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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Living in South Bend, I travel to Michigan a lot. Virtually every gas station sells cold beer there. Many sell the hard stuff too. Doesn't seem to be a big deal there.

  2. Mr. Ricker, how foolish of you to think that by complying with the law you would be ok. Don't you know that Indiana is a state that welcomes monopolies, and that Indiana's legislature is the one entity in this state that believes monopolistic practices (such as those engaged in by Indiana Association of Beverage Retailers) make Indiana a "business-friendly" state? How can you not see this????

  3. Actually, and most strikingly, the ruling failed to address the central issue to the whole case: Namely, Black Knight/LPS, who was NEVER a party to the State court litigation, and who is under a 2013 consent judgment in Indiana (where it has stipulated to the forgery of loan documents, the ones specifically at issue in my case)never disclosed itself in State court or remediated the forged loan documents as was REQUIRED of them by the CJ. In essence, what the court is willfully ignoring, is that it is setting a precedent that the supplier of a defective product, one whom is under a consent judgment stipulating to such, and under obligation to remediate said defective product, can: 1.) Ignore the CJ 2.) Allow counsel to commit fraud on the state court 3.) Then try to hide behind Rooker Feldman doctrine as a bar to being held culpable in federal court. The problem here is the court is in direct conflict with its own ruling(s) in Johnson v. Pushpin Holdings & Iqbal- 780 F.3d 728, at 730 “What Johnson adds - what the defendants in this suit have failed to appreciate—is that federal courts retain jurisdiction to award damages for fraud that imposes extrajudicial injury. The Supreme Court drew that very line in Exxon Mobil ... Iqbal alleges that the defendants conducted a racketeering enterprise that predates the state court’s judgments ...but Exxon Mobil shows that the Rooker Feldman doctrine asks what injury the plaintiff asks the federal court to redress, not whether the injury is “intertwined” with something else …Because Iqbal seeks damages for activity that (he alleges) predates the state litigation and caused injury independently of it, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not block this suit. It must be reinstated.” So, as I already noted to others, I now have the chance to bring my case to SCOTUS; the ruling by Wood & Posner is flawed on numerous levels,BUT most troubling is the fact that the authors KNOW it's a flawed ruling and choose to ignore the flaws for one simple reason: The courts have decided to agree with former AG Eric Holder that national banks "Are too big to fail" and must win at any cost-even that of due process, case precedent, & the truth....Let's see if SCOTUS wants a bite at the apple.

  4. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  5. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

ADVERTISEMENT