The Laporte Reporter

09/25/2025

"And here is where we watch child 🌽. And here is where we make it. And here is where we share it with each other. And here is where we strategize on how to deal with Throgmorton."
How many "former" LCSO Deputies get arrested for trafficking in child cornograpy before they do one of those million dollar studies on it?

Citizens Academy

07/09/2025

Like I said:

To recover under § 1962(c), a plaintiff must prove:
(1) Conduct;

In determining whether the conduct element has been satisfied, relevant questions include whether the defendant "occupies a position in the chain of command," "knowingly implements [the enterprise’s] decisions," or is "indispensable to achieving the enterprise’s goal." Walter v. Drayson, 538 F.3d 1244, 1248-49 (9th Cir.2008)

(2) of an enterprise;

18 USC § 1961(4) “enterprise” includes any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity, and any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity;

In particular cases, "the evidence used to prove the pattern of racketeering activity and the evidence establishing an enterprise" may overlap. Boyle, 556 U.S. at 947.

An "enterprise includes any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity, and any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity." 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4). The "definition is not very demanding." Odom, 486 F.3d at 548.

RICO does not require that either the racketeering enterprise or the predicate acts of racketeering be motivated by an economic purpose. Nat’l Org. for Women, Inc. v. Scheidler,510 U.S. 249, 262 (1994).

An associated-in-fact enterprise is "a group of persons associated together for a common purpose of engaging in a course of conduct." Boyle v. United States, 556 U.S. 938, 945-46 (2009) (quoting United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576, 580 (1981))

Its existence is proven through evidence of an ongoing organization, formal or informal, and evidence that the various associates function as a continuing unit. No particular organizational structure, separate or otherwise, is necessary for an associated-in-fact enterprise. Odom, 486 F.3d at 551

(3) through a pattern;

18 U.S.C. § 1961 (5) “pattern of racketeering activity” requires at least two acts of racketeering activity, one of which occurred after the effective date of this chapter and the last of which occurred within ten years (excluding any period of imprisonment) after the commission of a prior act of racketeering activity

(a) A pattern is defined as "at least two acts of racketeering activity" within ten years of each other. 18 U.S.C. § 1961(5).

To establish a "pattern of racketeering activity," the predicate acts must be both "related" and "continuous" Id.; Sever,978 F.2d at 1529.

(c) Related conduct "embraces criminal acts that have the same or similar purposes, results, participants, victims, or methods of commission, or otherwise are interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated events." H.J., Inc., 492 U.S. at 240.

(d) Relatedness of the alleged or proven predicate acts is rarely an issue. See Medallion Television Enters., Inc. v. SelecTV of Cal., Inc., 833 F.2d 1360, 1363 (9th Cir.1987)

(4) of racketeering activity (known as "predicate acts");

(a)In particular cases, "the evidence used to prove the pattern of racketeering activity and the evidence establishing an enterprise" may overlap. Boyle, 556 U.S. at 947.

(b)Predicate acts must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence. See Wilcox v. First Interstate Bank, 815 F.2d 522, 531–32 (9th Cir.1987).

(c)To constitute racketeering activity, the relevant conduct must consist of at least one of the indictable predicate acts listed in 18 U.S.C. § 1961. Sedima S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., Inc., 473 U.S. 479, 495 (1985) ("‘[R]acketeering activity’ consists of no more and no less than commission of a predicate act.").

(A) 18 U.S. Code § 1961
As used in this chapter—
(1) “racketeering activity” means
(B) any act which is indictable under any of the following provisions of title 18, United States Code: section 1512 (relating to tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant)

18 U.S. Code § 1512 - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant
(2) Whoever uses physical force or the threat of physical force against any person, or attempts to do so, with intent to—
(A) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;
(B) cause or induce any person to—
(i) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding;
(ii) alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the integrity or availability of the object for use in an official proceeding;
(iii) evade legal process summoning that person to appear as a witness, or to produce a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or
(iv) be absent from an official proceeding to which that person has been summoned by legal process; or
(C) hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation, supervised release, parole, or release pending judicial proceedings;
shall be punished as provided in paragraph (3).
(3) The punishment for an offense under this subsection is—
(B) in the case of—
(ii) the use or attempted use of physical force against any person;
imprisonment for not more than 30 years; and
(C) in the case of the threat of use of physical force against any person, imprisonment for not more than 20 years.
(5) causing injury to the plaintiff’s "business or property" by the conduct constituting the violation.
See Living Designs, Inc. v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co., 431 F.3d 353, 361 (9th Cir.2005).

A RICO conspiracy under § 1962(d) may be established by proof of an agreement to commit a substantive violation of RICO. Oki Semiconductor Co. v. Wells Fargo Bank, 298 F.3d 768, 774-75 (9th Cir.2002)
("It is the mere agreement to violate RICO that § 1962(d) forbids; it is not necessary to prove any substantive RICO violations ever occurred as a result of the conspiracy"). The conspirator need not have agreed to commit or facilitate each and every part of the substantive offense. Howard, 208 F.3d 741, 751 (9th Cir.2000)(citing Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 52, 65 (1997)).
However, the conspirator must have been "aware of the essential nature and scope of the enterprise and intended to participate in it." Id. (citing Baumer v. Pachl, 8 F.3d 1341, 1346 (9th Cir.1993)).
The "agreement need not be express as long as its existence can be inferred from words, actions, or interdependence of activities and persons involved." Oki Semiconductor Co., 298 F.3d at 775.
A defendant can be held liable for a RICO conspiracy if the evidence shows that he or she "knowingly agree[d] to facilitate a scheme which includes the operation or management of a RICO enterprise." United States v. Fernandez, 388 F.3d 1199, 1229–30 (9th Cir.2004).
Section 1962(d) applies to intracorporate, as well as intercorporate conspiracies; thus, it is possible for a corporation to engage in a RICO conspiracy with its own officers and representatives. Webster v. Omnitron Int’l, 79 F.3d 776, 787 (9th Cir.1996) (quoting with approval Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Arnett, 875 F.2d 1271 (7th Cir.1998), for the proposition that "intracorporate conspiracies … threaten RICO’s goals of preventing the infiltration of legitimate businesses by racketeers and separating racketeers from their profits").

10/12/2022

Connie and Richard Gramarossa are both running for public office from two separate registered addresses!
Last Thursday, the Westville Indicator published local candidates with their registered address & there it is in print for everyone to see.
Friday on WIMS radio, Connie Gramarossa said she and her husband, Richard, were always together--inseparable even. Good for them, but what in blazes is going on? 🤨
Something is fishy.

09/03/2022

"Lisa Pierzakowski, The Township Trustee Caught Up In The Michael Christianson Child S*x Scandal, has resigned as Vice Chair of the Laporte County Republican Party"
https://www.thelaportereporter.com/

08/09/2022

“I’ve just learned this morning after a phone conversation with Ms. Stevens that the subject “thirteen documents” are now in her possession having recently been mailed to her by the Indiana Supreme Court.
Since you have refused (since I first advised you in mid February) to seek a status update from the judge who has the matter under advisement on whether to release these documents or not – I will do so.
Now that they are in the county’s possession, I will be moving on behalf of the county to intervene in the pending action before Judge Hall to get a determination on the documents release.”
- April 9th,2021, 10:16 a.m.
To: Feuerbach
From: Shaw

“Your Honors, this is kind of nonsense that we are dealing with on these ridiculous, repetitive and burdensome Open Records requests from Christopher Throgmorten and his alter ego, Trenton Feuerbach of Bloomington Indiana. The Public Access counselor is well aware that we respond in good faith to reasonable requests but that there’s a great deal of game playing and frivolous, absurd communications that cannot and will not be responded to. Hope you all have a pleasant weekend. Shaw”
- April 10th, 2021, 9:12 a.m.
To: Alevizos, Oss, Stalbrink, Thorne, Friedman
CC: Stevens
Subject: FWD 46D03-2103-PC-2
From: Shaw

“Good morning your Honors: As I’ve mentioned to a couple of you who have inquired, we represent the County Clerk with regard Mr. Throgmorton’s request to obtain the contested “13 pages” and have recently been granted intervention by Special Judge Hall in the pending matter of Throgmorton v. City of Laporte where that issue of disclosure or nondisclosure of the documents will be decided by the judge.”
- April 19th, 2021, 8:47 a.m.
To: Alevizos, Oss, Stalbrink, Thorne, Friedman
Subject: RE: Public Records Request
From: Shaw

•••

“Thank you. I received a copy earlier today.
-Jason C. Schadt, Chief of Staff - LaPorte Circuit Court
Oct 26, 2020, 2:16 PM

“Hello Jason,
I presume that since Mr. Otis resubmitted these 13 pages to the Court and the Orders issued by Judge Alevizos stand....I can obtain these public records from the Court, is that correct?”
- C. A. Throgmorton
October 26, 2020 3:05:47 PM

“Mr. Throgmorton,
I do not believe the LaPorte Circuit Court (myself or my staff) took physical possession of the the documents when they were resubmitted. I am out of the office until at least Wednesday but will inquire with the Special Judge as to where those exhibits are being kept. Once that information is known I will get back to you about where (at the very least)/how you would obtain them (if I am able to provide that dorection).”
-Jason C. Schadt, Chief of Staff - LaPorte Circuit Court
October 26, 2020, 4:26 PM

“So Chris already reached out about obtaining the documents. I told him (see below) that I would find out where they are and he can go from there. Not sure if I can direct him beyond that, as it should he provided by the opposing party now.... Don't need any more accusations but figured I would let you know.”
-Jason C. Schadt, Chief of Staff - LaPorte Circuit Court
October 26, 2020 4:34 PM

“Okay, I found out the Court Reporter in LaPorte Circuit Court does have possession of the documents (in electronic/disk format). She is unable to release any evidence submitted to the Court without a Court Order from the Judge (SJ Hall) assigned to the case.”
-Jason C. Schadt, Chief of Staff - LaPorte Circuit Court
Nov 4, 2020, 1:14 PM

“Mr. Throgmorton,
As you are well aware, the City filed a motion with Judge Hall in October, 2020 asking for the Court to give the City direction with respect to the pages you are asking about. As explained in the City’s motion, those pages are not associated with nor related to the dates you identified in your records request. Judge Hall has not yet ruled on our motion. Unfortunately your recent motion asking for a new judge to take over this case will only serve to delay his ruling on our motion. Once we receive Judge Hall’s ruling on the City’s motion we will know how to proceed with respect to these pages.”
- Tom Dermody
Feb 9, 2021, 4:16 PM

“Mr. Throgmorton,
As the Mayor informed you last week, on November 16, 2020, the City filed a Motion for Determination by the Special Judge regarding Attorney-Client Privileged, Work-Product Privilege, and Deliberative Materials documents. The City provided the Court with the disputed thirteen (13) pages. The Court has yet to rule on the motion. It was not a motion to reconsider.
You are free to file whatever pleading or response you deem necessary with the Court.”
- Nicholas Otis
Feb 18, 2021, 1:25 PM

“Mr. Throgmorton,
I received the below email exchange between you and various county officials. Please see the attached two emails of myself and the Mayor previously advising you that your remedy is to address the issue with Judge Hall. The City has requested Judge Hall review the 13 pages of attorney-client privilege, work-product privilege, and deliberative materials and determine whether they were appropriately withheld by the City. The 13 pages the City withheld are not incident reports about your pat downs at City Hall, but rather communications from different dates that are protected by attorney-client privilege, work-product privilege, and deliberative materials. You can file a response to our motion, request a hearing, etc. Instead, you continue to email various individuals at the City and County who are not the Judge assigned to hear your case.”
- Nicholas Otis
Feb 23, 2021, 7:52 AM

“Mr. Throgmortion, I am not a Judicial Officer and do not possess the authority/ability to rule on the release of these documents. Judge Alevizos no longer has jurisdiction over this matter with his recusal (see attachment “C”). Only Special Judge Hall may rule on the accessibility of the documents currently held in evidence and marked “confidential”.”
- Jason C. Schadt, Chief of Staff - LaPorte Circuit Court
February 23, 2021 11:10 AM

“Agreed Jason, you don’t need to be involved in this.
I’ll mention I don’t like being called a fraud or cyst by a judge I’ve practiced in front of for over a decade either when simply setting this for a hearing could have resolved this issue.
Let’s put it behind us and move on.”
-Nicholas Otis
February 23, 2021 11:20 AM

“So at what point can I speak my mind? Now he is the victim in this!?!?!?”
Jason C. Schadt, Chief of Staff - LaPorte Circuit Court
Feb 23, 2021, at 12:09 PM

