Daniels Picks Fort Wayne Cop To Run ICJI

Gov. Daniels has tapped Mike Cunegin, a Fort Wayne police officer and Allen Co. Council member, to replace Heather Bolejack as the executive director of the Indiana Criminal Justice Institute. Niki Kelly of the Ft. Wayne Journal-Gazette reports:

The Indiana Criminal Justice Institute – whose executive director was fired in May in a messy ethics scandal – is getting a new leader: longtime Fort Wayne police officer and Allen County Councilman Mike Cunegin.

The institute’s board of directors Tuesday unanimously ratified Gov. Mitch Daniels’ recommendation for Cunegin to take over the state agency.

Cunegin will give notice of his resignation to the Fort Wayne Police Department today, and plans to resign from the County Council in July.

Reacting to his appointment, Cunegin said, “This is a wonderful opportunity for me.” “It’s exciting. Not only am I representing the governor of our state, but I’m also representing myself and the African-American community.” Actually, Mr. Cunegin, I think you're representing all of the citizens of Indiana if it makes any difference to you.

Kelly notes that Daniels has been criticized in the past for failing to appoint enough "black agency heads." She says Cunegin thinks he's the man for the job. She writes:

Cunegin said his 25 years in law enforcement as well as 12 years on the fiscal-minded council – including two years as president – have been training for an opportunity such as this. The institute oversees state planning for criminal justice, traffic safety and victim services, and administers millions of dollars in state and federal money to carry out long-range strategies.

What the agency really needs is someone with some actual management experience. It is obvious Gov. Daniels placed the importance of appointing an African-American to the post over appointing a person with actual qualifications for the job--someone who might know where to begin in cleaning up the mess at the agency.

UPDATE: A WANE-TV report from August 1, 2005 reported that Cunegin was invited to greet President Bush at the airport during a visit to Ft. Wayne. It notes that Cunegin told WANE-TV that he had Bush sign a book entitled, "The Presidential Prayer Team." Cunegin said of meeting Bush for the second time, “You're always excited to meet the President. I have the highest respect for President Bush on the decisions he had to make for the county. And it's wonderful to not only have that but to also have a Christian man in office.”

I'm sure Cunegin meant well by his statement about having "a Christian man in office." But when our public officials speak in these terms, it implies that they believe there should be a religious litmus test applied to all people who serve in our government. It says to someone of Jewish, Muslim, Hindu or other religious or non-religious belief that they need not apply. As the Christian right continues to extend its power over the GOP, comments like these keep popping up with greater frequency. And it's frightening to many Americans.

House GOP Kills Hope For Immigration Reform This Year

Bowing to the bigoted demands of extremist conservatives, House GOP leaders have shelved bipartisan congressional efforts supported by President Bush to enact comprehensive immigration reform this year, which includes relief to an estimated 12 million undocumented workers and their families. Wallowing in the stench of their own corruption, the GOP leaders believe the only way to save their weakened majority is to use divisive wedge issues, such as immigrant and gay-bashing. The Washington Post reports:

The decision was widely seen as a slap both at the Senate and the president, who has been pushing hard for a comprehensive immigration bill that would tighten border controls, establish a new guest worker program and offer most of the nation's estimated 12 million illegal immigrants a chance to become citizens. The announcement came shortly after Bush left the country on a trip to Europe.

House Republicans have long frowned upon the president's approach, passing instead a bill that would tighten border controls, clamp down on employers who hire undocumented workers and declare illegal immigrants and those who assist them to be felons. Their position solidified this month after a California special election to replace jailed former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R). Republican candidate Brian Bilbray won the seat, beating back a tough Democratic challenge by running hard against the president's approach.

Today's decision by the GOP seals victory for the Democrats in this year's congressional elections. The retribution in this election will be dealt to the party by the nation's growing Hispanic population, many business owners and managers who badly wanted the reforms for the growing immigrant workforce and Americans turned off by the immigrant-bashing policies being advocated by so many GOP candidates.

Pro Life, Pro Gun, Right Wing Christian: Any Questions?

A popular campaign button at today's Indiana Republican Convention read, "Pro Life, Pro Gun, Right Wing Christian: Any Questions?" according to the AP's Mike Smith. Apparently that was the predominant sentiment at today's convention at which three white, Christian males were nominated to lead the statewide ticket, joining another white, Christian male nominated in the primary, Sen. Richard Lugar. Chris Douglas, a gay delegate to the GOP convention, shares his disappointing experience of "What Became of the Republican Party My Parents Knew?" over at Bilerico:

How polluted that clarity has become. I have heard the podium of the Republican Party speak of the value of diversity, but saw a party platform before me that as a matter of official policy seeks to alienate gay citizens from the equal protections of the Constitution and of the courts that enforce it. I have heard the podium speak of respect for all, but disgrace itself with a recurring and insulting indulgence in sectarian prayer.

The founding fathers pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to establish a society of rights. To any Republican who might read these words, indeed to any Hoosier, I hope you are aware that you have an obligation personally to combat the prejudice that in your name too seeks to dominate the levers of government in Indiana, a prejudice which is achieving a historic level of influence. How can you honor the founders, indeed the troops that seek to establish rights abroad, if you
yourself do less to protect freedom from the threats brewing here?

I have no regrets as a life-long Republican in choosing to skip this GOP event, or any other event the party hosts in the future until it finds a way to welcome folks like me, Douglas and others to the table. I have served as a delegate in the past to the national convention and state conventions in both Illinois and Indiana. I have contributed thousands of dollars to the party and volunteered thousands of hours to help elect its candidates, but none of that matters in this state as soon as they learn what your sexual orientation is. What a pathetic bunch of bigots the Indiana GOP has become. Doesn't look like the First Republicans have made any progress since their formation last year.

Control Of French Link Casino May Be At Stake In Lawsuit

The Cook Group has so far succeeded in keeping secret the contents of its lawsuit against its 50-50 partner in the French Lick casino project, Lauth Resorts & Casinos, LLC, but recent reporting by the Indiana Gaming Insight's Ed Feigenbaum holds a strong clue as to what is at issue--control of the casino. The IGI first reported on June 5 that the marriage between the two partners was being tested. Feigenbaum wrote then:

Even as construction and renovation work proceeds in earnest on site, we’re picking up bits and pieces of discouraging information about the administrative aspects of the Orange County casino project.

Specifically, we’re hearing that there may be some serious issues that will need to be hammered out between the two major partners in the venture, the Cook Group and the Lauth Group (we’re using the shorthand titles by which the partners are best known, and not the names that they are using for assorted participants in the joint venture).

Watch to see what – if anything – unfurls before theIndiana Gaming Commission this week about whether this will remain a 50-50 partnership, and while we don’t think that we’re into the kind of “can this marriage be saved” situation we’ve seen before on some other projects, word in the Springs Valley is that things aren’t quite as amicable as they have been as the partners bicker over whether certain respective commitments have been fulfilled.

You may also hear soon about concerns and issues related to the adequacy of financing for the OC project.

When the Indiana Gaming Commission met a couple of days after Feigenbaum's report, Gaming Commission Executive Director glossed over any problems he may have been aware of. Feigenbaum reported on June 22 in IGI:

With respect to the financing matter, Indiana Gaming Commission members were told at their June 7 meeting that while the Blue Sky Casino partnership secured $270 million in financing via the bond route in a timely manner, the partnership did not meet the May 1 Commission-imposed deadline for securing an additional $30 million line of credit via a revolving loan required by the state. Blue Sky has apparently since closed on the $30 million revolver end of the transaction, but commissioners may decide to fine the entity at the September Commission meeting for failing to adhere to the original deadline.

The Indiana Gaming Commission was informed publicly at the same meeting earlier this month that the dispute between Blue Sky partners Lauth Property Group, Inc. and Cook Group, Inc. and their respective subsidiaries will be resolved via arbitration. Commission Secretary Don Vowels, the panel’s former chair, revealed that an agreement between the two partners required Lauth to transfer 25% of its interest in Blue Sky to Cook if financing for the project was not finalized by April 15.

At this point in time there has been no determination as to whether there has been any change in ownership,” Commission Executive Director Ernie Yelton informed commissioners. “That’s still under debate.” “All I know is there are some allegations that the agreement between the two entities – not an agreement with the state of Indiana or the Gaming Commission – there’s a dispute as to how that would apply to control of the project, and I know that has not been resolved,” Yelton tells Mike Smith of the Associated Press. “One reason it was not put on the agenda is there has been no impact whatsoever on this project. None at all, so if that would ever occur, then obviously everyone would be informed and people would appear to answer questions.” The Cook Group’s Steve Ferguson declines to elaborate on the details, telling Lesley Stedman Weidenbener of the Louisville Courier-Journal “that the parties had decided not to discuss the matter in public,” as she writes.

If Vowels' account of the agreement between Cook and Lauth is correct, then clearly what is at issue in the Orange Co. lawsuit is control of the project. According to Vowels, the failure to nail down the financing by April 15 meant that Lauth had to transfer 25% to Cook, giving it 75-25 control over the project. A transfer of that big of a stake in the casino could easily cost Lauth hundreds of millions of dollars in lost profits if the casino is successful. Feigenbaum also reports that Vowels expressed concern that Yelton and his staff were not scrutinizing Blue Sky in the same manner as it had scrutinized Trump's failed attempt to build a casino. Feigenbaum writes:

Commission member Vowels, who chaired the panel during much of the earlier proceedings involving the original Orange County operating agent award to Trump Springs Valley, questioned why the Commission and its staff were not scrutinizing Blue Sky in the same manner it did Trump, citing the missed financing deadlines and the untidy quarrel between the respective partners. Executive Director Yelton explained that the Trump and Blue Sky circumstances were different: Trump had filed for bankruptcy protection, he observed, and was unwilling or unable to provide the State of Indiana with a firm commitment to complete the Orange County project, while “We have seen nothing that has impacted this project at all,” even with the financing delay and dispute between the partners.

As news of Cook's lawsuit against Lauth has spread, there is growing concern that Yelton misled the Commission, which isn't scheduled to meet again until September. Rumors began circulating around Orange Co. last week that a lawsuit had been filed, but noone could obtain confirmation of it. Several reporters were reportedly digging for information through the end of last week, but they all kept coming up with dry holes.

The Louisville Courier-Journal's Grace Schneider finally broke this story today, revealing that Judge Larry Blanton had sealed the records to the suit without holding a hearing at the request of Cook's attorneys. If the subject matter of the suit is what it appears, it is inconceivable that Indiana law would sustain the judge's order sealing the records.

Under Indiana's Access to Public Records law, most civil court records are general accessible to the public. There are some mandatory items which the court must seal, even without a public hearing. Only two mandatory provisions of state law could possibly allow the records to be sealed without a hearing. One covers trade secrets, and the other covers confidential financial information; however, the financial information mandate does not include information that is filed with or received by a state agency. Those court records not covered by the mandatory provisions of the Access to Public Records law may only be sealed after the court holds a public hearing and makes findings of fact and conclusion of law upon a showing of the proponderance of the evidence that:

(1) a public interest will be secured by sealing the record;

(2) dissemination of the information contained in the record will create a serious and imminent danger to that public interest;

(3) any prejudicial effect created by dissemination of the information cannot be avoided by any reasonable method other than sealing the record;

(4) there is a substantial probability that sealing the record will be effective in protecting the public interest against the perceived danger; and

(5) it is reasonably necessary for the record to remain sealed for a period of time.

Based upon the statutory criteria for sealing the record, it is hard to argue that any public interest is served. The real purpose in sealing the record it seems is to withhold the information from the Gaming Commission, which might reconsider whether the partnership is suited for holding a gaming license upon learning the contents of the suit.

The judge's order in the case is reported to be a mere page in length, and news reports don't reveal the specific grounds he gave for sealing the record. Presumably the ruling did not involve an item which the law mandates be sealed because the Louisville Courier-Journal reports that Judge Blanton has scheduled a hearing for July 31. It is conceivable that the parties will resolve their differences by that point and the lawsuit will be withdrawn, thereby making it unnecessary for the court to conduct the hearing.

Supremes Affirm Toll Road Ruling

The Indiana Supreme Court today released a 4-0 opinion affirming the trial court ruling in the Toll Road suit according to the Indiana Law Blog. Governor Daniels, who is on a trade mission to Japan, is no doubt celebrating the ruling right now. It's full steam ahead for Major Moves.

Why The Secrecy In French Lick Casino Suit?

Cook Group, Inc. of Bloomington is suing its partner, Lauth Resorts & Casinos, LLC, concerning the two's effort to build a new casino in French Lick. Generally, the records in civil cases of this nature are open to the public, but not in this case. In an unusual move, Orange Co. Circuit Court Judge Larry Blanton agreed to seal the documents concerning the lawsuit and a request for injunctive relief filed by Cook Group, Inc. Fortunately, at least one newspaper is asking questions of the court. The Louisville Courier-Journal writes today:

State law requires a hearing before a judge seals a lawsuit. After being questioned by The Courier-Journal about his decision, Blanton said he would set a date today for a hearing on the matter.

Earlier this month, Indiana's gambling regulators acknowledged that Cook and Lauth had entered mediation in an attempt to resolve a continuing dispute over control of the project. It includes the casino, with 1,200 slot machines and 46 table games, as well as several restaurants and a convention center.

The partnership, called Blue Sky Casino LLC, also is overseeing a restoration of the French Lick Springs Resort and its 18-hole golf course, and the construction of a second golf course, a new swimming-pool complex and an 800-space parking garage.
Officials of both companies declined yesterday to discuss the litigation or other aspects of an ambitious Nov. 1 deadline for opening the casino and 400 rooms at the French Lick resort. Ernest Yelton, executive director of the Indiana Gaming Commission, said the commission staff had not had a chance to review the lawsuit.

A one-page order, signed by Blanton on June 8, granted the request from Orange County Holdings LLC, a company formed by Cook Group, to file the lawsuit and the related request for injunctive relief under seal.

The law, however, requires a court to first hold a public hearing before granting a request to seal a court record so that the parties or members of the public can testify and submit written briefs. A decision to seal all or part of the record must be based on findings that the public interest will be secured by sealing the record or that disseminating the information could be harmful to the public interest, according to the law.

Blanton declined to say during a brief interview whether a hearing on the matter had been held. But in a subsequent interview he said he would hold a hearing and cited a trial rule for his authority to keep the documents under seal until then.

The judge also held a brief conference call with Reed Osland, a Chicago lawyer representing Cook, and an Indianapolis firm acting on behalf of Lauth to notify them of questions raised by the newspaper and of his plans to hold a hearing.

When a public hearing is held, it will be interesting to hear Cook's lawyers explain what is so uniquely different about its suit that entitles it to be shielded from the public.

Message To Indiana GOP: Civil War Was About Civil Rights

Brian Howey of the Howey Political Report Online is blogging from the Indiana GOP convention in Indianapolis. It seems some in the party think that the Grand Old Party's battle to retain control is something akin to the Civil War. Howey writes:

Mourdock told the story of the 20th Maine holding Little Round Top during the second day of the Battle of Gettysburg with a "bayonet charge." Mourdock said, "We hold the high ground, but beyond the slope, forces are gathering. They think they can come up AND take it away. There will be no surrender! This hilltop is ours." Pence picked up on the Civil War theme, saying that with three Hoosier congressional seats in play, "We could be the place where the Republican Majority, minted in 1994, could be lost. We may be Little Round Top. If we hold on to Congress, we may hold it here."

In case Mourdock and Pence have forgotten, the Civil War was fought to end a civil injustice against one class of Americans and resulted in the adoption of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to erase discrimination from the U.S. Constitution. There's a bit of irony in tonight's civil war analogies given the modern-day attempts by the same party to write discrimination back into the U.S. and Indiana constitutions against another class of Americans.

Who's Running Scared?

The Daniels'-funded blog, Frugal Hoosiers, has a post today with a headline suggesting that Marion Co. Democratic prosecutor candidate Melina Kennedy is "running scared" in her race to unseat incumbent prosecutor Carl Brizzi. We might suggest that Frugal Hoosiers pick up a copy of Ann Delaney's book, Politics for Dummies. It is an incumbent officeholder or the party that is in control that "runs scared," not the challenger or the party out of power. And by the way, the tact you take in this post will do nothing to further Brizzi's re-election chances.

The Unintended Consequences Of Claiming You've Been Defamed

With the rapid rise of the blogosphere, it seems almost a daily occurrence that someone sends a letter to a blogsite asserting they've been defamed by either a post by the blog itself or a visitor posting a comment on the blog. It seems to me, though, that taking the step of sending a letter claiming you've been defamed in the blogosphere often has the complete opposite effect you intended, which is to clear your good name.

A South Bend group, which calls itself "No Special Rights", held a press conference last month to accuse Advance Indiana of "shockingly unkind defamatory comments" for characterizing their campaign to stop a gay rights ordinance as "bigoted" and the group as a "Christian hate group." AI, in response, apologized for criticsm directed at one individual but stood by the characterization of the No Special Rights organization. The coverage of the incident actually had the effect of driving traffic to this site where people could read and learn more about just how bigoted the group's message was towards gays and lesbians.

During the May primary, Democratic congressional candidate Kris Kiser threatened to sue Bil Browning and his blog, Bilerico, if he did not remove a post by a contributor, Marla Stevens, in which she leveled scandalous charges against Kiser and his partner. AI wrote of the incident:

A post on Bilerico.com on Thursday by gay rights activist Marla Stevens has caused quite a stir in Kiser's campaign. Steven's post was replete with scandalous and damning accusations against Kiser and Johnson. Bil Browning, editor of Bilerico.com, removed the post under the threat of a lawsuit from the Kiser campaign.

While Bilerico removed the offending post, the coverage and attention which ensued from Kiser's claim of being defamed resulted in far more people learning about the allegations Stevens leveled in her post, true or untrue, than had Kiser simply ignored it altogether. Other blog sites, such as A Commonplace Book, re-posted Steven's post on their sites and dared Kiser to sue them.

Today, Taking Down Words experienced its first threat of a lawsuit for defamation by Indianapolis attorney Steve Laudig in response to a commenter's post on TDW's site recently. TDW graciously agreed to remove the offending commenter's post, but not without posting this for the benefit of its readers:

Wow. We've really made it. Someone threatened to sue TDW over the weekend. Not surprisingly, it was over a comment made on one of the Lawrence threads. Given that tidbit, we bet you can guess from whence the threat came.

Here's the thing. It's the policy of the blogmistress to leave this site open for comments. Every once in a blue moon, she'll run across something unseemly. Or someone will write to point out an overly insulting or offensive comment. Typically, such missives are removed. It's happened fewer than a dozen times, but we're not a wholly insensitive crew.

However, asking nicely is key. TDW ain't a bad gal, nor does she particularly want the blog to get so over-the-top that no one reads it. (Which is why more than one Lawrence thread has been shut down.)

But if you threaten to sue straight out of the gate, we've got little choice but to let folks know about it. After all, it's the people who posted here who would most likely be open to liability, not the blog itself. Accordingly, we'll post the note received via TDW-mail over the weekend. For the record, the offending comment, though it was actually phrased as a question, not a statement, has been removed. And also for the record, TDW ain't a great law student, but she did pretty well in First Amendment law. So this made her giggle. Always remember, kids, that truth is an absolute defense to defamation.

TDW then proceeds to print in full the letter it received from Laudig. In the letter Laudig accuses a "former son-in-law" of posting "false and defamatory" information about him. AI omits the name of the former son-in-law because Laudig, by his own admission, can't say for sure it's him, even though he names him in the letter. He assures us that it is defamation "per se" because "it falsely attributes implies (sic) improper activity and directly accuses me of criminal activity." Laudig assured TDW that "if this posting is immediately removed I will not seek legal redress against you or the owner of the site since you will have done what you can to mitigate any damages I may suffer." Laudig signed the letter "Yours in the First Amendment."

Now I probably read TDW as much and as often as about anyone, and I honestly don't recall reading the specific post Laudig references in his letter, perhaps because I've become bored with the whole Lawrence mess. But thanks to his letter I know all about it as does a lot of other people I suspect Laudig would prefer not know about it, including his former son-in-law, who just might have his attorney send him a letter if he in fact was not the person who posted the offending comment.

Yet another great example on the national level of the boom-a-rang effect can be seen by the impact a letter from House Speaker Dennis Hastert's lawyer to a little-known watchdog group threatening to sue it for defamation had. The watchdog group, Sunlight Foundation, accused Hastert of using federal highway funding to help him and his buddies make millions in a land deal in a report it released via its website. And of course the watchdog group obliged the Speaker by posting his attorney's letter in full, wearing it like a badge of courage. It appeared that the letter more than the original report drew the attention of the mainstream media to its susbtance. If the Speaker had simply ignored it, perhaps the mainstream media would have as well.

The best step to follow if you believe you have been defamed by something written on a blog site, is to quietly contact the blog site's owner or editor and express your concerns about the item without threatening a lawsuit right out of the box and kindly request its removal or correction. You might be surprised at how effective this form of communication works.