ILNews

Zoeller appoints Washington-based deputy AG

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller has named a deputy who will monitor federal legislation and regulations in Washington that could impact the state.

Deputy Attorney General Richard M. Bramer will work with members of Indiana’s congressional delegation to monitor and review bills moving through Congress and proposed regulations in federal agencies, according to a statement Friday from the AG’s office. Bramer was a longtime deputy AG who recently returned to the office after serving in the U.S. Department of Agriculture in Washington.

In a recent interview prior to the announcement, Zoeller said the position proposed in two bills – SB 36 and HB 1033 – shouldn’t be viewed as a lobbyist for the state, but as an adviser to the state’s federal lawmakers.

“Lobbyists and special interest groups live in Washington and have regular access to Congress and they often work to undercut the authority of state governments and centralize the authority of the federal government by claiming the states are only a ‘crazy-quilt patchwork’ of inconsistent jurisdictions,” Zoeller said in a statement. “From my own experience I know that a physical presence at the Capitol succeeds better in dealing with the federal government than sending a letter,” Zoeller said.

The deputy AG position will be funded through the attorney general’s  existing budget under contract for $55,500.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • What's the point?
    I don't have a problem with this but, seriously, only $55,000? How's he even going to have time to do this when he'll likely need to work another full-time job just to afford the rent in D.C.?

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT