tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post6407958160873873680..comments2020-04-11T03:30:02.282-05:00Gary R. Welshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15185079937305083438noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-30253740531971130552010-11-24T20:49:43.313-05:002010-11-24T20:49:43.313-05:00The chief lawyer for our state would rather defend local prosecutors abusing / misinterpreting the law than abide by law. That sound about right?Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09490253182039581408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-32961875922582702852010-11-24T20:39:27.735-05:002010-11-24T20:39:27.735-05:00How despicable of Greg Zoeller to oppose this law suit brought by Paul Ogden on our public behalf. Thanks for this criticism of him, Gary, and Happy Thanksgiving.Marycatherine Bartonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14674049191412285346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-55543579175304376782010-11-24T08:58:46.971-05:002010-11-24T08:58:46.971-05:00Good post, Gary. Thanks.<br /><br />No the law isn&#39;t at all &quot;vague&quot; when it comes to the Common School Fund. Obviously it doesn&#39;t mean ALL law enforcement costs in the county (including all salaries for police officers and for those who work in the prosecutor&#39;s office) have to be paid out of civil forfeitur proceeds before any money is owed to the Common School Fund. If that were true then no money would ever be paid to the common school fund and the legislative requirement would be nullified.<br /><br />Zoeller had an opportunity to intervene and work out a resolution that would recover money and get the prosecutors to follow the law. Instead he has chosen to defend the unseemly practice of procecutors and police officers pocketing everything they take in in forfeiture despite the clear intent of the legislature. <br /><br />Zoeller has a private practice view of what an AG should do. He believes he has to represent state officials regardless of whether they&#39;re breaking the law. That simply isn&#39;t true. The AG can require outside counsel and often did so when I worked for Linley Pearson. <br /><br />The Attorney General has taken an oath to uphold the law. He has duties under the law to provide objective interpretations of the law and to ensure that state officials are following the law. Zoeller has decided to ditch all those responsibilities for a cold political calculation that he can score more political points representing prosecutors than the taxpayers of the state of Indiana.<br /><br />You watch, the AG will want NOTHING to do with asking a judge to review his interpretation of law enforcement costs. He won&#39;t want to do that because he knows the position is extremely disingenous. Instead the AG will try to get the case summarily dismissed on technicalities.<br /><br />Of course if the AG actually read the qui tam law, he&#39;d find that the law only allows dismissal if he intervenes for the Plaintiff and follows the procedure. No other dismissal is allowed under the law. He&#39;s shot himself in the foot.<br /><br />Also, the AG is supposed to certify he doesnt&#39; want to intervene for the plaintiffs and then the Inspector General has the opportunity to do so in his absence. That&#39;s just one of the reasons why it is obvious that the AG can&#39;t represent a defendant in a qui tam...you could end up with the Inspector General and the AG on opposite sides.Paul K. Ogdenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16137003328850866711noreply@blogger.com