ILNews

Abrams: A New Justice Center ? ! ? !

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

jeff abrams ibaThe offices of the Indianapolis Bar Association first learned of the city’s interest in pursuing a Justice Center several months ago when they expressed interest in learning more about our task force work over the last 10 years. However, when some bits and pieces were leaked to the media it was very quickly announced that a new Criminal Justice Center was being considered at a location near the Indianapolis Airport. This announcement sent shivers down the spines of our local judiciary and the Criminal Justice Section of the Indianapolis Bar Association, making it time for our Judicial Center Task Force, which has been involved for many, many years, and some executive officers, to more actively engage with representatives of the Mayor’s Office to learn all that the city had planned for this new facility in a very short period of time. We were very fortunate to have John Kautzman, who has chaired the task force on and off as interest has grown and waned, volunteer his time for this project. He took a very active role in communicating with representatives from the city of Indianapolis and the Mayor’s Office to understand what and where this facility was being proposed.

We quickly convened meetings with representatives from the city to discuss the viability of the airport and the concerns for true access to justice for our citizens. It became very clear to the representatives of the city that the airport location, while financially sound, might not be the best choice, and we encouraged them to reconsider other alternatives in the community. There were numerous meetings to understand the nuances of the project. The combination of the processing center, the jail, the criminal courts, the prosecutor’s office and the public defender’s office in one complex had substantial benefits.

It was around this time that those overseeing the redevelopment of the old GM Stamping Plant had made an announcement that there were developers looking at redeveloping the property for private use. We promptly initiated discussions to understand if there was land available at this site for a Justice Center. The location, being much closer to downtown Indianapolis, made this a very appealing choice as compared to the 12 other locations that had been considered by the city’s consultants.

During the winter months, John Kautzman and I met with different city representatives to continue to discuss and voice the concern that the airport location was flawed. We informed them there needed to be a better location closer to the downtown area in order for the Indianapolis Bar Association, on behalf of the judiciary, our Criminal Justice Section and all other attorneys and paralegals, to support the city’s efforts. Fortunately, the city acknowledged our concerns and, as we understand it, are recommending the GM Stamping Plant as a proper location for the future Criminal Justice Center.

While the IndyBar Board of Directors voted to support this location at this time, there are still a lot of questions to be asked and answers to be provided to our task force before this project can be commenced and completed for the benefit of our community. For example, there are numerous planning elements that should be considered so that it is a better functioning and operating facility for the judiciary, for attorneys and for their clients. The city has hired a consultant to assist with this process. We have been assured there will be meetings and opportunities for our members to review plans and specifications. We will be able to provide input so that if and when this project is completed, it will be a facility that is functional for all of us and continues to make a statement that Indianapolis is a phenomenal place to live and work.•

A Justice Center could be a real plum.
Stay tuned as there will be much more information to come.
Accepting a bad location we will never succumb.
But when it opens, we can proudly beat our bass drum.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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 Indiana Lawyer 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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Bob Leonard killed two people named Jennifer and Dion Longworth. There were no Smiths involved.

  2. Being on this journey from the beginning has convinced me the justice system really doesn't care about the welfare of the child. The trial court judge knew the child belonged with the mother. The father having total disregard for the rules of the court. Not only did this cost the mother and child valuable time together but thousands in legal fees. When the child was with the father the mother paid her child support. When the child was finally with the right parent somehow the father got away without having to pay one penny of child support. He had to be in control. Since he withheld all information regarding the child's welfare he put her in harms way. Mother took the child to the doctor when she got sick and was totally embarrassed she knew nothing regarding the medical information especially the allergies, The mother texted the father (from the doctors office) and he replied call his attorney. To me this doesn't seem like a concerned father. Seeing the child upset when she had to go back to the father. What upset me the most was finding out the child sleeps with him. Sometimes in the nude. Maybe I don't understand all the rules of the law but I thought this was also morally wrong. A concerned parent would allow the child to finish the school year. Say goodbye to her friends. It saddens me to know the child will not have contact with the sisters, aunts, uncles and the 87 year old grandfather. He didn't allow it before. Only the mother is allowed to talk to the child. I don't think now will be any different. I hope the decision the courts made would've been the same one if this was a member of their family. Someday this child will end up in therapy if allowed to remain with the father.

  3. Ok attorney Straw ... if that be a good idea ... And I am not saying it is ... but if it were ... would that be ripe prior to her suffering an embarrassing remand from the Seventh? Seems more than a tad premature here soldier. One putting on the armor should not boast liked one taking it off.

  4. The judge thinks that she is so cute to deny jurisdiction, but without jurisdiction, she loses her immunity. She did not give me any due process hearing or any discovery, like the Middlesex case provided for that lawyer. Because she has refused to protect me and she has no immunity because she rejected jurisdiction, I am now suing her in her district.

  5. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

ADVERTISEMENT