ILNews

Town officials now face federal charges

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Some former Chesterfield town employees accused by the Indiana Attorney General of defrauding their town government now face federal charges.

Christopher Parrish, of Chesterfield; James Kimm, Joseph Brown, and Willard A. Felts, all of Anderson, were indicted by a grand jury in U.S. District Court Tuesday for theft of federal program funds following an investigation by the FBI and Indiana State Police. Felts wasn't named in the state suit.

An Oct. 26, 2009, audit by the State Board of Accounts found Parrish, Kimm, Brown, and brothers Christopher and James Walters defrauded taxpayers out of nearly $260,000 by getting paid for false mileage reimbursement claims and other phony claims, as well as hours they never worked in 2007 and 2008. The state filed charges against the men and two insurers in late November seeking repayment of the public funds and payment of employee-theft insurance Chesterfield took out on the employees in 2007 and 2008.

At the time of the scheme, Parrish was the town's clerk-treasurer; Kimm was a town marshal; Brown was a part-time police officer, and Felts allowed Parrish to use his name to create false invoices. Christopher and James Walters were town maintenance employees who were paid for repair work they never did.

The men face a maximum of 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine on each count; Parrish is charged with three; Kimm faces two charges; and Brown and Felts each face one count.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT