Story on prosecutor was inaccurate

March 27, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
IBJ Letters To The Editor

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


  • I know
    The check was not made out to Bales but this one of his sum companies and split with another broker in his office....
  • I know
    The check was not made out to Bales but this one of his sum companies and split with another broker in his office....
  • Times 2
    "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 prosecutorâ??s office to prevent favoritism influenced by either campaign contributions, friendships or outside business dealings."

    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.

  • Cover story of WRTV, way to go Carl and Mario!
    MORE shame on the prosecutor's office! Way to go, boys!

  • re
    Good points, Skep.

    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.
  • What is the real truth?
    Brizzi could have cleared the air by making some explicit statements, but he clouded things. For example, he says it's not true that Bales got a $51,000 commission on the first amendment. Brizzi says that is not true. Is it no true because he only got $50,000, or because he didn't get anything?
    • re
      Carl, to deny you had any knowledge of the Verizon payable is laughable at best considering one of your FB fans posted a lengthy question about it on your Facebook page, which you then deleted shortly after it was posted, and removed that person from your friends list.

      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.

    Post a comment to this story

    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

    facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
    Subscribe to IBJ
    1. The $104K to CRC would go toward debts service on $486M of existing debt they already have from other things outside this project. Keystone buys the bonds for 3.8M from CRC, and CRC in turn pays for the parking and site work, and some time later CRC buys them back (with interest) from the projected annual property tax revenue from the entire TIF district (est. $415K / yr. from just this property, plus more from all the other property in the TIF district), which in theory would be about a 10-year term, give-or-take. CRC is basically betting on the future, that property values will increase, driving up the tax revenue to the limit of the annual increase cap on commercial property (I think that's 3%). It should be noted that Keystone can't print money (unlike the Federal Treasury) so commercial property tax can only come from consumers, in this case the apartment renters and consumers of the goods and services offered by the ground floor retailers, and employees in the form of lower non-mandatory compensation items, such as bonuses, benefits, 401K match, etc.

    2. $3B would hurt Lilly's bottom line if there were no insurance or Indemnity Agreement, but there is no way that large an award will be upheld on appeal. What's surprising is that the trial judge refused to reduce it. She must have thought there was evidence of a flagrant, unconscionable coverup and wanted to send a message.

    3. As a self-employed individual, I always saw outrageous price increases every year in a health insurance plan with preexisting condition costs -- something most employed groups never had to worry about. With spouse, I saw ALL Indiana "free market answer" plans' premiums raise 25%-45% each year.

    4. It's not who you chose to build it's how they build it. Architects and engineers decide how and what to use to build. builders just do the work. Architects & engineers still think the tarp over the escalators out at airport will hold for third time when it snows, ice storms.

    5. http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/duke-energy-customers-angry-about-money-for-nothing