ILNews

What the attorney general is watching

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The session is about halfway over, but there are still several bills making their way through the General Assembly that the Indiana Attorney General's Office is watching.

The Attorney General's Office is typically neutral on the majority of bills that move through the legislature, but it does watch bills that may affect the office, such as bills dealing with the criminal justice system. The office also has two deputy attorneys general who are at the House and Senate every day as a resource for legislators and to advocate for bills that the AG's office supports or has a point of view on, AG public information officer Bryan Corbin said.

There are several bills moving this session that the AG's office does support. The centerpiece of the AG's legislative agenda this year is Senate Bill 405, a gaming bill. The office has interest in only one provision of the bill - the one that would provide transparency for Local Development Agreement entities that receive casino revenue. It stems from a situation in East Chicago in which a for-profit local development company receives a cut of casino money under a LDA. Because it's for-profit, there's no telling as to where the money went and has led to years of litigation.

"We feel this is a protection that the public needs to have transparency and accountability so you don't see the type of abuses that occurred in East Chicago occur in other places around the state," Corbin said.

That bill has made it out of the Senate and on to the House for consideration.

The AG's office is also interested in House Bill 1226, which will crack down on repeat offenders of Medicaid fraud. The bill will also clarify that the AG's office's ID theft unit is the one to call when someone discovers abandoned medical records or other records containing personal information. HB 1226 is before the Senate for consideration.

Another bill the attorney general is interested in is SB 394, which passed through the Senate and moved to the House. It would update state law so that local courts, instead of the parties, would have to notify the AG's office whenever a plaintiff files a declaratory-judgment suit seeking to declare a law unconstitutional. Corbin said there have been five or six cases over the last few years where someone had filed a constitutional challenge and the office didn't receive timely notice of it.

Another part of the bill would allow the attorney general to file an amicus brief in any lawsuit in the state without seeking the court's permission first. In the federal appellate court system, the attorney general has the right to file amicus briefs without seeking leave from the court first. Currently in Indiana, appellate rules require parties who wish to file an amicus brief, including the attorney general, receive permission from the court.

Corbin said the legislation attempts to have congruity between state and federal courts and that the office is pursuing the proposal first through a statutory change instead of through a rule change with the courts.

"No one can predict how often the AG's office would tender amicus briefs in Indiana trial court cases ... perhaps not very often. But the attorney general is the lawyer for state government, and so his legal argument could be useful and relevant to a trial court in a local case," he said.

SB 394 is in the House for consideration.

The Indiana Attorney General's Office also supports HB 1332, which deals with mortgage fraud, credit services, and property fraud; SB 356, a professional licensing bill; and HB 1083, which would allow property to be considered abandoned after three years and thus then can be reclaimed through the Unclaimed Property Program. These bills have moved through their respective houses and are in the other for consideration.

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. He called our nation a nation of cowards because we didn't want to talk about race. That was a cheap shot coming from the top cop. The man who decides who gets the federal government indicts. Wow. Not a gentleman if that is the measure. More importantly, this insult delivered as we all understand, to white people-- without him or anybody needing to explain that is precisely what he meant-- but this is an insult to timid white persons who fear the government and don't want to say anything about race for fear of being accused a racist. With all the legal heat that can come down on somebody if they say something which can be construed by a prosecutor like Mr Holder as racist, is it any wonder white people-- that's who he meant obviously-- is there any surprise that white people don't want to talk about race? And as lawyers we have even less freedom lest our remarks be considered violations of the rules. Mr Holder also demonstrated his bias by publically visiting with the family of the young man who was killed by a police offering in the line of duty, which was a very strong indicator of bias agains the offer who is under investigation, and was a failure to lead properly by letting his investigators do their job without him predetermining the proper outcome. He also has potentially biased the jury pool. All in all this worsens race relations by feeding into the perception shared by whites as well as blacks that justice will not be impartial. I will say this much, I do not blame Obama for all of HOlder's missteps. Obama has done a lot of things to stay above the fray and try and be a leader for all Americans. Maybe he should have reigned Holder in some but Obama's got his hands full with other problelms. Oh did I mention HOlder is a bank crony who will probably get a job in a silkstocking law firm working for millions of bucks a year defending bankers whom he didn't have the integrity or courage to hold to account for their acts of fraud on the United States, other financial institutions, and the people. His tenure will be regarded by history as a failure of leadership at one of the most important jobs in our nation. Finally and most importantly besides him insulting the public and letting off the big financial cheats, he has been at the forefront of over-prosecuting the secrecy laws to punish whistleblowers and chill free speech. What has Holder done to vindicate the rights of privacy of the American public against the illegal snooping of the NSA? He could have charged NSA personnel with violations of law for their warrantless wiretapping which has been done millions of times and instead he did not persecute a single soul. That is a defalcation of historical proportions and it signals to the public that the government DOJ under him was not willing to do a damn thing to protect the public against the rapid growth of the illegal surveillance state. Who else could have done this? Nobody. And for that omission Obama deserves the blame too. Here were are sliding into a police state and Eric Holder made it go all the faster.

  2. JOE CLAYPOOL candidate for Superior Court in Harrison County - Indiana This candidate is misleading voters to think he is a Judge by putting Elect Judge Joe Claypool on his campaign literature. paragraphs 2 and 9 below clearly indicate this injustice to voting public to gain employment. What can we do? Indiana Code - Section 35-43-5-3: Deception (a) A person who: (1) being an officer, manager, or other person participating in the direction of a credit institution, knowingly or intentionally receives or permits the receipt of a deposit or other investment, knowing that the institution is insolvent; (2) knowingly or intentionally makes a false or misleading written statement with intent to obtain property, employment, or an educational opportunity; (3) misapplies entrusted property, property of a governmental entity, or property of a credit institution in a manner that the person knows is unlawful or that the person knows involves substantial risk of loss or detriment to either the owner of the property or to a person for whose benefit the property was entrusted; (4) knowingly or intentionally, in the regular course of business, either: (A) uses or possesses for use a false weight or measure or other device for falsely determining or recording the quality or quantity of any commodity; or (B) sells, offers, or displays for sale or delivers less than the represented quality or quantity of any commodity; (5) with intent to defraud another person furnishing electricity, gas, water, telecommunication, or any other utility service, avoids a lawful charge for that service by scheme or device or by tampering with facilities or equipment of the person furnishing the service; (6) with intent to defraud, misrepresents the identity of the person or another person or the identity or quality of property; (7) with intent to defraud an owner of a coin machine, deposits a slug in that machine; (8) with intent to enable the person or another person to deposit a slug in a coin machine, makes, possesses, or disposes of a slug; (9) disseminates to the public an advertisement that the person knows is false, misleading, or deceptive, with intent to promote the purchase or sale of property or the acceptance of employment;

  3. The story that you have shared is quite interesting and also the information is very helpful. Thanks for sharing the article. For more info: http://www.treasurecoastbailbonds.com/

  4. I grew up on a farm and live in the county and it's interesting that the big industrial farmers like Jeff Shoaf don't live next to their industrial operations...

  5. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

ADVERTISEMENT