IBJNews

Durham can appeal fraud sentence as indigent, judge rules

Associated Press
January 6, 2013
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A federal judge says a former Indiana financier doesn't have to pay to appeal his conviction for swindling investors out of more than $200 million.

U.S. District Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson issued an order Thursday granting Timothy Durham's request to proceed with his case as an indigent.

Durham said last month that he had no money to file an appeal with the 7th U.S. Circuit of Appeals in Chicago because his multimillion-dollar home is in foreclosure and his financial assets are tied up in bankruptcy proceedings of the companies he used to control.

The 50-year-old Durham was sentenced to 50 years in prison in November after a jury convicted him of securities fraud, conspiracy and 10 counts of wire fraud in the collapse of Akron, Ohio-based Fair Finance.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Where are Tim's friends now
    Maybe Carl can volunteer to write Tim's appeal--and do to him what he did to Charlie. Kind of ironic that JT is nowhere to be found on this appeal--guess that million bucks wasn't enough. COUGH.

    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 IBJ 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

    facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
     
    Subscribe to IBJ
    1. Can your dog sign a marriage license or personally state that he wishes to join you in a legal union? If not then no, you cannot marry him. When you teach him to read, write, and speak a discernible language, then maybe you'll have a reasonable argument. Thanks for playing!

    2. Look no further than Mike Rowe, the former host of dirty jobs, who was also a classically trained singer.

    3. Current law states income taxes are paid to the county of residence not county of income source. The most likely scenario would be some alteration of the income tax distribution formula so money earned in Marion co. would go to Marion Co by residents of other counties would partially be distributed to Marion co. as opposed to now where the entirety is held by the resident's county.

    4. This is more same-old, same-old from a new generation of non-progressive 'progressives and fear mongers. One only needs to look at the economic havoc being experienced in California to understand the effect of drought on economies and people's lives. The same mindset in California turned a blind eye to the growth of population and water needs in California, defeating proposal after proposal to build reservoirs, improve water storage and delivery infrastructure...and the price now being paid for putting the demands of a raucous minority ahead of the needs of many. Some people never, never learn..

    5. I wonder if I can marry him too? Considering we are both males, wouldn't that be a same sex marriage as well? If they don't honor it, I'll scream discrimination just like all these people have....

    ADVERTISEMENT