“Good morning. My suggestion, Mr. Throgmorton, is that you simply file a request for a “status hearing” before Special Judge Hall who I understood from previous emails has the matter of the “13 documents” under advisement.
Neither the Clerk nor my office can do anything on your request until he rules on whether those documents can be released or not. I trust the above is helpful.”
-Shaw Friedman
Feb 26, 2021, 10:52 AM

“No matter where the documents are maintained – whether they are in the Clerk’s office or in the possession of the Court Reporter – nothing can happen on those until Special Judge Kim Hall rules on the request.
Please request a status hearing from Judge Hall so that you can determine where he is in his decisionmaking on the request – which is currently “under advisement.”
Thank you.”
-Shaw Friedman
Feb 26, 2021, 11:59 AM
“Mr. Throgmorton: My suggestion to you is the same as I gave below nearly two weeks ago on February 26th. What have you done to request a status hearing with Special Judge Hall since then?
The contested “13 pages” to my knowledge are in the possession of the Court Reporter. The judge is a state officer and the Court is a state court. No one in county government can “mandate” the Court to release the documents to you.
Please proceed to take this matter up with Special Judge Kim Hall as the matter is now pending in front of him.
Thank you.”
- Shaw Friedman
Mar 10, 2021, 3:01 PM

“Mr. Throgmortion,
The LaPorte Circuit Court received your public records request concerning the “13 pages” via email most recently on March 12, 2021.
Access to court and administrative records maintained by a court or a court agency is controlled not only by the Access to Public Records Act but also by “rules adopted by the supreme court of Indiana”. See Indiana Code 5-14-3-4(a)(8). The Indiana Supreme Court adopted the Access to Court Records Rules and Administrative Rule 9 concerning records available to the public. The rules are available at https://www.in.gov/courts/publications/rules/ .
Unfortunately we are unable to provide you with the records you seek because they have been sealed by a court. Rule 5 of the Access to Court Records Rules makes case records sealed by a court confidential and not available to the public.”
-Jason C. Schadt, Chief of Staff - LaPorte Circuit Court
Mar 16, 2021, 2:22 PM

“I’ve just learned this morning after a phone conversation with Ms. Stevens that the subject “thirteen documents” are now in her possession having recently been mailed to her by the Indiana Supreme Court.
Since you have refused (since I first advised you in mid February) to seek a status update from the judge who has the matter under advisement on whether to release these documents or not – I will do so.
Now that they are in the county’s possession, I will be moving on behalf of the county to intervene in the pending action before Judge Hall to get a determination on the documents release.”
- Shaw Friedman
April 9th, 2021, 10:16 AM

"Counsel for LaPorte County repeatedly advised Plaintiff that he should seek a status conference in this pending cause to determine the status of the Court’s ruling on any release of documents."
- Motion to Intervene
April 9, 2021 2:15 PM

“Your Honors, this is kind of nonsense that we are dealing with on these ridiculous, repetitive and burdensome Open Records requests from Christopher Throgmorten and his alter ego, Trenton Feuerbach of Bloomington Indiana. The Public Access counselor is well aware that we respond in good faith to reasonable requests but that there’s a great deal of game playing and frivolous, absurd communications that cannot and will not be responded to. Hope you all have a pleasant weekend. Shaw”
- Shaw Friedman
April 10th, 2021, 9:12 AM

“Unfortunately, I cannot lay an exact timeline for the actual dates/times the disputed documents were received by the Clerk’s Office pursuant to the Order to Correct Transcript, “2”. Only the LaPorte Circuit Clerk (copied) would be able to do that. I was under the impression that the LaPorte Circuit Court was provided a copy of the disputed documents when re-submitted (or submitted for the first time as indicated by the Order of Recusal attached as “1”), but after my review of the evidence in this matter this morning I can say for sure that the Court does not possess a copy. The Clerk also does not possess the disputed documents, outside of those sent back from the Supreme Court Clerk on 3-25-21. The disputed documents must have been submitted at some point between the Order to Correct Transcript 3-12-20, or “2”, and the Amended Notice of Completion of Transcript 6-23-20, or “4” and then forwarded to the Appeals Court/Supreme Court Clerk.”
-Jason C. Schadt, Chief of Staff - LaPorte Circuit Court
Apr 12, 2021, 11:49 AM

“Mr. Throgmorton,
According to my records (email), I notified Special Judge Hall by way of his staff in the Starke Circuit Court on 4/27/21, but never received a response. I can certainly forward that email thread. I did not notify Special Judge Hall personally, and do not recall that I have ever spoken directly to him. I located the 13 pages at some point in the week prior to that email. I do not recall the exact date but could probably determine one if I comb through all of my emails on the matter.
The manila clasp envelop marked “for in-camera review” was located by me in the Clerk’s file, which I did not even know existed (a physical file) until I went down to look sometime during the week of April 19th, 2021 (specifically, I wanted to see if the packet sent to the Court of Appeals was the entire 200+ pages of documents or only the 13 pages, I did not open that envelope, but could determine it was far less than 200+ pages pretty easily). The Clerk was notified of this finding at that same time and the Court of Appeals was not since they had already dismissed their case.
I cannot answer why they were in the Clerk’s file instead of the Court’s possession, only the elected Clerk at that time would have knowledge of how they ended up in that file.”
-Jason C. Schadt, Chief of Staff - LaPorte Circuit Court
May 21, 2021, 9:45 AM

“Mr. Throgmorton,
Both the “missing” copies from 2018 and those returned from the Court of Appeal on 3/23/21 are in the Clerk’s physical file. I discovered the “missing” copies in the manila envelope when I went down to check the size of those returned from the COA. I went down to determine if they were sent the entirety of the documents or only those disputed. Both seemed to be about the same size/weight.”
-Jason C. Schadt, Chief of Staff - LaPorte Circuit Court
May 21, 11:03 AM

07/27/2022

"In December 2017, I was arrested in New York City and charged with criminal contempt for handing out jury nullification flyers on a public sidewalk. I spent the rest of the day in jail (I had a cheese sandwich for lunch), only to be let out the back door at night after the charges were dropped and court had closed.

The ACLU and I sued New York, seeking to overturn the law. The District Court agreed with us that the law is wholly unconstitutional and permanently enjoined New York from enforcing the law. New York then appealed that decision.

Today, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law, but also held that the law is unconstitutional as applied to jury nullification.

This is a win, because it is the first time that a federal appeals court has ruled that general jury nullification advocacy is a constitutionally protected right."
- Michael Picard

https://www.facebook.com/mpicardd

On Monday, December 4th, I was on the public sidewalk in front of the Bronx Hall of Justice handing out flyers on jury nullification, which is a right that t...

04/07/2022

Michigan City Police accused of beating up black man who "fit the description". Public outrage ensues.
Will they release the bodycam footage or allow the public to lose even more trust in the MCPD?

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1356547258146238&id=100000671380490

In my layman's opinion, they have waived the fee requirement for everyone by showing it, for free, to the folks they cherry picked to view it. Everyone should be requesting to "inspect" the bodycam footage, for free. Because that investigation s**t has been "waived" and so has the justification for the fee.

Anyone who was denied the same courtesy viewing would be right to feel like they didn't receive "equal treatment under the law".

The NAACP and these pastors are not special.
They are counted on to quell any public outrage before the PD releases the footage and that's how it goes every mf time.
They are not law enforcement and if they've seen it... The MCPD has waived any argument they could make under the "law enforcement investigatory record" nonsense tucked into IC 5-14-3-4(b).

Michigan City Police Department Statement:
Date: 4/6/2022
To: All Media
From: Sergeant Steve Forker

"Due to the non-factual accounts being reported and shared on social media, Police Chief Dion Campbell initiated a meeting at the Michigan City Police department on today, April 6th, 2022. The purpose of the meeting, led by Assistant Chief Jillian Ashley, was to operate in full transparency by allowing immediate Family members, Michigan City Mayor Duane Parry, a representative of the Michigan City Common Council, the president of the Northwest Indiana Ministerial Alliance, and the LaPorte County NAACP (unavailable to attend) to review the bodycam footage of the incident that transpired on April 5th, 2022. After reviewing the incident and understanding the facts of the body camera, Chief Dion Campbell is fully supporting the actions of the officers, stating, that they acted in accordance to the law and with professionalism."

https://www.facebook.com/100064197954551/posts/347551500728112/?sfnsn=mo

“When we least expect it, life sets us a challenge to test our courage and willingness to change; at such a moment, there is no point in pretending that noth...