Tamara Holder Talk: Tamara Holder, Esquire
General Information

Tamara N. Holder is an Illinois defense attorney and TV/radio legal analyst. She has no shortage of opinions, many of which she shares with you here.

Criminal Defense * Criminal Record Clearing * Governor's Pardons * Discrimination * Police Brutality * Public Policy

www.xpunged.com

 



Entries in pardon (6)

Wednesday
11Nov2009

Tamara in The Wall Street Journal: "More Job Seekers Scramble To Erase Their Criminal Past" by Douglas Belkin

The Wall Street Journal NOVEMBER 11, 2009

More Job Seekers Scramble To Erase Their Criminal Past

By DOUGLAS BELKIN

U.S. job seekers are crashing into the worst employment market in years and background checks that reach deeper than ever into their pasts.

The result: a surge of people seeking to legally clear their criminal records.

In Michigan, state police estimate they'll set aside 46% more convictions this year than last. Oregon is on track to set aside 33% more. Florida sealed and expunged nearly 15,000 criminal records in the fiscal year ended June 30, up 43% from the previous year. The courts of Cook County, which includes Chicago and nearby suburbs, received about 7,600 expungement requests in the year's first three quarters, nearly double the pace from the year before.

One petitioner is Wally Camis Jr., who wanted to clear the air about the time he threatened two men with a hairbrush.

Setting the Record Straight

Sally Ryan for The Wall Street Journal

Wally Camis Jr. works as a cook and classroom helper at a day care center in Naperville, Ill.

Mr. Camis was hungry for work amid a divorce last fall. The 41-year-old Air Force veteran, who had worked as a security guard and owned a restaurant, filled out an application for temporary employment in Eugene, Ore., checking a box saying he had never been arrested.

When he followed up a week later, the temp agency told him no thanks -- they'd turned up a 1986 conviction. Stunned, Mr. Camis recalled the night the two men threatened him and he pulled a silver brush from his back pocket, saying it was a knife. He called the police, he says, and later pleaded guilty to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, a misdemeanor. The judge entered a "no judgment" finding and ordered Mr. Camis to pay a $60 fine.

"I thought that was the end of it," he says.

Instead, 22 years later, Mr. Camis found himself fighting to erase traces of the arrest, joining the growing ranks of Americans who hope that clearing their records of minor crimes will boost their odds in a tough job market. To help, entrepreneurs have set up record-clearing services and local governments have passed laws to speed the expungement process.

Civil-rights organizations have long complained that young black men are disproportionately hindered when prospective employers ask about applicants' arrests or convictions. But attorneys say past offenses are increasingly catching up with blue-collar and middle-class applicants with solid work histories.

"This is affecting a whole new group," says Michael Hornung, a defense attorney in Fort Myers, Fla., who charges $1,000 to help clients clear records. "I've had more people come in to talk to me about having their records expunged in the last year than I have had in the previous 13 combined."

The increase comes as unemployment has risen above 10%, allowing potential employers to be choosier than they have been in decades. More Americans have criminal records now, criminologists say, in part because a generation has come of age since the start of the war on drugs.

[Tainted Resumes]

These convictions are increasingly coming to employers' attention. Background checks have become more commonplace in the years after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, and cheaper. More than 80% of companies performed such checks in 2006, compared with fewer than 50% in 1998, according to the Society for Human Resource Management, an association of HR professionals.

Erased, Sealed, Blocked

Though the definition, terminology and methods of expungement vary by state, its general intent is to restore people to the legal status they enjoyed before a brush with the law -- often giving them the right to answer "no" when a prospective employer asks if they've been arrested or convicted. Most felonies, such as sexual assault or armed robberies, can't be removed. But in many states, some lesser crimes can. After a successful appeal, official records may be shredded, erased, sealed or blocked from view by anyone except entities such as police or schools.

Expungement doesn't wipe away all traces. Local news Web sites routinely post arrest mug shots, which are nearly impossible to eradicate from the Internet. Search engines can turn up a smattering of decades-old news and police reports, plus caches of newer ones. Arrests that have been legally expunged may remain on databases that data-harvesting companies offer to prospective employers; such background companies are under no legal obligation to erase them.

Some employers say background checks provide vital red flags at a time when liability fears run high. Workplace theft cost retailers $15.5 billion last year, according to the National Retail Federation. On-the-job violence costs billions in legal costs and lost work hours, says the Workplace Violence Research Institute, a California consulting firm.

"If I have a guy with four arrests and bad credit versus someone who has never been in trouble in his life, who am I going to hire? It's not rocket science," says Louis DeFalco, corporate director of safety, security and investigations at ABC Fine Wine & Spirits in Florida, which has 175 stores.

Though some employers acknowledge that workers with convictions can become trusted employees, the risk of passing over these applicants is far outweighed by the benefit of culling high-risk applicants from stacks of resumes. Companies can make hiring decisions based on conviction records, but not on arrests that haven't resulted in convictions, according to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Some lawyers have created services to help clients clear records, including Chicago attorney Tamara Holder's www.xpunged.com. Legal-aid organizations have created or stepped up programs to help guide people through the process. The public defender's office in San Jose, Calif., is among public organizations using federal stimulus money to hire additional attorneys to process the influx of clients.

State lawmakers have taken note. In Pennsylvania, where the state pardons board faces a three-year backlog of record-clearing requests, Democratic Rep. Tim Solobay was author of a bill permitting local courts to process the petitions as well. It passed into law last year. This year, Mr. Solobay is pushing legislation that would expand the class of misdemeanors that can be expunged to include disorderly conduct and possession of small amounts of marijuana.

Mr. Solobay says he wrote the bill after a friend told him that his son, who was convicted of disorderly conduct in college, had been turned down for several jobs.

"It kept coming back time and again and haunting him," Mr. Solobay says of his friend's son, suggesting that eventually the punishment ceased to fit the crime. "The job market is tough enough, and he's competing against people with a clean record. So he's getting disqualified."

Millions of Americans are in a similar position. In 1967, 50% of American men had been arrested. Since then, arrests made in connection with domestic violence and illegal drugs have pushed the number to 60%, estimates Alfred Blumstein, a criminologist at Carnegie Mellon University. The annual number of arrests for possession of marijuana more than tripled to 1.8 million from 1980 to 2007, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.

Arrests and convictions are also easier for employers to learn about. Even 10 years ago, background checks tended to be cursory or expensive. Now, database providers can quickly access information from the country's approximately 3,100 court jurisdictions, charging $10 or less for simple checks.

One Chicago 53-year-old, who has worked for an overnight delivery service and as a bricklayer, is nervous that his record's sole smudge may come back to haunt him.

In 1974, he says, he was walking down a street near his Chicago home rolling a marijuana cigarette. He was arrested by an undercover police officer and convicted of possession. "That was back in the days when I had hair, and I just said, 'Forget about it.' I was like 17 or 18 years old -- what did I care?"

His employers never learned of the conviction, he says, nor have his own children. But, hoping to coach high-school basketball when he retires in a few years, he's working with a Chicago attorney to clear his record. "Nowadays they look for anything so I figured I better take care of this," he says.

One employer that has taken on candidates with criminal records in recent years is the U.S. military. From 2006 through 2008, the four armed-forces branches issued conduct waivers for more than 2,000 recruits with felony convictions, 3,000 recruits with felony arrests and 42,000 recruits with serious misdemeanors, according to the Department of Defense.

Now, some veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan are finding their service may not make up for earlier offenses.

Osvaldo Hernandez of New York served in the Army for 15 months in Afghanistan, then, upon his return to the U.S., scored in the 98th percentile on his civil- service exam, says his attorney, Jim Harmon. Mr. Hernandez, 27, has been unable to land a job with the New York City Police Department because of a 2002 conviction of illegal possession of a gun, Mr. Harmon said.

Mr. Hernandez hasn't sought expungement because his crime doesn't qualify for it in New York. An NYPD spokesman said the department has a policy against hiring felons.

Mr. Hernandez is now serving another overseas tour, hoping "that serving twice in combat will overcome the prior conviction issue," Mr. Harmon says.

Mr. Camis, meanwhile, spent months trying to undo the legacy of one night in 1986.

Then 18, Mr. Camis was leaving his job at a movie theater in Woodridge, Ill., when he says two men threatened him. He flashed the handle of his 5-inch-long brush, he says.

The men fled. Mr. Camis says he called the police. Officers apprehended the men, who accused Mr. Camis of being the aggressor. Before a circuit court judge in Illinois's DuPage County, Mr. Camis admitted he threatened to cut the men -- assault without the battery -- and paid his fine.

'Never Had a Problem'

The next year he joined the Air Force, where he serviced F-15s in Okinawa, Japan, and earned an honorable discharge. He later worked as a guard, railroad brakeman, exterminator and restaurateur, he says, passing two criminal background checks along the way. "I never had a problem," he said.

In fall 2008, he says, he approached Cardinal Services Inc. in Oregon. An agent at the temp service said he had openings that might be suitable. Mr. Camis turned in his application.

Cardinal says it paid a background-search firm about $10 to examine his past. It turned up the DuPage no-judgment order -- which the court had posted online in 2004, among other records.

When Mr. Camis followed up with Cardinal a week after applying, he says, an agent there accused him of lying about his criminal history. Cardinal wouldn't help him find work, the agent said.

Cardinal Services' manager and general counsel Mike Lehman says the company's application asks prospective workers about arrests, as well as convictions. Mr. Lehman called Mr. Camis's denial of his arrest a "red flag."

"If someone has a criminal history, we can work with them," Mr. Lehman says. "But if they have one and lie to us, that's pretty ominous."

'No Judgment'

Mr. Camis says he had forgotten about the incident and, even when reminded, thought the "no judgment" ruling had cleared him.

A few weeks later, he called Ms. Holder of Xpunged.com. She filed an expungement petition with the DuPage court.

In April, Mr. Camis flew from Oregon to Illinois for a five-minute hearing in front of a DuPage circuit judge. The judge agreed to seal the record. Ms. Holder added that under Illinois law, Mr. Camis's charge wasn't technically a conviction.

On Sept. 8, the records supervisor of the Woodridge Police Department signed an affidavit swearing that she had shredded all identifying materials connected to case 86CM4967, "People of the State of Illinois vs. Wallace E. Camis Jr." The destroyed documents would have included the police report with details of the arrest.

Mr. Camis is back in Illinois, taking education courses and logging full-time hours at a day-care center where he is the cook and a classroom helper. He says he eventually hopes to be a teacher.

Of his police record, Mr. Camis says: "Hopefully it's gone for good."

Write to Douglas Belkin at doug.belkin@wsj.com

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A1

Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit

www.djreprints.com



Wednesday
04Nov2009

MY PLEA TO GOVERNOR QUINN: PARDON THOSE CONVICTED BY "OPERATION GREYLORD" JUDGES

Dear Governor Quinn:

I am requesting you pardon and expunge the records of hundreds, if not thousands, of people who were convicted and sentenced by "Operation Greylord" judges. Several Greylord Judges (Courtesty of FBI)The FBI was successful at rooting out the evils of 17 Cook County judges; however, those who were the victims of the judges' convictions and sentencings were completely ignored.

Operation Greylord is the name of an FBI investigation in the 80's that spanned over the course of 3 1/2 years. As you know, Operation Greylord is still recognized to this day as one of the FBI's most successful undercover investigations. The first listening device ever placed in a judge's chambers occurred in the undercover phase, when the narcotics court chambers of Cook County Circuit Court Judge Wayne Olson were bugged. Over 100 people were indicted. The last conviction was that of Judge Thomas Maloney, who was convicted of fixing three murder cases. Maloney was released from federal prison in 2008. A total of 92 people were indicted, including 17 judges, 48 lawyers, ten deputy sheriffs, eight policemen, eight court officials, and a member of the Illinois Legislature. (See Wikipedia for further information.)

As a result of the corruption within Cook County, many people were wrongly convicted and sentenced to crimes they did not commit or they were not given a fair trial because of their attorney and/or judge's involvement in their case.

Judge Ciavarella Your pardoning and expunging the records of these individuals would follow suit of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. On October 29, 2009, the Court ruled that almost all juvenile cases heard by Luzerne County Judge Mark Ciavarella from Jan. 1, 2003 to May 31, 2008 must be thrown out. Judge Ciavearella has been indicted for "taking millions of dollars in kickbacks from owners of private detention centers in exchange for placing juvenile defendants at their facilities, often for minor crimes." Article here.

Over 6500 juveniles will have their records expunged. Many states automatically expunge a juvenile's criminal record; however, Pennsylvania does not. (Here, in Illinois, juvenile records are also not automatically expunged; instead, a petition must be filed and the judge must enter an order to expunge the juvenile record.)

Greylord judges were not juvenile judges but the issue is still the same: like Judge Ciavearella, Greylord judges did not act impartially but instead had a vested interest in cases by getting paid by defense attorneys in exchange for favorable sentence.

For example, one man pleaded guilty to a crime he did not commit because his attorney (whom he met when the attorney approached him in the hallway the first day of court) told him that if he signed over his bond money, the attorney would "make the case go away." Little did the man know that he was pleading guilty to felony probation and would be a convicted felon for the rest of his life.

Each person's story is different, of course, but in the fairness of justice, I believe it is only appropriate to remove the crimes of those convicted by the 17 Greylord judges. Too many lives have been permanently ruined by corrupt judges. The incarceration of the Greylord judges is only one piece of righting their wrongs. The victims in these cases should also be rehabilitated by an pardon and or expungement of any case heard before the Greylord judges.

Governor Quinn, thousands of Illinois residents were affected by the Greylord corruption. The FBI did an incredible job at rooting out the evils within the justice system but rehabilitating the victims somehow was dismissed.

I know you are incredibly busy dealing with other serious matters; however, the power to pardon is an enumerated power given soley to you, our Governor.  Political backlash often follows after a pardon is granted but, in this case, your actions are would be clearly reasonable and justified. I look forward to hearing your response to my request.

Sincerely,

Tamara N. Holder - Attorney for and on behalf of Greylord victims

www.xpunged.com

Tuesday
29Sep2009

POLANKSI: UNDERLYING FACTS OF THE CASE NOT AN ISSUE, GOVERNOR SCHWARZENEGGER CAN END THIS BY GRANTING PARDON

Roman Polanski (AP)

ADMONISHMENTS

On August 8, 1977, Roman Polanski pleaded guilty to one of six counts: unlawful sexual contact with a minor. Upon a defendant's plea of guilty, a judge is required to admonish the defendant of a multitude of rights and laws. The defendant is must, the record, verbally state he understands the admonishments.

On the day of Polanski's guilty plea, the prosecutor said he convinced the District Attorney to accept the plea agreement. The judge did NOT say he would agree to such an agreement between the parties.

The Honorable Laurence J. Rittenband admonished Polanski & Polanski stated he understood each admonishment such as:

* He understood he was giving up his right to confront witnesses (p. 9)
* He stated he was guilty of the charge of unlawful sexual intercourse with a female person under the age of 18. (p. 10)
* He understood he was pleading guilty to a felony (p. 11)
* He understood the maximum sentence was up to 20 years in prison (p. 11)
* "Mr. Polanski, who  do you believe will decide your sentence will be in this matter"; Polanski, "The judge."(p. 11)
* "Do you understand at this time the Court has not made any decision as to what sentence you will receive? Do you understand the court has not made any decision?" Polanski, "Yes." (p. 12)
* Since you are not a citizen of the United States, a possible sentence of your plea of guilty TODAY may be that you be deported and excluded from this county?" (12)

* Interestingly, the judge did not admonish the defendant of his right to withdraw his plea of guilty. Generally, the Defendant has 30 days from the date of his plea to do so. Polanski did not withdraw his plea of guilty.

Instead, after he was released from his 42-day stint in jail for a mental evaluation, he fled the country in fear of the judge's imposition of an additional sentence. Understand that he was not sentenced for the crime. He was ordered to complete an evaluation. The record does not reflect he was being sentenced but instead complied with a pre-sentence mental evaluation. I do not understand how people are confusing a pre-sentence investigation of sorts with a sentence!

As a defense attorney, it sounds like the prosecutor and the defense attorney spoke to the judge in his chambers and the judge said he wouldn't sentence him to additional time if the evaluation came back clean. Polanski's attorney probably conveyed this to his client, even though no agreement was ever stated on the record. This is a classic example how a judge can "forget"; discussions in chambers and can use the "It's not on the record" excuse to renege an agreement. I've been in conferences just like this where, at a later date, the judge doesn't remember the previous conversation and agreement. Interesting that the court file in Polanski's case is missing.

POLANSKI'S STIPULATION TO THE FACTS & FAILURE TO FILE MOTIONS

I respectfully disagree with certain writers, such as Gerald Posner, who go into great detail about the underlying facts of the case, witness availability and any other matters as they relate to the crime of 1977.Polanksi pleaded guilty to the charges, waived his right to confront witnesses and stipulated to the facts as they were read into the record.

Regardless of the possibility that the judge was going to renege his off-the-record agreement on the final sentence, Polanski's attorney did NOT file a motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Nor did they file a Writ of Habeus Corpus. As a result, Polanski waived his right to withdraw his plea of guilty. Since he filed no additional motions, the underlying facts of the case are not in dispute.

BEST OPTION FOR POLANSKI - SCHWARZENEGGER PARDON

I suggest Polanski does not fight extradition. Instead, I think the best thing for Polanski to do is come back to the United States and seek a Governor's pardon from California Governor Schwarzenegger.

The governor of the state where a state crime occurred, has the absolute power to pardon a person. Reasons for a pardon can be based on innocence or rehabilitation. Polanski clearly is not innocent of the crime.

Schwarzenegger can grant Polanski a pardon based on his rehabilitation and his extraordinary contribution to society since his 1977 crime.

 www.xpunged.com and www.tamaraholder.com

Friday
10Apr2009

FINALLY! NEW ILLINOIS GOVERNOR QUINN MAKES GRANTING PARDONS A PRIORITY!

Gov. Pat Quinn (David Carson - stltoday.com)Today, Gov. Pat Quinn pardoned 11 people; these are the first pardons of our new Governor.  Thank you, Gov. Quinn! Article here.

The pardon power is an enumerated power of the Governor; it is a function of Government.  The issue here is not whether one agrees/disagrees that a person should be pardoned for a criminal indiscretion of the past; instead, the issue is that the Governor has the sole power to pardon and that power must not be blatantly ignored.  If a Governor is totally against pardoning any person, then the Governor must deny all pardons; the Governor cannot simply ignore the requests. On the other hand, if the Governor is not entirely against granting pardons, and a petitioner  has a compelling case for being pardoned, then the Governor must make a decision and either grant or deny the pardon.  Essentially, a Governor shall not allow pardon petitions to sit indefinitely without a decision, one way or another.

Ex-IL Governor Blagojevich promised many people he would make decisions on pardons. He lied. Instead, he allowed approximately 2500 pardons to pile up on his desk for the 6 years that he was in office.  People's lives were in limbo as they waited, hoped and prayed for an answer. As of April 2008, he had only granted 67.  He then granted about 24 more.  Regardless, he granted a total of less than 100 pardons - that is embarassing.  And according to the IL Prisoner Review Board last April, Blagojevich had approximately 1500 on his desk.  According to Gov. Quinn, there are an additional 1000; he stated there is a backlog of over 2500!

In Illinois, a person seeking a pardon, clemency or reprieve must first petition the IL Prisoner Review Board.  After the petition has been submitted, the petitioner has an opportunity for a hearing where he makes his case before the Board as to why he should be pardoned. Then, the Board makes a confidential recommendation to the Governor, whether they think the person should be pardoned.  Lastly, the petition sits in the hands of the Governor and awaits final denial or approval.  By law, the Governor is not required to make a decision within any period of time.  (That should be obvious! Blagojevich allowed thousands to pile up on his desk.) Thus, the petitioner must wait and wait and wait for a decision. There is nothing one can do to get an answer.  The person cannot even re-petition the Governor if no decision has been made.  The only time a person can re-petition is if the person is denied and he waits a year after denial and files again.

We need to pardon people who made a mistake and have since rehabilitated themselves.  I am not talking about the convicted murderer who has a lengthy, violent past.  Not all felons are those who have done time in prison.  Many are people who made a stupid mistake as a kid and were given probation.  At the time, they did not know that their mistake would follow them for life, even though they did not go to jail.  Keep in mind, in IL, once a felon, always a felon, unless you are granted a pardon. 

Thank you, Governor Quinn, for making decisions on yet another matter that ex-Governor Blagojevich refused to handle.  By granting the 11 pardons, you have restored the lives of not just 11 people but of 11 people's families and their communities.

www.xpunged.com and www.tamaraholder.com

Thursday
09Apr2009

HERE'S INFORMATION FOR YOU ON ILLINOIS PARDONS

DO YOU WANT A PARDON? IF SO, WE PREPARE YOUR PETITION!

WHAT IS A PARDON?

There are two kinds of pardons: 1) Federal pardon, and 2) State pardon. If you have been convicted of a federal crime, the only person who can grant you a pardon for that crime is President Barack Obama. If you have been convicted of a state crime, the only person who can grant you a pardon for that crime is the Governor of the state where you were convicted. For example if you were convicted in Illinois, the only person who can pardon you is Governor Pat Quinn.

DIFFERENT TYPES OF “PARDON POWER”
1) Clemency: this term is used interchangeably with the other terms below. There are different types of clemency.
a. Pardon: You are asking for forgiveness of your conviction, whether you are in prison or you have already served your time.
b. Commutation: You are in prison and you are asking for your sentence to be reduced. This is not a pardon but you are getting out of prison earlier than the original sentence.
c. Reprieve: You are in prison and you are asking for the death penalty to be stayed.

PROCESS
Each state has a different procedure as to how someone would go about seeking clemency. In Illinois, a person seeking clemency must:
1) Submit a petition to the IL Prisoner Review Board: this petition includes all the information about your case and why you feel you should be pardoned by the Governor. (You can retain us to prepare & submit your petition!)
2) Optional hearing before the Board: After the petition has been submitted, you have the opportunity for a hearing; you present your case before the Board as to why you should be pardoned. (We also appear at your hearing!)
3) The Board makes a confidential recommendation to the Governor, whether they think you should be pardoned.
4) The petition awaits final denial or approval from the Governor. By law, the Governor is not required to make a decision within any period of time. That means you must wait for an answer. You cannot even re-petition the Governor if no decision has been made.

DENIAL: If the Governor denies your petition, you can re-petition one year after the denial. You are never completely barred from seeking a pardon. Keep asking until you are granted the pardon!

APPROVAL: If the Governor grants your pardon request, he will (in most cases) also request an order from the court that your record also must be expunged. A pardon alone, without the order to expunge, does not remove the record of conviction from public access. If you were asking for a commutation of sentence, you will be released from prison; however, a commutation does not mean your conviction will be removed.

WHAT ARE MY CHANCES OF RECEVING A GOVERNOR’S PARDON?

Your chances of a pardon are as good as the petition you submit: There is no guarantee that your pardon will be granted because the final decision is left up to one person: the Governor. If a pardon is your only option, then you should petition for one; otherwise, the felony conviction is on your record forever. Your chances are as good as your case. If you made one mistake many years ago and since then you haven’t been in trouble, you have gotten a job and have raised a family, then your chances are better than the person who has been arrested several times since the conviction, has no job experience and no education. The better you can present yourself and your case to the IL Prisoner Review Board and the Governor, the better your chance of receiving the pardon. You don't get unless you ask and you have nothing to lose for asking, so ask for that pardon! We suggest hiring an attorney who knows how to prepare a petition for clemency. Just like you would hire a divorce attorney to help you with your divorce, you should hire a pardon attorney to help you seek a pardon!


SUCCESSFUL COMPLETTION OF FELONY PROBATION – DO I NEED A PARDON?

Just because you did not go to prison, that does not mean you don’t have a conviction. In fact, to the contrary; felony probation is a conviction, just as much as going to prison. The judge could have sentenced you to prison but instead he gave you felony probation. Felony probation is not expungeable, and it is not sealable. (Exception: if you were given “1410 Probation” and that’s usually given to people convicted of Class 4 PCS or Class 4 Prostitution.) Unless you fall into this exception, your only option is to seek a Governor’s pardon.

WHAT ARE MY CHANCES OF RECEVING A GOVERNOR’S PARDON?

Your chances of a pardon are as good as the petition you submit: There is no guarantee that your pardon will be granted because the final decision is left up to one person: the Governor. If a pardon is your only option, then you should petition for one; otherwise, the felony conviction is on your record forever. Your chances are as good as your case. If you made one mistake many years ago and since then you haven’t been in trouble, you have gotten a job and have raised a family, then your chances are better than the person who has been arrested several times since the conviction, has no job experience and no education. The better you can present yourself and your case to the IL Prisoner Review Board and the Governor, the better your chance of receiving the pardon. You don't get unless you ask and you have nothing to lose for asking, so ask for that pardon!

HOW LONG DO I HAVE TO WAIT FOR THE GOVERNOR TO DECIDE?

No news is good news. If you haven't heard anything, that means your pardon is sitting on the Governor's desk, waiting for a decision to be made. Ex-Governor Blagojevich left approximately 2600+ on Governor Quinn’s desk. Many people are just like you: waiting for an answer. Until a decision has been made, you cannot even re-petition. The only thing you can do is continue to wait. The Governor has no statute of limitations on how long he can "sit" on the petitions before making a decision. Don't fret; you don't know how many of those petitions are really worthy of a pardon, how many were submitted individually or through an attorney and how many are prisoners asking to be released or people living in society with felony convictions.

www.xpunged.com and www.tamaraholder.com

Saturday
18Oct2008

FEDS IN CALI TO AID STATE IN PROSECUTING STREET GANG MEMBERS = THE UNSOLVED PROBLEM: INCARCERATION DOES NOT REDUCE CRIME & THERE MUST BE AN ALTERNATIVE TO AMERICA'S PUNITIVE NATURE!

As you probably know, the U.S. is the most incarcerating country in the WORLD!  1 in 100 people in America are in jail or prison.  On October 16, 2008, the Wall Street Journal published this article:   Federal Law Enforcement Helps To Tackle Expanding Gang Problem .  Basically, the Feds are now stepping in to charge alleged gang members with federal crimes; whereas, in the past, the state usually brings forth charges against gang members for crimes. 

 “The greater Los Angeles area is "the nation's capital when it comes to street gangs," said Thomas P. O'Brien, the U.S. attorney for the central district of California, an area with over 18 million people that includes Los Angeles and Santa Barbara.” 

"There really is no comparison to what the U.S. attorney's office is now doing down at the local level," said San Luis Obispo County Sheriff Patrick Hedges, whose department took part in a federal prosecution announced last month against 17 alleged gang members in Santa Maria, a city of 91,000 about 160 miles north of Los Angeles.

Essentially, the Feds are sending a message to the State of California that the state can’t “handle” the gang problem, so the Feds will do the work.  It’s my belief that the reason for this movement is to get gang members incarcerated for longer periods of time.  Federal term limits are usually longer and inmates usually have to serve their entire sentence; whereas, in state cases, many times an inmate only has to do 50-75% of the time. 

Last year Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California) allegedly sought and received approximately  $7.8 billion to build $53,000 prison cells in California. $7.8 billion!!!!!! Including this statement from her website : For the 2008 FY Budget: 

Mendota Prison - I am pleased that the President and the Justice Department have responded to my repeated reque sts for the federal government to finish construction of the 1,280 -bed federal prison in Mendota, California.  This partially-completed prison has been sitting half-finished for several years, but the President’s promise of $115 million in his budget should finally allow this facility to be completed and start receiving inmates by 2010 – bringing needed jobs to this area of California and adding needed medium-security bed space for male inmates sentenced for federal crimes.  That equates to approximately $90,000 of taxpayer money going to each bed for “medium” security inmates.  And keep in mind, money has already been put into this prison.  The state is seeking an ADDITIONAL $115 million.  

And even though I am a criminal defense attorney, I do not condone gang activity, nor do I believe we shouldn’t punish gang members.  I don’t like drugs on the streets, drive-by shootings and violence over street corners.  In fact, I visited the LA County jail last year.  I have never felt so afraid.  You could just feel the tension between the Hispanic and Black population.  This is coming from a woman who makes weekly visits the largest jail in the country: the Cook County Jail in Chicago.

Incarceration does NOT solve the problem of gangs, violence, drugs, crime.  We must find a way to reduce the punitive nature of this country and spend those billions into educating our youth and providing job security. 

The Feds stepping in to prosecute more people will not solve any goal to remove gangs from our streets.   

 www.xpunged.com and www.tamaraholder.com