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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT