ILNews

ACLU recognizes civil liberty allies

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The ACLU of Indiana recognized supporters of civil liberties and raised awareness and funds for the organization during its annual dinner Nov. 13 in Indianapolis.

The evening included a tribute to Marion McKay Walley of Fort Wayne, who had donated to the organization through her estate. The ACLU of Indiana recognized her family members at the dinner; Walley was 93 when she died in March.

Rep. Charlie Brown, D-Gary, received the Joan Laskowski Legislator of the Year Award for his lifelong support of civil liberties; Dr. Lucy Jane King of Indiana University Medical School received the Volunteer of the Year Award; and Dino Sierp, field organizer for Indiana Equality, received the Chris Gonzales Award for her role in advancing civil liberties for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender residents of Indiana.

The keynote speaker for the evening was journalist and author Juan Williams, who has been featured on National Public Radio and Fox.

"My thoughts, based on feedback I received, was that this was a very, very successful event in terms of attendance, participation, donations, and because there were lots of young people there," said Gilbert Holmes, the ACLU of Indiana's interim executive director. "We had many in college or in law school; that was wonderful. I think it serves notice that the ACLU of Indiana is enjoying a resurgence of interest and growth. I would call it a pivotal event."

Holmes said the organization is in the planning stages for a few spring events and encourages those who are interested to visit the Web site, www.aclu-in.org, for more information.

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT