As a public official who follows the letter of the law and who has spent the better part of his adult life bringing criminals
to justice in the fair and balanced courts of Marion County, I feel it’s necessary to question the fair and balanced
reporting on the part of Cory Schouten in his article, “Brizzi’s lease deals benefited friend, donor,” published
March 15.
The article outlines the lease agreement and subsequent amendments of the prosecutor’s office space at 251 E. Ohio
St., brokered by John Bales, as contracted by my predecessor Scott Newman in 2002. As reported, my office has exercised options
within the lease resulting in amendments. The lease and subsequent amendments have saved taxpayers more than $1.5 million.
The lease and amendments were completed following the legal guidelines required for property occupied by public officials,
including bipartisan City-County Council approval, but Schouten has misrepresented several key facts within each of these
amendments.
The article states that the first amendment extended the lease for 18 months for no apparent reason; however, the lease was
in fact extended by 15 months and saved taxpayers more than $300,000 in the process by exercising the first and second options
of the lease. Nothing in the lease suggests it was extended due to any construction costs overrun, as the article suggests.
Additionally, the article claims that Bales received a $51,000 commission check for this amendment, which is not true.
The article also states that the second lease amendment waived three months of free rent in order to cover the cost of connecting
the computer network in the space to the City-County Building. Nothing in the lease states that. In reality, the second amendment
was for approximately $120,000 in tenant improvements, including furniture, cabling, data, wiring and equipment. The article
states that Bales collected a $12,000 commission check for this amendment, which also isn’t true.
Schouten also discusses my outside business interests, which are wholly unrelated to my work as Marion County prosecutor.
I am both legally and ethically permitted to have outside business interests, and the proper checks and balances have been
built within the prosecutor’s office to prevent favoritism influenced by either campaign contributions, friendships
or outside business dealings.
Just as I take extreme care to carefully analyze and present facts in the court of law, it is imperative that IBJ
present facts in a fair and balanced fashion.
__________
Carl Brizzi
Marion County prosecutor
on Facebook & Twitter
Back to Top
IBJ Conversations
7 Comments
Add Comment
A direct quote from Brizzi's own pen. Written before the Mobarecki report came out. Carl, what are the built in checks and balances that should have prevented you from personally overruling Larry Broeder and insisting on a sweet heart deal that would get your regular prosecutors suspended or fired if they pulled it? Apparently "Your Chief of Narcotics" (as Broeder signed his email to you in 2009, fighting you tooth and nail to prevent the Mobarecki deal) is not part of those checks and balances. Who reviewed this and gave the green light? Only you? Wyser, Marchall? Who?
Mobarecki includes both campaign contributions AND personal business partnerships with the defense attorney, who even got back $10,000 of drug money, at your hand. Broeder didn't see the "evidence problems" that Page claims existed to justify the plea. Broeder's email lays out a lengthy batch of evidence that calls into question these "evidence problems."
Explain yourself. Prove it.
http://www.theindychannel.com/news/22976117/detail.html
It's about to come out that Mario, Carl's PR guy, was allegedly arrested this morning for a DUI.
Sounds like he fits right in to the group of drunks that think they are running Indy.
It is interesting to note that you state you disclosed your non-prosecutorial business interests. You did disclose, in a retroactively AMENDED filing that you purchased Cellstar. You did not disclosed the amount, which is interesting since you previously disclosed the only two stocks you had ever owned and their share lots--for example 300 shares of ESS, which was a miniscule investment. Suddenly you have hundreds of thousands of shares of Cellstar--a Dallas company trading as a penny stock--purchased in an utterly timely fashion considering Brightpoint bought the assets of Cellstar shortly after you purchased the stock. Yet, you don't disclose the # of shares or where the funds come from to purchase this "speculative stock."
You were getting sued for non-payment of Carmel Gymnastics bills for your kids, for what, like a running total of $134? And you suddenly had, in my estimation, somewhere between $100,000-$300,000 to buy hundreds of thousands of shares of Cellstar?
You can put rumor and innuendo to rest by disclosing your entire purchasing history of Cellstar and CLST, it's pink sheets replacement, once and for all, with corresponding brokerage account records and corresponding checking account records to show the source of funds. I believe you traded in the stock at least twice, I believe you got the money to purchase the stock from or via Tim Durham, and I believe once and for all you should tell the truth about this transaction.