ILNews

Second expungement forum to include private consultations with attorneys

IL Staff
September 5, 2013
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A second public forum on Indiana’s new expungement law will include a panel discussion as well as free consultations with attorneys.

The Indiana Black Legislative Caucus is sponsoring another forum from 5:30 to 8 p.m. Sept. 17 at the Pike Performing Arts Center, 6701 Zionsville Road, Indianapolis. Organizers said they decided to host a second meeting after the first event in early August drew standing-room crowds.

The panel will discuss and answer questions about Public Law 159-2013 which allows individuals to petition courts to have their past criminal offenses expunged from their records.

“We passed this law to help ex-offenders, but we also realize that this is a complicated procedure and people need help to apply for expungement,” Rep. Vanessa Summers, D-Indianapolis, stated in a press release. “Some people lost their jobs during the recession, and they have been shut out of the workplace because of crimes for which they have paid their debt to society. This new law helps them apply for jobs and focus on their work history, rather than things that happened in the past that do not reflect who they are today.”

This forum also will have attorneys available to help individuals determine if they qualify to have their old crimes removed from their records.

Organizers are in the process of securing the services of a number of attorneys to provide free consultations. Also, officials from a number of state and private agencies are expected to attend to answer expungement questions. 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Canceled? Rescheduled?
    I attempted to attend the Tuesday, September 17th forum at Pike but no one was there to even unlock the door. Was this event postponed?

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. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT