The Vanderburgh Humane Society is celebrating 60 years of serving the pets & people of our community with an Ice Cream Social, sponsored by Nomad Technology Group and Pet Supplies Plus! Saturday, June 24^th, 2017 from 11:00-4:00, the public can enjoy free ice cream, hot dogs, kids’ activities, and behind-the-scenes shelter tours on the VHS campus.

The entire event is FREE to the public! The event will be held indoor/outdoor, rain or shine, and has public restrooms and wheelchair accessibility in most areas. Kids and leashed pets are welcome!

This summer happens to also be the VHS Low-Cost Spay & Neuter Clinic’s 10^th birthday, and Cardio for Canines’ FIRST birthday! The public will not want to miss this party.

The VHS is the Tri-State’s largest animal welfare agency, serving more than 10,000 animals in three states every single year. But there are still people who don’t know about their lifesaving programs. Who have never even been to their “new” facility, built in 2004. There are many who don’t know about the services they offer, or what they do every day. This is the perfect chance to get to know the VHS! Ask questions, and learn about the past 60 years AND what the future holds.

Door prizes will be awarded. “2K Fetch” tickets are available for purchase for $10 each. Every ticket corresponds to one of 250 numbered tennis balls, one of which will be “fetched” by a shelter dog during the event. Purchase as many tickets as you’d like for your chance to win $500!

All Departments including Adoptions and the Happy Tails Resale Shop will be open!

Corporate sponsorships are still available for a limited time! Email a.coburn@vhslifesaver.org or call (812) 426-2563 x 218 for information.

Olivia Covington for www.theindianalawyer.com

A former attorney in the Indiana Attorney General’s Office has been relieved of a $15,000 judgment against him for his role in the raid of an alleged puppy mill, the most recent decision in a long-running case stemming from the state’s seizure of roughly 240 dogs.

After the Indiana Department of Revenue and Office of the Indiana Attorney General received information about the alleged puppy mill operating on a dairy farm without collecting sales tax or adequately reporting sales-related income, state officers conducted a raid on the Harrison County farm. Roughly 240 dogs, including several family pets, were seized in a “dramatically staged” raid in June 2009. The dogs were seized after the owners of the farm and dog breeding business, Virginia and Kristen Garwood, said they could not or would not pay the more than $142,000 they owed in assessed liabilities.

Former Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller and then-Chief Counsel for Tax Litigation Andrew Swain celebrated the raid and the so-called “Al Capone” approach to taking down illegal puppy mill operations. Specifically, the state officers had issued jeopardy assessments, or “an immediate tax warrant that turns automatically into a tax judgment which is immediately collectible,” prior to the raid.

Both Garwood women pleaded guilty to Class D felony evasion of income tax, while Virginia Garwood also pleaded guilty to Class D felony failure to remit or collect sales tax. Both women had their sentences suspended to probation.

Meanwhile, prior to their guilty pleas, the Garwoods sought judicial review of the jeopardy assessments in the Indiana Tax Court, which held the jeopardy assessments were “void as a matter of law.” Virginia Garwood then sought a tax refund of more than $100,000, and the Tax Court held in January 2015 the DOR had improperly denied that refund on the value of the dogs. However, the Indiana Supreme Court vacated that ruling one year later.

Further, in the instant case of Virginia Garwood and Kristen Garwood v. State of Indiana, et al., 31A01-1603-CT-679, the Garwoods filed a complaint pleading seven claims against 56 defendants. They alleged state-law torts of conversion, defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress, as well as federal claims of due process violations, unlawful search and seizure, selective enforcement under the equal protection clause and a conspiracy to violate their civil rights.

The defendants included Zoeller, Swain and state and other officials, but only the claim against Swain was successful. A jury entered a $15,000 compensatory verdict against him, and the court awarded the Garwoods’ counsel a total of $89,500. The Garwoods appealed for a new trial against the same defendants, except Swain, while the state cross-appealed, arguing the Harrison Circuit Court had erred in failing to grant Swain either absolute or qualified immunity.

After clarifying the Indiana Court of Appeals, and not the Indiana Tax Court, had jurisdiction to hear the appeal because “neither the jurisdictional value of finality nor that of validity would be served by returning this case to the tax court to decide the constitutional and tort-law consequences of its earlier tax-law holding,” Judge Paul Mathias wrote in a 59-page opinion Monday that the $15,000 judgment against Swain was not supported by sufficient evidence.

The Garwoods failed to show a procedural due process violation for which Swain could have been held personally liable, because the state’s jeopardy assessment scheme has been held constitutional and because the Garwoods received a post-deprivation hearing in the Indiana Tax Court. Further, the Garwoods confused a state law violation with a due process violation when they claimed the tax’s court ruling made it as if the jeopardy assessments “literally never happened,” he wrote.

Additionally, Mathias wrote “The Garwoods’ substantive due process claim fails because Swain’s conduct was rationally related to a legitimate government interest and did not shock the conscience.” Further, the court rejected the Garwoods’ equal protection claim, finding that because they did not identify favorable comparators, the court “cannot review whether ‘there was no rational basis for difference in treatment.’”

Thus, Swain cannot be held personally liable in the case, Mathias said, which means the Garwoods are not a prevailing party, and their lawyers are not entitled to fees. The appellate court, therefore, vacated the award granting their attorneys nearly $90,000 in fees.

Finally, the appellate panel affirmed the decision of the Harrison Circuit Court in all other respects, finding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in relation to charging information, jury instructions, the admission of a court transcript or its decision to decline to give preclusive effect to the tax court’s decision to void the jeopardy assessments.

Gender-Related Biases

Olivia Covington for www.theindianalawyer.com

Though outward expressions of discrimination against certain types of attorneys in court may have diminished over the years, each attorney, litigant, juror and judge who enters a courtroom brings with them their own set of implicit biases.

According to Tammy Meyer, an attorney with Metzger Rosta LLP in Noblesville, ageism and sexism are among the most common biases people bring to the legal process. Some attorneys prefer younger judges, while some judges want to hear arguments from more experienced attorneys. A female client might turn to a female attorney for legal help, while some clients have refused to work with women at all.

The list of potential age and gender-related biases could go on, but Meyer, who led a session Friday on “Dealing with Ageism/Sexism in Court” at the Indiana State Bar Association Solo and Small Firm Conference, said understanding the factors that lead to such biases is the first step toward resolving any internal prejudices legal professionals might hold.

Among the most influential factors that could create sexist or ageist prejudices are media factors, including mainstream and entertainment media, Meyer said. From the perspective of traditional news coverage, she pointed to the example of Marcia Clark, the infamous prosecutor from the O.J. Simpson murder trial. Though Clark was a talented litigator, news coverage tended to focus on her hairstyle or her domestic responsibilities, topics that didn’t dog her male counterparts, such as Johnny Cochran or Christopher Darden, she told a session in French Lick.

Similarly, Meyer showed a clip from the television show Boston Legal in which an elderly senior judge is portrayed as confused, incompetent and possibly struggling with memory loss. Rather than revering senior judges for their knowledge and experience, Meyer said the TV clip suggested elderly legal professionals grow more incompetent with age.

In her own experience, Meyer recounted numerous instances in which she was discriminated against in the practice of law because of her gender. For example, early in her career, a client refused to allow her to argue his case because she was a woman. A senior partner who had previously supported her plan to argue the case withdrew his support, and Meyer was forced to step down from the case, even though she had done the prep work.

But her experience is not unique. When asked if they had ever been discriminated against because of their gender, roughly half of Meyer’s audience answered with a “Yes.” A similar response was given when she asked about age discrimination, based on either being too young or too old.

However, attorneys do not have to maintain the status quo when it comes to implicit and explicit bias, Meyer said. They can instead take proactive steps to level the playing field. For example, rather than laughing at sexist jokes, she urged the audience to speak out against such behaviors.

Further, Meyer encouraged attorneys young and old to develop mentorship relationships that work in both directions. While older attorneys can help those just starting out to learn the ins-and-outs of practicing law, younger attorneys can guide their more experienced counterparts through new technologies that can help them stay competitive in today’s world, she said.

But even with those efforts, implicit and explicit biases will never disappear, Meyer said. To deal with that reality, she offered simple advice – maintain the ability to laugh it off.

“Sometimes I think we have to use humor to deal with some things that may be offensive, but the person isn’t trying to be offensive – they just are,” she said.