What is Paul Ogden’s Win-Loss Record?

Poor Paul Ogden.  He writes big checks that his legal skills just can’t cash. 

See City of Indianapolis v. Kahlo, 938 N.E.2d 734 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010).  For those not familiar, this is Paul Ogden’s big suit against the City of Indianapolis over redevelopment of Pan Am Plaza.  The Court of Appeals directed the trial court to enter summary judgment in favor of the City.  That means he lost. 

After frequently disparaging the legal skills of those young City corporation lawyers, someone deserves an apology.

And speaking of “can’t cash,” it looks like the taxpayers won’t be paying his legal bills either.  For someone always complaining about big firm lawyers sucking at the public teat, he sure files a lot of lawsuits where he expects taxpayers to pay his fees. 

We won’t hold our breath waiting for Paul Ogden to reimburse the City for the attorney’s fees it wasted on defending his failed lawsuit.


About Washington Street Politics
Covering policy and politics from end to end of Washington Street in Indianapolis

15 Responses to What is Paul Ogden’s Win-Loss Record?

  1. Paul K. Ogen says:

    The case is being appealed. Didn’t bother to mention that did you.

    I do want to get this straight though. The Peterson administration, just days before going out of office, gave away the right to collect $6 million by handing over the Pan Am Plaza to the Sports Corporation so they could sell it and keep all the profit. Instead of the Ballard administration standing up for taxpayers trying to recover this money, he decided to go after the taxpayers trying to recover the money for the public. At any time, Ballard could have decried the last minute Peterson deal that was done to screw over taxpayers and he decided to sell out those taxpayers instead.

    Do you have an explanation for why Ballard would do this to bail Peterson out of his last minute shenanigans to help his political friends?

    As far as my record, at least I’m doing what is right standing up for the interests of taxpayers. It’s too bad we don’t have a Mayor who will do the same.

  2. Paul K. Ogen says:

    Oh, and you forgot to mention we won at the trial level.

  3. Retired IPD says:

    Didn’t he get tossed out of court a while back for basing a claim on the wrong part of the Constitution?

    I guess when you don’t charge, but instead hope to get your money from the public trough, you can’t be sued for malpractice.

  4. mrgop says:

    You should read some of the other things the federal courts have said about him. And in the Attorney General’s Office his nickname is Paul “Pro Se” Ogden.

  5. Jeff says:

    I have no connection to Paul Ogden other than I enjoy reading his blog. That said, I don’t quite understand what this post has to do with “Covering policy and politics from end to end of Washington Street in Indianapolis.” It seems like nothing more than a cheap shot at another blogger. I recently found your blog, and if this is typical of what you plan to post, I certainly won’t be adding it to my “favorites” anytime soon.

    • If you don’t want to add us to your favorites, that is fine. Ogden certainly attacks nearly everyone in politics so we aren’t going to worry about what you consider a cheap shot. We’d love for you to read us but if you don’t because you are that hooked into Ogden then we’ll have to live with the disappointment.

    • Orlet says:

      :Its like you read my mind! You appear to know a lot about this, like you wrote the book in it or stnhoeimg. I think that you could do with a few pics to drive the message home a little bit, but other than that, this is excellent blog. An excellent read. I will certainly be back.Thank you for the good writeup. It in fact was a amusement account it. Look advanced to more added agreeable from you! However, how could we communicate?

  6. Wurstnitemare says:

    This is fun

  7. Mikethebuilder says:

    You can’t judge a man’s character based on a win-loss record in court; otherwise, you’d have to throw people like Abraham Lincoln and other great Americans under the proverbial bus, too. Your tacky cheap shots just make you look small. I had this site bookmarked, but I’m deleting it as soon as I post this comment.

    • Like we said above, we want readers but we aren’t going to apologize for calling Paul out. If he is going to throw stones, he should expect to get them tossed back. And we think he does which is why he isn’t complaining. He is a big boy, he can take care of himself.

  8. Mikethebuilder says:

    I might also mention that if officials at the Attorney General’s office really do engage in this type of sophomoric bantering by degrading other lawyers to the point that it gets out into the public area, it is cause to call into question their professional ethics. I think attorneys in the Attorney General’s office are the last ones to be throwing stones. Some of them have been the brunt of jokes for a long time. Lawyers, in general, are a bunch of charlatans. That’s why there hundreds of lawyer jokes going around throughout the country. A majority of lawyers are ethically-challenged and morally bankrupt.

  9. Anonymous says:

    Paul, do not mislead the readers. You did not “win” at the trial level. The motion for summary judgment was denied; you did not win the case.

  10. Domingo says:

    Good article! We will be linking to this particularly great content on our website.
    Keep up the great writing.

  11. Giema says:

    Check out the Indiana Case website for the name Giema and follow along with what I am about to explain and this is the Indiana Judicial system at work.
    A dealership in NW Indiana used their employees to remove my 2008 Pontiac Solstice from my name by creating a Power of Attorney complete with my name forged and 2 of their employees naming themselves as atty of fact and a notary notarizing. I started my lawsuit civilly in 2012 in Jasper County Indiana. The sky’s the limit for punitive damages as the Judge stated on 2 occasions. Chrysler was named as a defendant as well as dealership and their employees. On Dec 11 2013 a court date was held for Motion for Summary Judgement. There was a pro tempore on bench this date. I had already attained notaries bond money. Notary division talked to atty for dealership and instead of revoking her commission they allowed her to terminate. I send letters to all agency’s telling how this dealership is operating their business illegally all being denied for investigation Now on this 2013 court date the pro Tem seems to have an agenda with my atty. He allows both attys for defendants to get their arguments out and each time my atty speaks on dealerships wrong doing he cuts her off. Court ends court date as under advisement and we leave. One day later my atty gets a Proposed Judgement Entry from Chrysler atty certified to all defendants and court. It is never reflected on CCS One month later the Order comes on docket and has a date of 12-11-2013 as being signed. I go to court house and retrieve this document. I find pro Tem with regular Judge. I will reserve his actions that day for my federal lawsuit. I attain Order and go to my car. Call my atty and read it to her. My document reads exactly as the document she holds as the proposed order from Chrysler atty send day after court date. One paragraph is missing which is a paragraph of atty fees. Also heading on order says Judgement Entry. The Pro Tem ruled in Chrysler favor the day of court according to this document. But was held for a month. We moved into the appeal process after our motion to correct errors was denied twice. While we did the appeal and included these 2 documents dealership atty starts doing his injustices. The Jasper county Judge recused himself once he saw motion to correct errors and had to sign transcript for appeal. These 2 documents were front and center in motion to correct errors. We get special Judge and dealership atty decides to send notice to court with a document protected by rules of evidence 408. That judge recused himself after my atty addressed what he did. Appelette court also by passes the 2 documents plus they never read my 275 page brief in their opinion the siding with Chrysler clearly point to the reading of opposing councel’ s 11 page brief only. The Order that came down for dealerships motion for summary Judgement also has its flaws but I will save that for Federal court as well. I notified the Indiana Supreme Court thru reporting Judicial misconduct. No investigation. All complete with paper trail in fact opposing councel brought the document protected by federal law to atty discipline commissions attention and they launched a full attack on my lawyer. In the investigation the pro Tem thru deposition he states infactically how he drafted the Order only he did no one else. I and my councel went to court house several times looking for this proposed judgement order and at no time was it there. In deposition he made it quite clear no one drafted he did it. He was asked why it was headed judgement entry and not order. No answer He was then shown Proposed Judgement Order from opposing counsel Chrysler and he had no answer. Asked if they looked very similar answer yes. He had atty general as his coucel. I waited for them to investigate after this and nothing. Now atty discipline commission has my attys hearing and just out of the blue the Pro Tem Judge changes his drafting all by himself and admits to ex parte communication with opposing counsel atty for Chrysler. It is stated as such in transcript. It is also documented as ex parte communication. I still wait as to which of these powers that be turns over to the FBI. I have. each and every document that clearly shows my persistence in bringing the unethical practices of these opposing councel attys and the 2 Judges. All with documents telling me no investigation. To try and save his butt the regular Judge sends letter naming my atty as the problem with this lawsuit and has pro Tem sign as well. This of course not stated in recusal order just to discipline commission. Also I find pro Tem has a previous reprimand we aren’t to see on the online docket. Could this be his second time getting caught with ex parte communication. I lead them to the door with my paper trail and he has admitted to unethical practices I am quite sure he did not do it for free or a years worth of being in the jelly once a month club. I say the FBI certainly will finish the rest of this investigation as to the lengths unethical attys and judges will do to scratch each other’s backs. I have what I need to prove what is going on with the car industry to steal cars from the tax payer and the lengths they have gone to to hide my evidence proves I got the full documented proof. All my documents state this is the good ole boys club at work. There was a man on the Indiana Supreme Court as Chief Justice. I send my complaint for investigation call this the good ole boys club and this Chief Justice is retiring now instead of next year. Next move its a woman as Chief Justice of Indiana Supreme Court. The hearing officer for my attys discipline case is also female. Chosen at same time they are receiving my documents stating the good ole boys club doesn’t get to do this. At first It was all about my car being stolen at the hands of a dealership using their employees illegally. My case is at a standstill. All while they try to find something my atty has done wrong. All because we hold documents that the FBI will certainly want to investigate throughly . I can only go so far with uncovering all that has happened here but FBI can see ALL that has happened here. I walked them to the door now they will undoubtedly get to walk thru it. I am completely happy with her my atty I thought I should be unhappy with her representation to have an investigation of her breaking Profession al Code of Conduct. Oh that’s right we need to hide what the atty of opposing councel did with the Judge that spells illegal and if FBI investigates finds corruption.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: