Records Removal Services stopped accepting new clients in 2012 as a paperwork as processing company.
--> Existing clients may login at www.RecordsRemovalServicesClient.com, or www.rrsclient.com.
Dealing with hostile criminals who refused to participate in their own pardon, expungement, seal, or non-disclosure is no longer Records Removal Services is willing to do. We sincerely apologize to all the people who have written letters to us and sent thank you letters to us. Unfortunately, career criminals who refused to send the proper paperwork resulted in us deciding to close of our own free will.
Records Removal Service was never a scam and was certified by several companies, except the BBB and this is why: http://news.expungesite.com/2012/03/abc-news-terror-group-gets-rating-from.html
> Posted by Records Removal Services. The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice.
Saturday, January 12, 2013
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Records Removal Services offers do it yourself expungement kits
erasemyrecords.com by Records Removal Services will be fully operational by June 10, 2012.
erasemyrecords.com differs from the normal paperwork processing and criminal database updates Records Removal Services provides; at erasemyrecords.com, you complete the paperwork yourself with Guaranteed court approved documents complete with complete instructions from erasemyrecords.com!
Visit www.erasemyrecords.com for details.
> Posted by Records Removal Services. The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice.
Saturday, October 22, 2011
Records Removal Services - New Colorado Expungement Law
The Colorado Legislature has updated expungement laws in the State.
By H. Michael Steinberg on August 13, 2011 7:30 PM
A new Colorado Law will assist people who have been convicted of certain drug crime misdemeanor and drug felonies with expunging / sealing their records
The bill amends the process for sealing the record of a criminal conviction under Colorado’s Uniform Controlled Substances Act, reduces the waiting period for certain classes of convictions, and authorizes the process of records sealing for additional classes of convictions. With limited exceptions, the bill applies only to convictions on or after July 1, 2011.
The New Law: Colorado House Bill 11-1167
Sealing criminal records – drug offenses – time periods – district attorney approval – no reporting of sealed convictions – advisement of rights – applicability July 1, 2011.
This new law – which takes effect on July 1. 2011 amends the petition process for sealing certain drug offense criminal conviction records.
It Amends the time period the defendant has to wait to petition the court to seal the record which depends on the severity of the offense.
In order to have the record sealed, the defendant must show the court that he or she has not been convicted of another offense or been charged with another offense since the discharge of the offense for which the defendant is seeking to have sealed.
District Attorney Can Object and Veto the Process
The district attorney has the right to object to the petition or veto the request for all offenses except petty offenses. Also depending on the severity of the offense, the court can:
(1) immediately order the record sealed,
or (2) can consider the petition based on established criteria,
or (3) can hold a hearing to decide the petition.
The court, in making the decision whether to seal conviction records, considers the privacy interests of the defendant against the public interest in retaining the conviction records as open records.
Conviction records cannot be sealed if the defendant still owes court-ordered restitution, fines, or fees.
A defendant who successfully petitions a court for the sealing of conviction records must provide the Colorado bureau of investigation (bureau) and each custodian of the conviction records with a copy of the court’s order to seal the conviction records and pay to the bureau any costs related to the sealing of the conviction records in the custody of the bureau.
Employers and certain institutions and agencies are prohibited from requiring an applicant to disclose information in sealed conviction records. Law enforcement will report that there are no public records in response to inquiries about sealed criminal conviction records. The office of the state court administrator must post on its web site a list of all petitions to seal conviction records that are filed with a district court.
The new law also prohibits district court from granting a petition to seal conviction records until at least 30 days following the posting.
Here are THE SPECIFICS OF THE NEW LAW:
24-72-308.6. sealing of criminal conviction records information
For offenses involving controlled substances for convictions entered on or after July 1, 2011.
(1) Definitions. For purposes of this section, “conviction records” means arrest and criminal records information and any records pertaining to a judgment of conviction.
(2) Sealing of conviction records.
(A) (i) subject to the Limitations described in subsection (4) of this section, a defendant
may petition the district court of the district in which any conviction records pertaining to the defendant are located for the sealing of the conviction records, except basic identifying
information, if the petition is filed within the time frame described in subparagraph (ii) of this paragraph (a).
Drug Crimes – Petty Offenses or Class 2 or 3 Misdemeanors (three years)
(II) (A) If the offense is a petty offense or a class 2 or 3 Misdemeanor in article 18 of title 18, CRS the petition may be filed three years after the later of the date of the final disposition of all criminal proceedings against the defendant or the release of the defendant from supervision concerning a criminal conviction.
Drug Crimes – Class 1 Misdemeanors (five years)
(B) If the offense is a class 1 misdemeanor in article 18 of Title 18, CRS, the petition may be filed five years after the later of the date of the final disposition of all criminal proceedings against the defendant or the release of the defendant from supervision concerning a criminal conviction.
Drug Crimes – Class 5 and Class 6 Felonies (seven years)
(C) if the offense is a class 5 felony or class 6 felony drug possession offense described in section 18-18-403.5 or 18-18-404, CRS., or section 18-18-405, CRS., as it existed prior to August 11, 2010, the petition may be filed seven years after the later of the date of the final disposition of all criminal proceedings against.
Posted by Records Removal Services. Credit to the H. Michael Steinberg, Attorney
> Posted by Records Removal Services. The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice.
By H. Michael Steinberg on August 13, 2011 7:30 PM
The bill amends the process for sealing the record of a criminal conviction under Colorado’s Uniform Controlled Substances Act, reduces the waiting period for certain classes of convictions, and authorizes the process of records sealing for additional classes of convictions. With limited exceptions, the bill applies only to convictions on or after July 1, 2011.
The New Law: Colorado House Bill 11-1167
Sealing criminal records – drug offenses – time periods – district attorney approval – no reporting of sealed convictions – advisement of rights – applicability July 1, 2011.
This new law – which takes effect on July 1. 2011 amends the petition process for sealing certain drug offense criminal conviction records.
It Amends the time period the defendant has to wait to petition the court to seal the record which depends on the severity of the offense.
In order to have the record sealed, the defendant must show the court that he or she has not been convicted of another offense or been charged with another offense since the discharge of the offense for which the defendant is seeking to have sealed.
District Attorney Can Object and Veto the Process
The district attorney has the right to object to the petition or veto the request for all offenses except petty offenses. Also depending on the severity of the offense, the court can:
(1) immediately order the record sealed,
or (2) can consider the petition based on established criteria,
or (3) can hold a hearing to decide the petition.
The court, in making the decision whether to seal conviction records, considers the privacy interests of the defendant against the public interest in retaining the conviction records as open records.
Conviction records cannot be sealed if the defendant still owes court-ordered restitution, fines, or fees.
A defendant who successfully petitions a court for the sealing of conviction records must provide the Colorado bureau of investigation (bureau) and each custodian of the conviction records with a copy of the court’s order to seal the conviction records and pay to the bureau any costs related to the sealing of the conviction records in the custody of the bureau.
Employers and certain institutions and agencies are prohibited from requiring an applicant to disclose information in sealed conviction records. Law enforcement will report that there are no public records in response to inquiries about sealed criminal conviction records. The office of the state court administrator must post on its web site a list of all petitions to seal conviction records that are filed with a district court.
The new law also prohibits district court from granting a petition to seal conviction records until at least 30 days following the posting.
Here are THE SPECIFICS OF THE NEW LAW:24-72-308.6. sealing of criminal conviction records information
For offenses involving controlled substances for convictions entered on or after July 1, 2011.
(1) Definitions. For purposes of this section, “conviction records” means arrest and criminal records information and any records pertaining to a judgment of conviction.
(2) Sealing of conviction records.
(A) (i) subject to the Limitations described in subsection (4) of this section, a defendant
may petition the district court of the district in which any conviction records pertaining to the defendant are located for the sealing of the conviction records, except basic identifying
information, if the petition is filed within the time frame described in subparagraph (ii) of this paragraph (a).
Drug Crimes – Petty Offenses or Class 2 or 3 Misdemeanors (three years)
(II) (A) If the offense is a petty offense or a class 2 or 3 Misdemeanor in article 18 of title 18, CRS the petition may be filed three years after the later of the date of the final disposition of all criminal proceedings against the defendant or the release of the defendant from supervision concerning a criminal conviction.
Drug Crimes – Class 1 Misdemeanors (five years)
(B) If the offense is a class 1 misdemeanor in article 18 of Title 18, CRS, the petition may be filed five years after the later of the date of the final disposition of all criminal proceedings against the defendant or the release of the defendant from supervision concerning a criminal conviction.
Drug Crimes – Class 5 and Class 6 Felonies (seven years)
(C) if the offense is a class 5 felony or class 6 felony drug possession offense described in section 18-18-403.5 or 18-18-404, CRS., or section 18-18-405, CRS., as it existed prior to August 11, 2010, the petition may be filed seven years after the later of the date of the final disposition of all criminal proceedings against.
Posted by Records Removal Services. Credit to the H. Michael Steinberg, Attorney
> Posted by Records Removal Services. The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice.
Saturday, September 24, 2011
Records Removal Services - New Indiana Expungement Law
By: Records Removal Services
Until July 2011 people convicted of criminal offenses only had the option of a Pardon by the State of Indiana. Now, the Indiana Legislature passed legislation which Governor Mitch Daniels into law and effective July 01, 2011 allows non-violent offenders to have their criminal records sealed for misdemeanor and Class D felonies.
The new expungement law applies to people who people who after eight (8) years following the completion of their sentence to have their criminal records sealed.
Even after a seal however, Records Removal Services must still update privately owned criminal databases.
> Posted by Records Removal Services. The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice.
Until July 2011 people convicted of criminal offenses only had the option of a Pardon by the State of Indiana. Now, the Indiana Legislature passed legislation which Governor Mitch Daniels into law and effective July 01, 2011 allows non-violent offenders to have their criminal records sealed for misdemeanor and Class D felonies.
The new expungement law applies to people who people who after eight (8) years following the completion of their sentence to have their criminal records sealed.
If granted, an individual would not be required to disclose the conviction on employment applications or any other documents outside of the criminal justice system. Furthermore, it gives ex-offenders the ability to legally state on an application for employment that they have not been convicted or arrested for a crime, removing a large barrier in finding employment.
"Every legislative session, new laws pass that directly impact the lives of Hoosiers," said Jamal L. Smith, Executive Director of the Indiana Civil Rights Commission. "It's important that we share this information with people so that everyone has a clear understanding of their rights."
Even after a seal however, Records Removal Services must still update privately owned criminal databases.
> Posted by Records Removal Services. The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
New Jersey Supreme Court rules that expungements do not negate bans on public employment
Public workers who commit crimes are barred from future public employment when the infractions involves their jobs — even if they later have their records expunged, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled on October 27, 2010.
"When a person is convicted of an offense that 'involves and touches upon' that person's public office, the obligatory forfeiture of public employment provisions of (state law) are triggered," Justice Roberto Rivera-Soto wrote for the majority. Those provisions say a person "shall be forever disqualified from holding any office or position of honor, trust or profit" in the state.
The case involves a former detective, identified in court papers only as D.H., who worked in the Monmouth County Prosecutor’s Office from 1985 to 1999. In June 1999, according to the decision, a local employer called and asked D.H. to conduct a criminal background check on a job applicant. D.H. checked the Criminal Justice Information System and found the prospective employee did have an arrest record.
The following month, representatives from the prosecutor's office and State Police questioned her, and she was charged in September 1999 with the disorderly persons offense of purposeful and unauthorized access of a computer. D.H. pleaded guilty and agreed to forfeit current and future public employment, the decision said.
Considering D.H.’s "unblemished past" and agreement to give up her job, a trial judge sentenced her to pay $110 in costs and penalties.
In 2008, D.H. sought to have her conviction expunged, according to court papers. In granting her request, a trial court noted "the purpose of expungement is the elimination of the collateral consequences of a criminal conviction imposed upon an otherwise law-abiding citizen," determined forfeiture of public employment was a "collateral consequence" and voided that disqualification as well.
The state lost an appeal when an appellate panel sided with the trial court. On October 27, 2010, New Jersey's highest court agreed D.H.'s record should be expunged, but a majority of five justices found her disqualification from public employment is a separate matter that stands. Justice Virginia Long dissented, saying the expungement also should have voided D.H.'s disqualification from public employment.
D.H.’s attorney, Robert Donaher, said his client committed "a minor infraction." He said the computer lookup was done for a "former member of law enforcement."
"She no longer has a criminal record," Donaher said, noting D.H. had no plans to seek a public-sector job.
"From a practical standpoint, she's vindicated."
Judge Edwin Stern did not participate in the case.
Source: http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/10/nj_supreme_court_rules_record.html
> Posted by Records Removal Services. The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice.
"When a person is convicted of an offense that 'involves and touches upon' that person's public office, the obligatory forfeiture of public employment provisions of (state law) are triggered," Justice Roberto Rivera-Soto wrote for the majority. Those provisions say a person "shall be forever disqualified from holding any office or position of honor, trust or profit" in the state.
The case involves a former detective, identified in court papers only as D.H., who worked in the Monmouth County Prosecutor’s Office from 1985 to 1999. In June 1999, according to the decision, a local employer called and asked D.H. to conduct a criminal background check on a job applicant. D.H. checked the Criminal Justice Information System and found the prospective employee did have an arrest record.
The following month, representatives from the prosecutor's office and State Police questioned her, and she was charged in September 1999 with the disorderly persons offense of purposeful and unauthorized access of a computer. D.H. pleaded guilty and agreed to forfeit current and future public employment, the decision said.
Considering D.H.’s "unblemished past" and agreement to give up her job, a trial judge sentenced her to pay $110 in costs and penalties.
In 2008, D.H. sought to have her conviction expunged, according to court papers. In granting her request, a trial court noted "the purpose of expungement is the elimination of the collateral consequences of a criminal conviction imposed upon an otherwise law-abiding citizen," determined forfeiture of public employment was a "collateral consequence" and voided that disqualification as well.
The state lost an appeal when an appellate panel sided with the trial court. On October 27, 2010, New Jersey's highest court agreed D.H.'s record should be expunged, but a majority of five justices found her disqualification from public employment is a separate matter that stands. Justice Virginia Long dissented, saying the expungement also should have voided D.H.'s disqualification from public employment.
D.H.’s attorney, Robert Donaher, said his client committed "a minor infraction." He said the computer lookup was done for a "former member of law enforcement."
"She no longer has a criminal record," Donaher said, noting D.H. had no plans to seek a public-sector job.
"From a practical standpoint, she's vindicated."
Judge Edwin Stern did not participate in the case.
Source: http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/10/nj_supreme_court_rules_record.html
> Posted by Records Removal Services. The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Texas Assistant Principal suspended for failure to disclose criminal history
Arlington, TX: A school assistant principal in Texas who exposed alleged wrongdoing in the school that employed him may wind up losing his job due to nondisclosure of his own past.
A UPI report dated 10/07/2010 relates the story of Joseph Palazzolo, an assistant principal with Arlington Heights High School currently on paid suspension. Palazzolo told UPI that administrators with the school board that has jurisdiction for Arlington High are recommending he be dismissed from his job because Palazzolo, it is alleged, failed to disclose his criminal history when he applied for his job in 2007.
That criminal history, according to the UPI report, includes a guilty plea to a federal misdemeanor charge in 1997 for failure to pay past-due child support, according to court records cited by the Star-Telegram newspaper of Forth Worth.
For his part, Palazzolo said that in his view the campaign to have him terminated from his Texas labor and employment was borne from his efforts to blow the whistle on alleged wrongdoings.
A UPI report dated 10/07/2010 relates the story of Joseph Palazzolo, an assistant principal with Arlington Heights High School currently on paid suspension. Palazzolo told UPI that administrators with the school board that has jurisdiction for Arlington High are recommending he be dismissed from his job because Palazzolo, it is alleged, failed to disclose his criminal history when he applied for his job in 2007.
That criminal history, according to the UPI report, includes a guilty plea to a federal misdemeanor charge in 1997 for failure to pay past-due child support, according to court records cited by the Star-Telegram newspaper of Forth Worth.
NOTE: Though federal crimes are no more serious than State crimes, the federal government has failed to "catchup" to the States in criminal record seals, expungement, or non-disclosures laws. Currently the federal government offers no way to seal or expunge federal criminal records; only a pardon VIA the United States Pardon Attorney may be an option.
For his part, Palazzolo said that in his view the campaign to have him terminated from his Texas labor and employment was borne from his efforts to blow the whistle on alleged wrongdoings.
Monday, August 23, 2010
Records Removal Services Announces Guarantee and Price Promise
Records Removal Services, the Leader in Criminal Record Expungement, today announced its Guarantee and Price Promise:
GUARANTEE: Many items must be certified and obtained in order to your criminal record to be expunged, sealed, set-aside, pardoned, or a non-disclosure successfully filed. These items must come directly from the state of your conviction and is included in your initial paperwork after you enroll.
PRICE PROMISE: Records Removal Services provides services for thousands of dollars below market value.
GUARANTEE: Many items must be certified and obtained in order to your criminal record to be expunged, sealed, set-aside, pardoned, or a non-disclosure successfully filed. These items must come directly from the state of your conviction and is included in your initial paperwork after you enroll.
Records Removal Services guarantees that you will be provided with the right forms, completed with all of the information both you and the states provide, with correct instructions for filing. Should Records Removal Services fail in any of these If we fail on any of these capacities, we will correct any errors at no additional cost to you!
- We cannot however guarantee the outcome of your case (your request for relief from your criminal record). Any agency that tells you that an outcome is guaranteed is lying; the decision resides solely with the Court or State Board of Pardons. Records Removal Services will, with information you provide, make a strong argument for relief using our state-of-the-art communications and client service center.
The Records Removal Services guarantee simply requires that you follow our instructions and provide us with complete and accurate information.
PRICE PROMISE: Records Removal Services provides services for thousands of dollars below market value.
Our goal is to remove your criminal record so you may rejoin the workforce, get the loan you applied for, be able to move-in to the apartment or home association neighborhood you deserve and desire.
No other company or firm can match our secured communication system in our client service center for the price we charge. Records Removal Services will continue to provide excellent services for reasonable prices.
_____________________________
The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. Records Removal Services cannot provide legal advice. Please note that your access to and use of Records Removal Services is subject to additional terms and conditions.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Second Chance Act (this year called the Fresh Start Act) was presented again in Congress for federal offenders
A member of Tennessee's federal representation introduced legislation again this year for federal offenders. This bill would impact federal offenders; the federal government cannot expungement, seal, or pardon state offenses. In a lot of states, the minimum waiting period is two (2) years, but at least someone in Congress is trying to get federal laws passed to remove criminal records for federal offenders. However, Records Removal Services has witnessed this proposed legislation be presented and defeated year after year.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Records Removal Services adds Qualification Questionnaire
In order to qualify people quickly, Records Removal Services has added the a Qualification Questionnaire. Generally, people who pass the questionnaire qualify immediately for a criminal record expungement, seal, or pardon.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Why expunge orders are useless unless criminal database companies are updated
Court records are open to the public. Private companies all over the country collect criminal history and other personal information from court records. These companies store that information on their own computers. In the normal course of things, no one informs these companies when a record is expunged. The courts do not even keep track of who has searched their records. Therefore the information that those companies previously stored can still be reported, not by the court, and not by State or the National Crime Information Center, but by these private companies. Records Removal Services provides this service with your expungement order.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Ohio Governor Ted Strickland Announces Clemency (Pardon) Decisions
The individuals granted pardons today have demonstrated that they have been rehabilitated and have assumed the responsibilities of citizenship.
Former Governor Bob Taft did not act on 63 clemency requests from 2005 and 2006. So Governor Strickland's staff has been overwhelmed with reviewing all requests.
Ohio Governor Ted Strickland and Illinois Governor Pat Quinn have granted an unprecedented number of pardons.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Illinois Governor grants a massive amount of pardons
People who have been convicted of murder, violent crimes, sex crimes are typically automatically disqualified by both Records Removal Services and the Board of Pardons (sometimes called the Board of Pardons and Parole).
Since Governor Quinn was sworn into office on January 29, 2009, he has decided on 769 Petitions, granting a total of 321 Petitions.
Plus, Governor Quinn has his own pile, making the total pending Petitions to be around 2450, according to a spokesman in the Governor's Communications Office.
Governor Quinn is using his exclusive power to the benefit of the most deserving people, granting almost 42% of the Petitions thus far:
"Our society brands the felon with a Scarlet Letter for the rest of his or her lifetime. Essentially, once a felon, always a felon. This is wrong. This is not forgiveness. This is not mercy. Yes, people must understand that consequences come with illegal acts. But every person who was convicted of a crime, was sentenced and served a sentence, whether probation or prison. A lifetime punishment is harmful to society as a whole.
Rehabilitation must be encouraged in our society. The kid who gets caught selling dope at 18-years old should not be labeled a "convicted felon" for the rest of his life if he can prove he is a contributing member of society. If he has gone to school, purchased a home, raised a family, why should he continue to be punished?
A pardon gives the deserving person an opportunity to remove the "convicted felon" tattoo. The pardon allows for the deserving person to apply for a better job so that he or she can support his family. Rehabilitation must be rewarded." - Tamara N. Holder, Illinois Attorney, Legal and Political Commentator
Tamara N. Holder, Illinois defense and civil rights attorney/legal and political commentator contributed to his article from her commentator blog.
Pardon power in the State of Illinois is vested in the Governor, who is assisted by recommendations of the Prisoner Review Board.
With each U.S. state being sovereign however, each state has their own constitution and laws. In the State of Georgia for example, the Governor is prohibited from being involved in pardons and pardon power is vested exclusively in the Georgia Board of Pardons and Parole.
Monday, March 29, 2010
Records Removal Services' new online Client Service Center receives an A+ ( 98.3%) approval rating
SECURITY: Your personal information is protected by 256-bit SSL security.
IMMEDIATE CASE INTEGRATION: Once you have paid your bill in full (as well as completed and returned all forms) our new system will place your case in queue to be exported to the appropriate form and mailed to you!
BILLING: You now have complete control over your bill! Not only does the system generate an invoice and email it to you, but you have complete control over when payments will be deducted from your account (for clients on payment plans), and you can update your billing information anytime! You can pay your bill (both clients mailing in payments, and clients who have declined transactions) instantly of having to take the time to call a representative.
ELIMINATION OF EMAILS: Electronic communication is never secure, and there is always the possibility someone could read your private and sensitive information if you save your emails; our new secured Client Services Tickets eliminates all unsecured emails!
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie signs new legislation broadening the state's expungement statute
CHANGES TO NEW JERSEY EXPUNGEMENT LAWS:
- Citizens with convictions for third or fourth degree drug distribution convictions on their record may be expunged.
- The new legislation also reduces waiting periods for the expungement of indictable (felony) convictions. Under the old law, a citizen had to wait until 10 years had passed. Under the new expungement statute, certain indictable convictions will be eligible for consideration after a period of 5 years. There will be a series of factors that the court will consider when deciding if an early expungement should be granted. The important thing is the application can be filed, in most cases, 5 years earlier than before.
The changes to New Jersey's expungement laws include other provisions, but the ones listed above are the most beneficial for people who need an expungement. For additional information, contact Records Removal Services today! Don't let your criminal history haunt you for the rest of your life!
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Records Removal Services unveils NEW state of the art Client Service Center!
Records Removal Services, a leader in criminal record expungement is pleased to unveil our NEW Client Service Center! Our updated system provides seamless communication, trouble tickets, automated form creation, elimination of email, and countless other features!
Click here for additional information!
You asked, we listened!
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Illinois State Police defying judges’ expungement orders?
Great article from a Sun-Times columnist Mary Mitchell about the former Illinois Governor's executive practices:
Click here to read the entire article, or leave a comment below.
Every time you turn over a rock left by the Rod Blagojevich administration, something ugly crawls out.
The latest is a mess with the Illinois State Police.
An investigation by the Chicago Reporter, a monthly investigative publication on race and poverty, found that the state agency has refused to enforce about 1,800 of 21,000 expungement and sealing orders mandated by state judges.
You can find the full story by going to the Chicago Reporter's Web site at www.chicagoreporter.com.
Earlier this week, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan demanded the State Police immediately conduct an audit to determine the exact number of orders at issue, to comply with court orders and to devise a strategy to reach those people impacted by this issue.
"They are not following the law. I am curious about their reasons," Madigan said during an interview. "We've sent off a letter to the director trying to find out what is going on."
Four years ago, Illinois lawmakers who represent districts with large African-American and Latino populations were celebrating legislation that was designed to make it easier for ex-offenders to re-integrate into society.
It was a hard-fought victory.
But amending the state law was no easy task despite the obvious. If a person with a minor criminal record is prevented from landing even a low-paying job, aren't we just setting them up for a return trip to prison?
Madigan says she intends to meet with Governor Quinn on Friday about this issue.
Click here to read the entire article, or leave a comment below.
Monday, October 13, 2008
The Second Chance Act of 2007
Recently a law was enacted to help offenders make a transition from Federal Prison to the regular honest working world. This law has become known as the Second Chance Act. This law was eagerly awaited by inmates and their families. It was also the subject of many rumors and much misinformation. (story)
In essence, the new law does little and will provide benefits to only a few inmates. The most significant and widespread benefit from this law has been a change in the BOP's policy regarding half-way house time. Prior to this new law, the BOP permitted only a certain amount of half-way house time for inmates -- up to 6 months or 10% of the sentence, whichever was less. Thus, only those inmates serving 60 months or more were permitted 6 months half-way house time.
The exception to this rule was for those inmates who completed the RDAP program. They were permitted up to 6 months half-way house time regardless of the length of their sentence. Now, all inmates may be considered for up to 6 months half-way house time. This alteration in the BOP's policy affects only non-RDAP inmates who are serving less than 60 months.
With respect to the other aspects of the bill, specifically the pilot program to consider early release for elderly inmates and additional assistance beyond half-way house programs, the BOP must publish regulations, wait for comments on them and then proceed. As far as I know, they have not published relevant regulations. Consequently, because the rule-making process may take over 6 months, it may be some time before the limited benefits of the Second Chance Act are available.
The early release provision of the Second Chance Act applies to a very limited group. According to its terms, only offenders over age 65 who have served 10 years or 75% of their time and who did not commit a violent or sex crime can be released early. This applies, therefore, to approximately 650 of the 200,000 federal prisoners. The early release program is to begin on October 1 2008.
The Act also provides that the BOP may, but is not required to, allow up to 1 year of half-way house time. However, this provision of the Act has met with a great deal of skepticism. For example, at a Sentencing Commission symposium held in Washington on July 15, 2008, BOP Director Harley Lappin admitted that there would not be a substantial move to increase half-way house time beyond 6 months. Director Lappin relied upon research studies to support the conclusion that more than six months in a half-way house is not productive for most inmates.
The economics are also not encouraging for anyone hoping to spend more than 6 months at a half-way house. It is cheaper to house inmates in prison than in a half-way house. The average daily cost to house an inmate in a half-way house is $64. The average daily cost to house an inmate in a low-security prison is $48.
There was also a different bill with a similar name. The Second Chance for Ex-Offenders Act of 2007 was designed to amend the federal criminal code to permit expungement of records of certain nonviolent criminal offenses. Although this would be beneficial to anyone convicted of a federal crime, it has not been passed into law. Currently, unlike most state felons, federal felons cannot expunge their conviction. Still, expungement provides only the marginal benefit of making it more difficult for someone to find out the existence of a conviction. It does not make the conviction go away.
In essence, the new law does little and will provide benefits to only a few inmates. The most significant and widespread benefit from this law has been a change in the BOP's policy regarding half-way house time. Prior to this new law, the BOP permitted only a certain amount of half-way house time for inmates -- up to 6 months or 10% of the sentence, whichever was less. Thus, only those inmates serving 60 months or more were permitted 6 months half-way house time.
The exception to this rule was for those inmates who completed the RDAP program. They were permitted up to 6 months half-way house time regardless of the length of their sentence. Now, all inmates may be considered for up to 6 months half-way house time. This alteration in the BOP's policy affects only non-RDAP inmates who are serving less than 60 months.
With respect to the other aspects of the bill, specifically the pilot program to consider early release for elderly inmates and additional assistance beyond half-way house programs, the BOP must publish regulations, wait for comments on them and then proceed. As far as I know, they have not published relevant regulations. Consequently, because the rule-making process may take over 6 months, it may be some time before the limited benefits of the Second Chance Act are available.
The early release provision of the Second Chance Act applies to a very limited group. According to its terms, only offenders over age 65 who have served 10 years or 75% of their time and who did not commit a violent or sex crime can be released early. This applies, therefore, to approximately 650 of the 200,000 federal prisoners. The early release program is to begin on October 1 2008.
The Act also provides that the BOP may, but is not required to, allow up to 1 year of half-way house time. However, this provision of the Act has met with a great deal of skepticism. For example, at a Sentencing Commission symposium held in Washington on July 15, 2008, BOP Director Harley Lappin admitted that there would not be a substantial move to increase half-way house time beyond 6 months. Director Lappin relied upon research studies to support the conclusion that more than six months in a half-way house is not productive for most inmates.
The economics are also not encouraging for anyone hoping to spend more than 6 months at a half-way house. It is cheaper to house inmates in prison than in a half-way house. The average daily cost to house an inmate in a half-way house is $64. The average daily cost to house an inmate in a low-security prison is $48.
There was also a different bill with a similar name. The Second Chance for Ex-Offenders Act of 2007 was designed to amend the federal criminal code to permit expungement of records of certain nonviolent criminal offenses. Although this would be beneficial to anyone convicted of a federal crime, it has not been passed into law. Currently, unlike most state felons, federal felons cannot expunge their conviction. Still, expungement provides only the marginal benefit of making it more difficult for someone to find out the existence of a conviction. It does not make the conviction go away.
Pennsylvania House of Representatives passes expungement bill
Pennsylvania Rep. Tim Solobay, D-Washington, has sponsored a Pennsylvania House bill, that could speed up the expungement process in the commonwealth.
He said it could also take some of the load off the parole board.
Solobay said the bill would allow someone who committed a summary offense but has not committed any other crimes in a five-year period to petition the court to have his or her record expunged at the local level rather than having to go through the state.
The reason for the original bill, Solobay said, is that there is "such a backlog of folks waiting to get their records cleared."
He said it takes three to four years to have a record expunged and added many people need to have their records cleared for background checks.
"With many people, we're finding folks in their middle age with something that may have occurred in college and that's holding them back from promotions or from acquiring a job in the first place," he said. "Some people are actually losing jobs because they have to have a background check done and they can't hold a job with a record."
The bill passed almost unanimously, 198-1, Sept. 23 by the Pennsylvania House of Representatives.
Solobay said the House bill also included some misdemeanors.
He said the period would be seven years for someone who has committed a third-degree misdemeanor and 10 years for someone who has committed a second-degree misdemeanor, Solobay said.
Solobay said he hopes the Senate will pass the bill Wednesday.
It it passes on Wednesday, the House can sign it and "get it to the governor's desk" before session is over, he said.
Solobay said other than "thinning out" the number of people waiting to have their record expunged, the bill would also prevent major criminals from "slipping through the cracks" in the expungement process.
"It's only human nature that you may not put the same time and effort into something as you would if you had a small number," he said.
Solobay said one concern addressed in the House bill was that some things graded as misdemeanors in the past are now graded as summaries.
"There could be someone who had something as basic as a shoplifting charge that was a misdemeanor and is now just a summary offense," he said. "One person could get it expunged quickly through this process, and the other would have to go through the old process."
He said the misdemeanors that were included in the House bill are "non-violent."
He said it could also take some of the load off the parole board.
Solobay said the bill would allow someone who committed a summary offense but has not committed any other crimes in a five-year period to petition the court to have his or her record expunged at the local level rather than having to go through the state.
The reason for the original bill, Solobay said, is that there is "such a backlog of folks waiting to get their records cleared."
He said it takes three to four years to have a record expunged and added many people need to have their records cleared for background checks.
"With many people, we're finding folks in their middle age with something that may have occurred in college and that's holding them back from promotions or from acquiring a job in the first place," he said. "Some people are actually losing jobs because they have to have a background check done and they can't hold a job with a record."
The bill passed almost unanimously, 198-1, Sept. 23 by the Pennsylvania House of Representatives.
Solobay said the House bill also included some misdemeanors.
He said the period would be seven years for someone who has committed a third-degree misdemeanor and 10 years for someone who has committed a second-degree misdemeanor, Solobay said.
Solobay said he hopes the Senate will pass the bill Wednesday.
It it passes on Wednesday, the House can sign it and "get it to the governor's desk" before session is over, he said.
Solobay said other than "thinning out" the number of people waiting to have their record expunged, the bill would also prevent major criminals from "slipping through the cracks" in the expungement process.
"It's only human nature that you may not put the same time and effort into something as you would if you had a small number," he said.
Solobay said one concern addressed in the House bill was that some things graded as misdemeanors in the past are now graded as summaries.
"There could be someone who had something as basic as a shoplifting charge that was a misdemeanor and is now just a summary offense," he said. "One person could get it expunged quickly through this process, and the other would have to go through the old process."
He said the misdemeanors that were included in the House bill are "non-violent."
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Wyoming loses federal gun case
A federal appeals court in Denver has ruled against Wyoming in a lawsuit over a state law that seeks to allow people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence to regain their gun rights.
A three-judge panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday ruled that the procedure spelled out in Wyoming law fails to expunge the criminal record of people convicted of domestic violence.
The ruling is a victory for the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The agency had informed Wyoming that if it persisted in using the state law, the federal government would no longer accept Wyoming concealed weapons permits as a substitute for instant background checks for gun purchases.
Wyoming Attorney General Bruce Salzburg said Wednesday that he's unlikely to suggest that the state ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.
"We now have two federal courts that have rejected Wyoming's position," Salzburg said, adding that the Supreme Court reviews only a small number of cases.
Salzburg said his office planned to put out a statement on Wednesday advising people who have gone through the procedure to expunge their misdemeanor records of the court's decision. He said the ruling means that if such people now have guns, they "may be viewed by federal authorities as being in violation of federal firearms law."
The U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division in Washington represented the BATF in the lawsuit. Charles Miller, spokesman for the division, said Wednesday the office had no comment on the ruling.
The 2004 Wyoming law at the center of the lawsuit allows people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence to petition in state court to expunge their conviction and restore their gun rights. The law requires that petitioners must have completed probation, and it limits people to just one such request.
The Wyoming Attorney General's Office said last year that Wyoming courts expunged 63 misdemeanor convictions from 2005 through last October. Salzburg said Wednesday that only one person with an expunged record had gone on to receive a state-issued concealed weapons permit and said at least two other such applications are pending.
The BATF objected to a provision of the state law that specified that an "expunged" conviction would be kept by the state Division of Criminal Investigation and could be used to enhance penalties for future domestic violence convictions. The BATF said that conviction records weren't truly expunged if they were kept on the books for any purpose.
Federal law requires gun dealers to perform an instant background check of prospective purchasers through a national database unless the buyer has a state-issued concealed weapon permit. The BATF said Wyoming's law could allow people to get a concealed weapons permit even though they wouldn't qualify under federal standards.
Wyoming sued the BATF over its threat to reject all Wyoming-issued concealed carry permits as a substitute for background checks. In May 2007, U.S. District Judge Alan Johnson of Wyoming rejected the state's claims that the federal agency had arbitrarily rejected the state law.
The state's lawsuit has attracted national attention from groups on both sides of the gun-control debate at both the federal district court and appellate court levels.
Daniel Vice, senior attorney for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence in Washington said Wednesday his group regards Tuesday's appeals court ruling as a victory for public safety. The center had filed papers in court in support of the BATF's position.
"We should not make it easier for dangerous abusers to get firearms," Vice said. "And we've seen that domestic violence abuse cases are extremely dangerous when guns are involved."
The Gun Owners Foundation and the National Rifle Association had filed papers in court supporting the state's position.
Herb Titus, lawyer for the Gun Owners Foundation, said Wednesday his group is disappointed with the appeals court decision.
"We think it's wrong," Titus said. "We think this is a matter of state right -- that Congress intended that the states have the right to define expungement according to state policy and state purposes, and obviously, the 10th Circuit disagrees."
Mike Blonigen, Casper district attorney and president of the Wyoming Prosecutors Association, said Wednesday that his office has been advising people interested in petitioning for restoration of their gun rights that a decision on the case was pending. The state law requires prosecutors to review restoration petitions.
Blonigen said the Wyoming Legislature may choose to change the law to address whether conviction records are truly expunged.
"I think it's one of these situations, where if you're going to call it an expungement, it has to have all the characteristics of an expungement, and frankly this law didn't get there," Blonigen said. "You can't say you're going to take it away for these purposes, but not for these three purposes over there."
A three-judge panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday ruled that the procedure spelled out in Wyoming law fails to expunge the criminal record of people convicted of domestic violence.
The ruling is a victory for the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The agency had informed Wyoming that if it persisted in using the state law, the federal government would no longer accept Wyoming concealed weapons permits as a substitute for instant background checks for gun purchases.
Wyoming Attorney General Bruce Salzburg said Wednesday that he's unlikely to suggest that the state ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.
"We now have two federal courts that have rejected Wyoming's position," Salzburg said, adding that the Supreme Court reviews only a small number of cases.
Salzburg said his office planned to put out a statement on Wednesday advising people who have gone through the procedure to expunge their misdemeanor records of the court's decision. He said the ruling means that if such people now have guns, they "may be viewed by federal authorities as being in violation of federal firearms law."
The U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division in Washington represented the BATF in the lawsuit. Charles Miller, spokesman for the division, said Wednesday the office had no comment on the ruling.
The 2004 Wyoming law at the center of the lawsuit allows people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence to petition in state court to expunge their conviction and restore their gun rights. The law requires that petitioners must have completed probation, and it limits people to just one such request.
The Wyoming Attorney General's Office said last year that Wyoming courts expunged 63 misdemeanor convictions from 2005 through last October. Salzburg said Wednesday that only one person with an expunged record had gone on to receive a state-issued concealed weapons permit and said at least two other such applications are pending.
The BATF objected to a provision of the state law that specified that an "expunged" conviction would be kept by the state Division of Criminal Investigation and could be used to enhance penalties for future domestic violence convictions. The BATF said that conviction records weren't truly expunged if they were kept on the books for any purpose.
Federal law requires gun dealers to perform an instant background check of prospective purchasers through a national database unless the buyer has a state-issued concealed weapon permit. The BATF said Wyoming's law could allow people to get a concealed weapons permit even though they wouldn't qualify under federal standards.
Wyoming sued the BATF over its threat to reject all Wyoming-issued concealed carry permits as a substitute for background checks. In May 2007, U.S. District Judge Alan Johnson of Wyoming rejected the state's claims that the federal agency had arbitrarily rejected the state law.
The state's lawsuit has attracted national attention from groups on both sides of the gun-control debate at both the federal district court and appellate court levels.
Daniel Vice, senior attorney for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence in Washington said Wednesday his group regards Tuesday's appeals court ruling as a victory for public safety. The center had filed papers in court in support of the BATF's position.
"We should not make it easier for dangerous abusers to get firearms," Vice said. "And we've seen that domestic violence abuse cases are extremely dangerous when guns are involved."
The Gun Owners Foundation and the National Rifle Association had filed papers in court supporting the state's position.
Herb Titus, lawyer for the Gun Owners Foundation, said Wednesday his group is disappointed with the appeals court decision.
"We think it's wrong," Titus said. "We think this is a matter of state right -- that Congress intended that the states have the right to define expungement according to state policy and state purposes, and obviously, the 10th Circuit disagrees."
Mike Blonigen, Casper district attorney and president of the Wyoming Prosecutors Association, said Wednesday that his office has been advising people interested in petitioning for restoration of their gun rights that a decision on the case was pending. The state law requires prosecutors to review restoration petitions.
Blonigen said the Wyoming Legislature may choose to change the law to address whether conviction records are truly expunged.
"I think it's one of these situations, where if you're going to call it an expungement, it has to have all the characteristics of an expungement, and frankly this law didn't get there," Blonigen said. "You can't say you're going to take it away for these purposes, but not for these three purposes over there."
Minnesota Supreme Court upholds limits set on sealing criminal records
Limit set on sealing criminal records, but expungement attempts still urged
The Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled that district courts do not have the authority to seal criminal records beyond the courts themselves — a decision that may be bad for defendants but good for public-records advocates.
The case began in 1992, when a defendant identified as S.L.H. pleaded guilty to fifth-degree felony possession of cocaine in Robbinsdale. She was 20. After three years, the charge was dropped to a misdemeanor.
In 2000, a petition for expungement, or sealing, of her record, was filed, but the district court denied the request.
She tried again in 2006. S.L.H. argued that she was a single parent of four children and wanted to be better equipped to support her family. She explained she hoped to become a Head Start Teacher or a medical assistant — but neither job would be open to her without expungement of her criminal records.
Hennepin County District Court agreed. The court found in July 2006 that the benefit of expungement to S.L.H. outweighed the disadvantage to the public from eliminating her record and ordered all judicial records of the offense be sealed.
But the lower court also said it did not have the authority to order nonjudicial records sealed. That means that records at the state Bureau of Criminal Apprehension still would be open to anyone who wished to see them.
The Court of Appeals agreed with the district court, and Thursday's Supreme Court decision basically affirms that.
But the decision seems toleave room for interpretation, said Mark Haase, staff attorney for the Council on Crime and Justice, which filed a brief on behalf of S.L.H.
It says granting her access to employment is not "essential to the existence, dignity and function of a court" and that granting expungement of records outside the judicial branch is therefore not within its authority.
But the court seemed to suggest there might be cases that are, citing one in which charges were dismissed.
"The jury, so to speak, is not completely out on it," Haase said. "We don't want to discourage people from trying to get expungements, because the opinion is not clear. I want people who may have a shot at getting a remedy to pursue that."
He said it's vitally important for people to have a chance at a clean slate.
"The vast majority of people who are trying to get expungements are not serious offenders," Haase said. "They're trying to move on with their life; they can't get a job. Do we really want people to carry that with them and (have it) be a hindrance to getting employment and housing for that long?"
The Supreme Court points out, however, that the Legislature has determined, as outlined in the Minnesota Data Practices Act, that certain law enforcement data are public.
"The expungement of S.L.H.'s criminal records held outside the judicial branch would effectively override the legislative determination that some of these records be kept open to the public," the court wrote.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
