Just back from vacation and got word this story is still in the news... a story by the way that broke first on the "Award Winning" BatBlog. While The BatBlog has always trusted and appreciated Co. commissioner Rick Stephenson ,a lot of questions still go unanswered. on this issue...
Though there was supposedly a gag order on this settlement it appears that Larry "Canman" Wilder has gotten a copy of the alleged letter that triggered the payout of $100,000 to former probation officer Susan Knoebel. Wilder questions the payment when no legal action was set in place and wonders why his client former Judge Jerry Jacobi wasn't questioned on the details of the settlement since Ms. Knoebel worked for and was fired by Judge Jacobi during the drug court fiasco...
WHAS channel 11 also brings up the question about the Clark Co. commissioner's attorney Lisa Glickfield also representing the recipient Ms. Knoebel ...
Questions The BatBlog has...
1. If a gag order was in place how did "CanMan" Wilder not only release the details but also have a copy of the letter allegedly sent by Knoebel ??? Since there is apparently no pending legal suit ...Why is "Canman"even involved ???
2. Did Glickfield file a conflict of interest paper or is there any written documentation filed that she no longer represents Knoebel ??? which is common procedure to follow....
3. Who legally advised the commissioners to hand over the Ms. Knoebel's letter to the insurance company ??? Since there was NO notice of tort filed...
4. Who is the insurance company for the County and who is the agent of record ???
5. Wasn't there a special prosecutor investigating Ms. Knaebel's actions in the drug court cases. What were his findings in regards to her actions ??? If I remember right her actions were being questioned as possibly criminal in nature initially...
Commissioner Stephenson stated earlier that the uproar was political in nature....which it may well be...The thing is in a high profile case like this complete transparency is important to the public. While the insurance company can pay out their money as they see fit...tax money paid for this insurance and tax dollars will also pay for the raise in premiums that are sure to come from this Drug court fiasco...The public remains with more questions than answers ...which is unfortunate...
1. He represents Jacobi
ReplyDelete2.Probably No and No
3.Probably Glickfield
4.Probably somebody's cousin
5.Probably nothing illegal listened to Jacobi who can't be touched
The video won't load.
ReplyDeleteThere are so many things wrong with this whole situation, on so many levels. I don't know where to start.
ReplyDeleteI agree there is a lot of things to decipher on this and I'm sure politics is a big part of it...The thing is it's getting harder and harder to separate the good guys from the bad guys...
DeleteJacobi the reason for the whole mess walks away scot free and the taxpayers end up picking up the mess left behind and the costs....
Sad that a person who help deny rights to several drug court defendants is rewarded with 100K.
ReplyDeleteWilder received a copy because he represented Jacobi and Jacobi was included in the tort claim notice and was included in the release, according to the news story. A tort claim notice is not "filed", it is served on the governmental body it is directed to, usually by certified mail. The tort claim notice must be served before a person can bring suit against a governmental entity under Indiana law. It is not typically a public document the same way a court filing is, but would be accessible through open records request.
ReplyDeleteOnce the County is served with the notice, it must forward it on to its insurance carrier and let the carrier handle the matter, if it wants the claim covered by insurance (i.e., the insurance pays for the defense costs, attorney fees, and pays the amount paid to the claimant, minus a deductible). Insurance carriers will then call the shots on how the claim is handled if it is covered by insurance, with the advice of the defense counsel hired to represent the county and usually with input from the county officials.
The decision to settle with Knoebel was probably brought about because of the outcome in Jacobi's disciplinary proceeding with the Indiana Supreme Court. Knoebel's defense was that she was arresting people on orders from Jacobi, and this was probably proven to be true, given the outcome in Jacobi's case. Thus, she had a decent argument that she was improperly fired for following orders from her direct supervisor. Jacobi tried to make her and Snelling the scapegoats for his bad decisions and conduct as a Judge. Whether this entitled her to $100K is a different question. The decision to settle at this time was probably to save costs and limit exposure for the insurance company. If the tort claim is denied, then suit is filed and litigation moves forward with more attorney fees and costs, and with a potential exposure to the county and its insurer of paying a judgment that is higher than the settlement amount, which might not all be covered by insurance. This settlement might have actually saved the county money in the long run.
Also, once a lawsuit happens, parties start taking depositions and people have to answer questions under oath, something the county probably wanted to avoid in this case.
I believe the Special Prosecutor has already declined to files charges against Knoebel and Snelling because they were acting on Jacobi's orders and authority. This probably played a role in the settlement as well.
As far as Ms. Glickfield, she could have withdrawn from representing Knoebel, and then not participated in the case for the commissioner, since it was being handled by insurance provided counsel. This could be done with a couple of properly drafted letters to each client and then not having anything else to do with the case. However, it certainly raises the appearance of impropriety and raises questions about whether she took all the proper steps to withdraw.
The news story said no legal notice was given. So Was a tort sent to them or not? If it was just a letter and no tort do you send that to your insurance?
DeleteExcellent post Anon. thanks for your insight...I agree with how all this probably went down. The issue with Ms. Glickfield is something that needs to be cleared up, if there was no impropriety on her behalf...
ReplyDeleteAnother question ...Why did Wilder take this to the press ?? Was it strictly political ??
ReplyDeleteJacobi's fate and disciplinary action has already been determined. The way I understand it Jacobi can't be liable for his involvement other than what the Supreme court already has ruled upon.
More grandstanding by Wilder, notice how all his clients are guilty as hell.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure Wilder took this to the press. I believe the media were following up on this story and Wilder has become their go-to source for information and insight on Southern Indiana legal topics, because he always has something to say. (You may recall that he was a consultant on their coverage of the Camm case for a while). It also may be because he represents Jacobi, but regardless Larry likes to talk on t.v. The free advertising for him is worth it, and is more effective than paying for a bunch of hokey commercials.
ReplyDeleteJacobi is still a defendant in the Federal Court litigation. Judges and prosecutors enjoy a certain amount of immunity for civil actions, if merely negligent, but can be held personally liable if it is proven that they acted with malice (i.e., bad intent, not just recklessly of carelessly). He could still be personally liable if that case does not settle.
The Indiana Supreme Court matter was a disciplinary proceeding against him as a Judge and attorney (he could have been removed from the bench had he not resigned, disbarred, etc.) It was not a lawsuit for damages by someone against him. However, he had to respond to the formal complaint and avoided a hearing by essentially entering into a plea bargain. My understanding is that he got to keep his law license, but had to agree to resign from the bench and not run for Judge ever again.
I know one thing I bet the attorney(s) for the drug court dependent's class action suit are seeing dollar signs...
ReplyDeleteThe secret is out on the so called confidentiality agreement...100 grand for the person partially at fault for the defendants rights be violated...
Clark Co. and the insurance company are going to pay through the nose on this one. The defendants have hit the lottery...
County commissioner's attorney Glickfield said recently at the last council meeting that the insurance company,Travelers Insurance,dropped the county in July because of the type, not quantity, but type of claims that have been file. (the suicide in the jail, was the example Glickfield gave) She said they perhaps anticipated others coming. She also said we have a new insurance company.
ReplyDeleteLike to see the costs of the insurance before and after these suits ...Travelers probably wished they never dealt with Clark Cu...
ReplyDeleteDon"t forget "her flunky" fmr baliff now working for the Sheriff, is the county Auditor"s son.
ReplyDeleteO, what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive.
Anon (above) has a very well thought out analysis. Thanks for that. Remaining questions are why the insurance company paid if Knoeble blew her deadlines for filing a tort claim or law suit. Second, did Glickfield withdraw as recommended or did she continue to have some role in the matter.
ReplyDeleteWhy do we have so many totally incompetent people running this county?? The voters deserve what they get when they keep electing these imbeciles. Too bad we can't say, "You're fired" --- we are stuck with them until their term expires. But probably doesn't matter because the voters will just re-elect them anyway! SMH
ReplyDeleteThe elected auditor, the three elected commissioners, and the appointed county attorney that were involved with the questionable $100,000 payment
ReplyDeleteare ALL very new.
The government persons involved with this
non-transparent, "under the radar" action are not persons
that have been elected or appointed for years and years and years.
They ARE new!
Their predecessors were fired! This IS the 'NEW' group.....
The change to THESE public officials has resulted in this $100,000 payoff.
They ARE the change that you voted into office.
Enjoy!
While at least some of the details seem to be out, that still doesn't mean that County officials can comment on the situation. They are bound by the confidentiality agreement unless the other party releases them from it.
ReplyDeleteThere IS NO CONFIDENTIALITY agreement.
ReplyDeleteGlad you know more about it than Rick, who is County Commissioner.
ReplyDeleteCommissioner Stevens previously stated that there was a confidentiality agreement and could not comment further because of that agreement. However, the agreement has been rendered a nulity by disclosures from a variety of persons since then.
ReplyDeleteI doubt that Knoebel missed the deadline for a tort claim notice, or else the claim would not have been paid. Insurance companies use deadlines like that to deny claims and Indiana law is strict on the tort claim notice deadline. If the deadline is missed it is an absolute defense and the insurance company would have asserted that as a reason to deny the claim.
Glickfield and Commissioner Stevens have publicly stated that she withdrew from representing Knoebel and did not participate in the negotiations for the county. In those cases, when and insurance company gets involved, they and the retained defense counsel (a different lawyer, not the county's regular attorney) handle the negotiations.
If she didn't withdraw and did participate in the negotiations, then it would be an ethical violation and potentially malpractice.
No. I don't recall ever seeing Rick state there is a confidentiality agreement. If I am wrong I hope Rick will correct me. He would know better.
ReplyDelete*Stephenson
ReplyDeleteSo they paid Susan 100k but were in court now being offered $1,000 to settle. Wait...now its $3,000 to settle. And theres 2.7 million left on the insurance policy.
ReplyDeleteI am beyond enraged!
Court? Anon can you explain more?
ReplyDelete