ILNews

IBA: Magnus-Stinson Named Chair of Nominating Committee

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

 

magnus-stinson-jane-mug Magnus-Stinson

The nomination period has begun for the 2013 Board of Directors of the Indianapolis Bar Association, and the Honorable Jane Magnus-Stinson of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana has been appointed to chair the effort. Judge Magnus-Stinson, a former member of the Board and the 2012 recipient of the Hon. Paul H. Buchanan Jr. Award of Excellence will lead a diverse committee of active members in selecting a slate of officers for the coming year.

Joining Judge Magnus-Stinson on the committee are Carl Butler, Frost Brown Todd; Phil Isenbarger, Bingham Greenebaum Doll, Martha S. Hollingsworth, retired; Hon. James S. Kirsch, Indiana Court of Appeals; Jennifer Lukemeyer, Voyles Zahn Paul; and Sally Zweig, Katz & Korin.

Self-nominations for the board are encouraged, as are nominations of colleagues. The following vacancies exist for the coming year and must be filled by an attorney member:

1st Vice President (serves one-year term and will automatically assume the office of President-elect in 2014)

Secretary (two-year term, 2013 and 2014)

At-Large Member of Board of Managers (five positions, each two-year terms, 2013 and 2014)

Letters or the nomination form found on the IndyBar’s homepage at www.indybar.org should be forwarded to the Bar office by July 23, 2012. The Nominating Committee will select a slate of nominees, which reflects our geographic, ethnic, minority, gender and practice area diversity while recognizing leadership and service to the Indianapolis Bar Association.

IndyBar members wishing to seek election outside the nominating process may file a petition ballot which is now available at the bar office. To be valid the petition must be filed by July 23, 2012, and must contain the signatures of at least 50 attorney members of the Indianapolis Bar Association.•

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. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT