transcript in hopes of getting into a JD program down the road.

ADVERTISEMENT