Crime/Courts
Proposed Amendments to Iowa Court Rules. PDF Print E-mail
News Releases - Crime/Courts
Written by Iowa Judicial Branch   
Monday, 04 November 2013 09:11

Orders

This section of the site contains orders of statewide interest recently issued by the Iowa Supreme Court. Orders will be posted in this section for one year from the date they are first posted.

Links on this page go to files that may be unusable if you do not have the proper programs installed on your computer. Visit the Site Tools and Accessibility page for any plug-ins or programs your may need.


Request for public comment regarding proposed amendments to Iowa discovery rules and a proposed expedited civil action rule (November 1, 2013)

Order (1614 kb)


Proposed Discovery Amendments (410 kb)


Proposed Expedited Civil Action Rule (200 kb)



Request for comments regarding proposed amendments to the Rules for Expanded Media Coverage (October 28, 2013)

Chapter 25 of the Iowa Court Rules

Order (112 kb)


Chapter 25 (767 kb)


Final Report (130 kb)



In the Matter of the New Rule of Juvenile Procedure (October 16, 2013)

Juvenile Procedure 8.36

Order (705 kb)


Rule 8.36 (256 kb)


Standards of Practice (298 kb)



No. 11-0492 (August 28, 2013)

State of Iowa vs. Jason Jon Means

Order (63 kb)



Request for Public Comment Regarding Proposed Amendments to Division III of the Iowa Court Rules (August 5, 2013)

Order (72 kb)


Chapter 39 (130 kb)


Chapter 40 (22 kb)


Office of Professional Regulation memo (823 kb)



Video of Public Hearing (July 9, 2013)

A public hearing on the proposed new rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.36 was held July 9, 2013, with oral presentations from individuals expressing different viewpoints on the proposed rule.
Video, Part 1
Video, Part 2





Schedule for Public Hearing on Proposed New Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.36 (June 20, 2013)

Public hearing will begin at 9 a.m., Tuesday, July 9, 2013

Order (64 kb)



No. 11-0553 (June 7, 2013)

St. John's Full Gospel Baptist Church vs. Tax 207 and Polk County Treasurer

Order (34 kb)



In the Matter of the Appointment of an Independent Special Counsel (May 10, 2013)

Order (209 kb)



No. 11-2019 (May 10, 2013)

Residents of Elsie Mason Manor & Ligutti Tower, Katherine Daniel, et al., vs. First Baptist Housing Foundation and American Baptist Homes of the Midwest

Order (64 kb)



Request for Public Comment Regarding Proposed Amendments to the Rules Governing Court Interpreters (March 18, 2013)

Order (765 kb)


Chapter 47 (307 kb)


Chapter 48 (224 kb)



Setting Public Hearing and Reopening Comment Period on Proposed New Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.36 (March 18, 2013)

Order (724 kb)


Proposed New Rule 8.36 (95 kb)


Iowa Standards of Practice for Attorneys Representing Parents in Juvenile Court (195 kb)


Public Comments on Proposed New Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.36 (June 3, 2013) (477 kb)



In the Matter of Appointment of Judges to the Iowa Business Specialty Court Pilot Project (March 4, 2013)

Order (46 kb)



In the Matter of Court Forms for Adult and Minor Child Petitions for Change of Name (February 14, 2013)

Name change forms pdf

Supervisory order and name change forms (681 kb)



Request for Public Comment Regarding Recommendations of the Iowa Supreme Court 2012 Child Support Guidelines Review Committee (January 25, 2013

Order (89 kb)


Filed with the clerk of the Iowa Supreme Court office on January 25, 2013

Final Report of Review Committee (3592 kb)



In the Matter of Establishment of the Iowa Business Specialty Court Pilot Project (December 21, 2012)

Supervisory Order and Memorandum of Operation (345 kb)



In the Matter of Amendments to Iowa Court Rules Regulating the Practice of Law (December 10, 2012)

The Iowa Supreme Court Chief Justice has signed an order amending various rules of Division III (Professional Regulation) of the Iowa Court Rules. With two exceptions noted in the order, these amendments are effective immediately. Also accompanying the order is a summary of the amendments.

Order (27 kb)


Amendments to Iowa Court Rules Regulating the Practice of Law (254 kb)


Comments to Amendments to Iowa Court Rules Regulating the Practice of Law (177 kb)



In the Matter of Appointments to the Committee on Expanded Media Coverage (December 7, 2012)

Order (380 kb)



Corrected Expanded Media Coverage Committee Order

Nunc Pro Tunc (47 kb)



Request for Public Comment Regarding Proposed Emeritus Pro Bono Practice Rule (December 6, 2012).

Order (309 kb)



Request for Public Comment Regarding Proposed rules governing the filing of electronic documents in the Iowa Appellate Courts (December 6, 2012).

Order (546 kb)



Request for public comment regarding proposed collection activities (October 25, 2012)

Order (84 kb)


Proposed new Chapter 26 (288 kb)


Public Comments on Proposed Rules for Collection Activities of the Iowa Courts (2951 kb)


Committee Response to Public Comments (31 kb)



In the Matter of the Electronic Document Management System and Standard eForms of Pleadings for Small Claims Actions (October 25, 2012)

Supervisory Order (72 kb)


http://www.iowacourts.gov/eFiling/Overview/index.asp

Small Claims eForms (591 kb)



In the Matter of Appointments to the Advisory Committee Concerning Certain Civil Justice Reform Task Force Recommendations (October 10, 2012)

Order (78 kb)



Request for public comment regarding a proposed new rule of juvenile procedure 8.36 (August 30, 2012)

Order (140 kb)


New Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.36 (228 kb)


Iowa Standards of Practice for Attorneys Representing Parents in Juvenile Court (1818 kb)


Public Comments on Proposed New Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.36 (Oct. 31, 2012) (29813 kb)


Additional comment (November 1, 2012) (792 kb)



Request for public comment regarding amendments to Professional Regulation of the Iowa Court Rules (August 27, 2012)

Order (420 kb)


Proposed amendments to Professional Regulation (142 kb)



Request for public comment regarding amendments to Chapters 6 and 21 of the Iowa Court Rules (August 27, 2012)

Order (496 kb)


Proposed amendments to Chapters 6 and 21 (107 kb)



Request for Comments to Proposed New Rule of Civil Procedure 1.1702 (August 3, 2012)

Order (407 kb)


Proposed New Rule (88 kb)



In the Matter of Rules for Involuntary Commitments or Treatment of Persons with Substance-Related Disorders (July 5, 2012)

Supervisory Order and Chapter 13 (516 kb)



In the Matter of Mileage Reimbursement (June 29, 2012)

Supervisory Order (32 kb)



In the Matter of EDMS and Standard Forms of Pleadings for Small Claims (June 29, 2012)

Supervisory Order (991 kb)



In the Matter of Forms for Court Orders Issued in Small Claims Court (June 28, 2012)

Supervisory Order and Forms for Court Orders (3515 kb)



In the Matter of Appointments to the 2012 Iowa Child Support Guidelines Review Committee (June 11, 2012)

Nunc Pro Tunc (103 kb)



In the Matter of Appointments to the 2012 Iowa Child Support Guidelines Review Committee (June 11, 2012)

Order (533 kb)



In the Matter of the Notice on Court-Generated Documents in Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (May 1, 2012)

Supervisory Order (56 kb)



In the Matter of Revision of Interim Rules 16.306(5) and (6) Relating to Signatures in the Electronic Document Management System (April 24, 2012)

Supervisory Order (82 kb)


Revised 16.306(5) and (6) (36 kb)



Request for comments to proposed amendments to lawyer advertising rules (April 20, 2012)

Order (386 kb)


Proposed amendments (12844 kb)



Request for comments to proposed amendments to Rule 31.16 Registration of House Counsel (March 21, 2012)

Order (77 kb)


Proposed New Rule (304 kb)



In the Matter of Interim Rules to Govern the use of the Electronic Document Management System (March 1, 2012)

The Iowa Supreme Court amends the interim rules of Chapter 16 of the Iowa Court Rules governing EDMS

Order (77 kb)


Chapter 16 interim rules (349 kb)


Summary (43 kb)


General Commentary (114 kb)



Request for comments to proposed amendments to Rule of Appellate Procedure (February 10, 2012)

Order (244 kb)


Proposed New Rule (186 kb)



Request for comments to proposed amendments to Rules of Civil Procedure (December 2, 2011)

Order (575 kb)


Proposed New Rule (479 kb)



Request for comments to proposed amendments to Rules of Juvenile Procedures (November 23, 2011)

Order (103 kb)


Juvenile amendments (11 kb)



Request for comments to proposed amendments to rules regulating the practice of law (November 17, 2011)

Order (429 kb)


Summary (96 kb)


Proposed amendments (200 kb)



In the Matter of Request for Public Comment Regarding Proposed Small Claims Pleadings Forms (October 7, 2011)

Order (550 kb)


Small Claims Forms (944 kb)



In the Matter of Formation of the Small Claims Forms Advisory Committee (May 18, 2011)

Order (619 kb)



In the Matter of the Supreme Court Committee to Study Lawyer Advertising Rules (April 15, 2011)

Order (466 kb)



In the Matter of Rescission of Standard Forms of Pleadings for Small Claims Actions (April 6, 2011)

Supervisory Order (206 kb)



In the Matter of Temporary Rules Governing the Electronic Document Management System and Use of Standard Forms of Pleadings for Small Claims Actions (April 4, 2011)

Temporary rules governing EDMS to exempt electronic filers in Small Claims actions until further notice of this court

Supervisory Order (364 kb)



In the Matter of Standard Forms of Pleadings for Small Claims Actions (April 1, 2011)

The March 28, 2011, order contained typographical errors in the numbering sequence of the new and amended Small Claims forms compared to the prior forms being replaced. The forms themselves were correctly numbered.

Amended Order (427 kb)



In the Matter of Standard Forms of Pleadings for Small Claims Actions (March 28, 2011)

The Court rescinds Chapter 3 of the Iowa Court Rules, Standard Forms of Pleadings for Small Claims Actions, in its entirety. The court approves and adopts the revised Chapter 3 of the Iowa Court Rules attached to this Order.
Effective April 4, 2011


Order (6666 kb)


Standard Forms (pdf) (774 kb)



In the Matter of Changes to the Business Hours of the Jefferson and Louisa County Clerk of Court Offices (March 9, 2011)

Effective immediately

Nunc Pro Tunc (170 kb)



In the Matter of Changes to the Business Hours of the Jefferson and Louisa County Clerk of Court Offices (March 9, 2011)

Effective immediately.

Supervisory Order (181 kb)



In the Matter of Amendments to Iowa Court Rules Chapter 4; Form 4.11 (February 2, 2011)

Effective immediately.

Order and Form 4.11 (895 kb)



In the Matter of Amendments to Iowa Court Rules Chapter 4: Forms 4.1, 4.2, 4.11, and 4.15 (December 27, 2010)

Effective immediately

Supervisory Order (3402 kb)



In the Matter of the Appointment of the EMC Media Coordinator for Region 3

Effective December 17, 2010.

Order (192 kb)



Proposed Adoption of 2005 Model Standards of Conduct for Mediators (December 7, 2010)

Deadline for comments is March 7, 2011

Order (2271 kb)


Model Standards of Conduct for Mediators (166 kb)


Chapter 11 Study Group (2195 kb)



In the Matter of the Retention of a Private Court Reporter in a Civil Case: Amendment to January 6, 2010 Order (November 24, 2010)

Effective immediately

Supervisory Order (835 kb)



In the Matter of Temporary Rules to Govern the Use of the Electronic Document Management System Plymouth County and Story County (November 4, 2010)

Supervisory Order (538 kb)


Chapter 16 - Rules Pertaining to the Use of the Electronic Document Management System (12070 kb)


Protected Information Disclosure (424 kb)


Small Claims Original Notice and Petition (3124 kb)


Notice of Transcript Redaction (445 kb)


General Commentary on Electronic Filing Rules (118 kb)



In the Matter of Changes to the Business Hours of the Chickasaw and Howard County Clerk of Court Offices (October 19, 2010)

Effective October 25, 2010

Supervisory Order (207 kb)



In the Matter of Changes to the Business Hours of the Greene County Clerk of Court Office (September 29, 2010)

Effective October 12, 2010

Supervisory Order (185 kb)



In the Matter of Changes to the Business Hours of the Boone County Clerk of Court Office (September 29, 2010)

Effective October 5, 2010

Supervisory Order (177 kb)



In the Matter of Changes to the Business Hours of the Adams, Ringgold and Taylor County Clerk of Court offices (September 29, 2010)

Effective October 4, 2010

Supervisory Order (189 kb)



In the Matter of the Judicial Council Advisory Committee on Fine Collection Procedures, Practices and Rules (September 24, 2010)

Effective immediately

Order (928 kb)



In the Matter of the Public Hours of the Office of the Clerk of the Appellate Courts (September 15, 2010)

Effective September 20, 2010

Supervisory Order (465 kb)



In the Matter of Changes to the Business Hours of the Jones County Clerk of Court Office (August 18, 2010)

Effective August 30, 2010

Supervisory Order (167 kb)



In the Matter of the Appointment of Members to Serve on the Civil Justice Reform Task Force (August 6, 2010)

Supervisory Order (106 kb)



In the Matter of Changes to the Business Hours of the Worth County Clerk of Court Office (August 4, 2010)

Effective September 10, 2010

Supervisory Order (181 kb)



In the Matter of Expanded Media Coverage of the Courts (July 21, 2010)

The supreme court has reorganized the jurisdiction of media coordinators for Jackson County.
Effective August 1, 2010

Order (171 kb)



In the Matter of Interim Procedures Governing the Collection of Court Fines and Fees (July 2, 2010)

Upon recommendation of the Judicial Council, the supreme court adopts interim provisions that will govern installment payment plans and other fine collection activities of the judicial branch until the adoption of permanent rules.
Effective July 12, 2010

Supervisory Order (1250 kb)



In the Matter of Changes to the Business Hours of the Floyd County Clerk of Court Office (May 13, 2010)

Effective May 20, 2010

Supervisory Order (174 kb)



In the Matter of Changes to the Business Hours of the Davis County Clerk of Court Office (May 4, 2010)

Effective May 10, 2010

Supervisory Order (176 kb)



In the Matter of Adoption of EDMS Rules for Pilot Project in Plymouth County (April 21, 2010)

Effective immediately

Supervisory Order (581 kb)


Chapter 16 - Rules Pertaining to the Use of the Electronic Document Management System (12017 kb)


Protected Information Disclosure (520 kb)


Small Claims Original Notice and Petition (2292 kb)


General Commentary on Electronic Filing Rules (2274 kb)



In the Matter of Changes to the Business Hours of the Guthrie County Clerk of Court Office (April 13, 2010)

Effective immediately

Supervisory Order (173 kb)



In the Matter of the Business Hours of the Fremont County Clerk of Court Office (April 6, 2010)

Effective April 5, 2010

Supervisory Order (167 kb)



In the Matter of Appointment to the Task Force for Civil Justice Reform (March 23, 2010)

Effective immediately

Order (123 kb)



In the Matter of Changes to the Business Hours of Clerk of Court Offices (March 19, 2010)

Fremont county
Effective April 5, 2010

Supervisory Order (186 kb)



In the Matter of Changes to the Business Hours of Clerk of Court Offices (February 11, 2010)

Jefferson county
effective February 12, 2010

Supervisory Order (180 kb)



In the Matter of Prioritization of Cases and Duties (February 4, 2010)

Amendment to Order of December 1, 2009
Effective immediately

Supervisory Order (323 kb)



In the Matter of Changes to the Business Hours of Clerk of Court Offices (January 28, 2010)

Fifth District
effective February 1, 2010

Supervisory Order (252 kb)



In the Matter of Changes to the Business Hours of Clerk of Court Offices (January 26, 2010)

First, Second and Sixth districts
effective February 1, 2010

Supervisory Order (286 kb)



Proposed Revised Iowa Code of Judicial Conduct (January 19, 2010)

Chapter 51
Deadline for comments is March 19, 2010.

Order and Proposed Code (581 kb)



In the Matter of Private Retention of Court Reporters in Civil Cases (January 6, 2010)

Supervisory order (500 kb)



In the Matter of Appointments to the Task Force for Civil Justice Reform (December 18, 2009)

Order (655 kb)



In the Matter of Court Closure Days and Public Hours of Clerk of Court Offices (December 2, 2009)

Supervisory Order (63 kb)



In the Matter of Prioritization of Cases and Duties (December 1, 2009)

Supervisory Order (1318 kb)



In the Matter of the Public Hours of Clerk of Court Offices (November 17, 2009)

Supervisory Order (2646 kb)



In the Matter of Actions Taken to Reduce Judicial Branch Operating Expenses (November 12, 2009)

Supervisory Order (1443 kb)



In The Matter of Court Closure and Unpaid Leave Days (November 10, 2009)

Supervisory Order (497 kb)



In the Matter of Actions Taken to Reduce Judicial Branch Operating Expenses for Fiscal Year 2010 (June 25, 2009)

Supervisory Order (162 kb)



In the Matter of Court Closure Days and Reduced Public Hours (May 29, 2009)

Supervisory Order (288 kb)



In the Matter of Appointments to the Digital Audio Recording Technology Committee of the Judicial Council (May 7, 2009)

Order (380 kb)



In the Matter of Court Closure and Unpaid Leave Days: May 8 (May 5, 2009)

Supervisory Order (452 kb)



In the Matter of Mileage Reimbursement (March 31, 2009)

Supervisory Order (315 kb)



Actions Concerning Judicial Operations (March 13, 2009)

Supervisory Order (228 kb)



Action Taken to Reduce Operating Expenses (February 27, 2009)

Supervisory Order (186 kb)



Hearing on Proposed Rules (February 24, 2009)

A hearing is scheduled on Thursday, March 5, 2009, regarding minutes of evidence.

Order Setting Hearing Schedule (Feb. 24, 2009) (480 kb)


Order Setting Amended Hearing Schedule (March 2, 2009) (477 kb)


Order (Feb. 13, 2009) (749 kb)



Actions Taken to Reduce Judicial Branch Operating Expenses (February 2, 2009)

Supervisory Order (783 kb)



Proposed Amendments to the Rules of Criminal Procedure (December 2, 2008)

Information about witnesses
Deadline for comments is January 2, 2009

Chapter 2, Rule 2.4 and 2.5 (589 kb)



Proposed Amendments to Iowa Court Rules (November 12, 2008)

Licensing and Practice of Foreign Legal Consultants
Deadline for comments is December 12, 2008

Chapter 31, Rule 31.14 and 31.18 (5008 kb)



In the Matter of Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.422 (September 23, 2008)

Supervisory Order (150 kb)



Proposed Amendments to the Rules of Criminal Procedure (June 23, 2008)

Information about witnesses
Deadline for comments is July 23, 2008

Chapter 2, Rule 2.4 and 2.5 (96 kb)


Order (355 kb)



Final Report of the Child Support Guidelines Review Committee

Final Report of the Child Support Guidelines Review Committee (378 kb)


Proposed Amendments to Chapter 9 (348 kb)


Rule 9.27, Forms 1 and 2 (418 kb)



Revisions to Electronic Document Management System Proposed Rules (June 10, 2008)

Public Notice (47 kb)


General commentary (71 kb)


Chapter 16--Pertaining to the use of EDMS (258 kb)



Proposed Amendments to Rules of Appellate Procedure and Rules of Civil Procedure Concerning Certiorari (June 6, 2008)

Deadline for comments is August 6, 2008

Order (81 kb)


Proposed Amendments to Rules of Appellate Procedure (851 kb)


Summary of Key Changes (238 kb)


Proposed Amendments to Rules of Civil Procedure (113 kb)



Appointments to the Supreme Court Limited Jurisdiction Task Force (January 14, 2008)

Appointment Order (205 kb)


Resolution in Support of the Pew Commission (September 10, 2007) (86 kb)



Filing by facsimile transmission (August 6, 2007)

Order granting filing by facsimile transmission of certain documents in chapters 125 and 229 commitment proceedings
Effective immediately

Order (66 kb)



Uniform Bond Schedule (August 2, 2007)

Order amending uniform bond schedule

Order and bond schedule (97 kb)



Instructions to Compensation Commissioners from the Chief Justice (January 12, 2007)

Instructions (208 kb)

 
DC Circuit Caseload Doesn't Justify Additional Judges PDF Print E-mail
News Releases - Crime/Courts
Written by Grassley Press   
Friday, 01 November 2013 14:22

Prepared Floor Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa

Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee

On the Motion to invoke Cloture on the nomination of

Patricia Ann Millett, to be United States Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit

Thursday, October 31, 2013

 

Mr. President,

 

I rise in opposition to any motion to invoke cloture on nominees for the D.C. Circuit.  I am somewhat disappointed that the Senate Majority wants to turn to a controversial nomination next rather than continue on the path of cooperative confirmations or to more important Senate business.  It seems to me that scheduling such a controversial vote, in the closing weeks of this session of Congress, is designed to simply heat up the partisanship of judicial nominations.

 

My opposition is based on a number of factors:

 

First, an objective review of the court’s workload makes clear that the workload simply doesn’t justify adding additional judges to this court, particularly when additional judgeships cost approximately $1 million, per year, per judge.

 

Second, given that the caseload doesn’t justify additional judges, you have to ask why the President would push so hard to fill these seats.  It appears clear the President wishes to add additional judges to this court in order to change judicial outcomes.

 

Third, the court is currently comprised of four active judges appointed by Republican Presidents and four active judges appointed by Democrat Presidents.  There is no reason to upset the current make-up of the court, particularly when the reason for doing so appears to be ideologically driven.

 

Let me start by providing my colleagues with a little bit of history regarding this particular seat.

 

It may come as a surprise to some, but this seat has been vacant for over eight years.  It became vacant in September 2005 when John Roberts was elevated to Chief Justice of the United States.

 

In June of 2006, President Bush nominated an eminently qualified individual for this seat, Peter Keisler.  Mr. Keisler was widely lauded as a consensus, bipartisan nominee.  His distinguished record of public service included service as Acting Attorney General.  Despite his broad bipartisan support and qualifications, Mr. Keisler waited 918 days for a committee vote that never came.

 

When he was nominated, Democrats objected to even holding a hearing for the nominee, based on concerns about the workload of the D.C. Circuit.

 

During Mr. Keisler’s hearing, one of my Democrat colleagues summarized the threshold concerns.  He said:

 

“Here are the questions that just loom out there: 1) Why are we proceeding so fast here?  2) Is there a genuine need to fill this seat?  3) Has the workload of the D.C. Circuit not gone down?  4) Should taxpayers be burdened with the cost of filling that seat?  5) Does it not make sense, given the passion with which arguments were made only a few years ago, to examine these issues before we proceed?”

 

I have not heard these same concerns expressed by my friends on the other side with respect to the current batch of nominations to this court.  But that does not mean that these issues have gone away.

 

Statistics from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts show that caseloads on the D.C. Circuit have decreased markedly over the last several years.  This decrease is evident in both the total number of appeals filed and the total number of appeals pending.

 

I’ve indicated on a number of occasions that I believe these seats are not even needed.   While I’ve gone over the statistics on a number of previous occasions, I want to remind my colleagues and others regarding the facts of the workload of the D.C. Circuit.

 

First I’d like to remind my colleagues that in 2006, Democrats argued that the D.C. Circuit caseload was too light to justify confirming any additional judges to the bench.  Since that time, the caseload has continued to decrease.

 

In terms of raw numbers, the D.C. Circuit has the lowest number of total appeals filed annually among all the circuit courts of appeals.  In 2005, that number was 1,379.  Last year, it was 1,193, a decrease of 13.5 percent.

 

There are a lot of different ways to look at these numbers, but perhaps the best numbers to examine are those that measure the workload per active judge.

 

The caseload has decreased so much since 2005, that even with two fewer active judges, the filing levels per active judge are practically the same.

 

In 2005, with 10 active judges, the court had 138 appeals filed per active judge.  Today, with only 8 active judges, it has 149.  This makes the D.C. Circuit caseload levels the lowest in the nation and less than half the national average.

 

It has been suggested that there are other circuits, namely the 8th and the 10th, that have lighter caseloads than the D.C. Circuit.  This is simply not accurate.

 

The D.C. Circuit has fewer cases filed and fewer cases terminated than either the 8th or the 10th Circuits.  Cases filed and cases terminated measure the amount of appeals coming into the court and being resolved by the court, respectively.

 

Now, some of my colleagues have been arguing that the 8th and 10th Circuits are similar to the D.C. Circuit, based on a comparison of “pending cases.”  But “cases pending” does NOT measure how many cases are being added and removed from the docket.

 

When looking at how many cases are added, or filed, per active judge, the D.C. Circuit is lowest with 149.  It’s nowhere near the 8th Circuit’s 280 or the 10th Circuit’s 217.

 

When looking at the number of cases being terminated by each court, the D.C. Circuit is once again the lowest at 149.  Again, the 8th Circuit and 10th Circuit courts are much higher at 269 and 218, respectively.

 

Now, let me mention one other important point about “pending appeals” and the statistics that my colleagues have been citing.

 

Several of my colleagues said on the floor yesterday that in 2005 there were only 121 pending appeals per active judge.

 

Now, that number seemed a little odd to me, so we looked into it a bit further.  In order to arrive at that number, my colleagues appear to be taking the total appeals for the 12 month period ending on June 30, 2005, and dividing by 11.

 

But as it turns out, there were nine active judges for almost that entire 12 month period.

 

Janice Rogers Brown was sworn in on June 10, 2005, and Judge Griffith was sworn in on June 29, 2005.

 

As a result, during that 12 month period, there were 10 active judges for a total of 19 days. There were 11 active judges on the D.C. Circuit for a grand total of 1 day.

 

And just a few months later in 2005, the court was back down to nine active judges after Judge Roberts was elevated to the Supreme Court, and Judge Edwards took senior status.

 

This is how hard-pressed the other side is to refute what everyone knows to be true – the caseload for the D.C. Circuit is lower now than it was back in 2005.

 

In order to have a statistic that supports their argument, the other side is claiming there were 11 active judges for that 12 month period, when that claim was true for a total of 1 day.

 

The bottom line is this:  The objective data clearly indicate the D.C. Circuit caseload is very low and that the court does not need any additional active judges.  And that is especially true if you use the standard Senate Democrats established when they blocked Mr. Keisler.

 

In addition to the raw numbers, in order to get a firsthand account, several months ago I invited the current judges on the court to provide a candid assessment of the caseload.

 

What they said shouldn’t surprise anyone who has looked at this issue closely.  The judges themselves confirmed that the workload on the D.C. Circuit is exceptionally low, stating, “the Court does not need additional judges.”  And, “If any more judges were added now, there wouldn’t be enough work to go around.”

 

Those are powerful statements from the judges themselves.

 

Given these concerns, it is difficult to see why we would be moving forward with additional nominations to this court, especially in a time when we are operating under budget and fiscal constraints.

 

Unfortunately, the justification for moving forward with additional D.C. Circuit nominees appears to be a desire and intent to stack the court in order to determine the outcome of cases this court hears.

 

It is clear that the President wants to fill this court with ideological allies for the purpose of reversing certain policy outcomes.

 

This is not just my view, but has been overtly stated as an objective of this administration.

 

Earlier this year, a Washington Post Article observed, “Giving liberals a greater say on the D.C. Circuit is important for Obama as he looks for ways to circumvent the Republican-led House and a polarized Senate on a number of policy fronts through executive order and other administrative procedures.”

 

Even a member of the Democrat leadership admitted on the Senate floor that the reason they needed to fill these seats was because, as he saw it, the D.C. Circuit was “wreaking havoc with the country.”

 

This is perplexing, given the current make-up of the court.  Currently, there are four Republican-appointed judges and, with the most recent confirmation, there are now four Democrat-appointed judges.  But now, apparently, some on the other side want to make sure they get favorable outcomes from this Court.

 

So I have concerns regarding filling seats on this court, which clearly has a very low caseload.  And I have greater concerns about this President’s agenda to stack the court and upset the current make-up, simply in order to obtain favorable judicial outcomes.

 

Given the overwhelming lack of a need to fill these seats based on the caseload, and especially considering the cost to taxpayers of over $1 million per judge, per year, I cannot support this nomination and I urge my colleagues to reject it as well.

 

-30-

 
Weakening of marijuana prosecutions from Obama Administration PDF Print E-mail
News Releases - Crime/Courts
Written by Grassley Press   
Friday, 30 August 2013 13:47

Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and co-chairman of the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control, today made the following comment on what Reuters described as the Obama Administration’s “giving U.S. states wide leeway to experiment with pot legalization.”

“Time and again we have seen the Obama Administration decline to enforce laws that it finds inconvenient, or that it simply doesn’t like.  Today’s announcement is the latest example.  The Administration is now effectively instructing law enforcement not to prioritize the prosecution of the large-scale distribution and sale of marijuana in certain states.  This sends the wrong message to both law enforcement and violators of federal law.  Apprehending and prosecuting illegal drug traffickers should always be a priority for the Department of Justice.”

 
Human Trafficking: Not Just a Man’s Profit PDF Print E-mail
News Releases - Crime/Courts
Written by Ginny Grimsley   
Wednesday, 21 August 2013 14:29
With $32 Billion for Grabs Annually, More Women are
Profiting from the Subjugation of Children & Other Women

As terrible as human trafficking is for each subjugated person throughout the world, Sharon Buchbinder says women and children are especially vulnerable.

“Forced labor, organ harvesting and the soul-destroying, commercial sex industry often feature men as vicitms; however, it is the commercial sex industry that accounts for approximately 75 to 80 percent of human trafficking, which predominately targets women and girls,” says Buchbinder, an award-winning, multi-published novelist who recently published “Obsession,” (www.sharonbuchbinder.com), which deals with international kidnapping.

“There are more than 27 million slaves worldwide, according to the United Nations, generating an estimated $32 billion in profits, most of which are earned on the backs of young women, yet more and more case findings are uncovering women as ringleaders and operators of trafficking syndicates,” she says.

Buchbinder reviews some recent cases:

• A Saudi Arabian princess charged in Los Angeles: Meshael Alayban faces one felony count of human trafficking after being accused of holding a domestic servant against her will at her condominium in Irvine, Calif. Alayban is one of the wives of Saudi Prince Abdulrahman bin Nasser bin Abdulaziz al Saud. A female servant, originally from Kenya, escaped and flagged down a bus, after which she told her story to local police. The woman says she was promised weekends off and a good wage but was forced to work 16-hour days, seven days a week and was paid only $220 a month. Alayban faces a maximum sentence of 12 years if convicted. She is being held in the Orange County jail in lieu of $5 million bail.

• United Nations study shows females traffic more sex workers than men in developing countries: Using data from 155 countries, the UN’s first international report attempting to calculate the scope, nature and patterns of human trafficking found a disproportionately high number of female perpetrators selling other women into slavery. The report uncovered an alarming trend: women who were once victims of the sex trade often develop into ringleaders of the illegal, underground sex industry. Researchers cite money, poverty and a skewed psychological perspective for possible reasons for this phenomenon.

• Woman recently sentenced to more than seven years in a federal prison for trafficking a 16-year-old in three different states: Jessica Loren Posey was sentenced earlier this year to serve time for transporting a juvenile girl to Tennessee, Kentucky and Ohio for the purpose of prostitution. According to a U.S. attorney, Posey met the girl at a party and coerced her to engage in sex for money. Posey, 25, marketed the girl using uploaded pictures on various pornographic websites, and she arranged meetings at hotel rooms, driving the girl there.

“In America, we often think of slavery as a problem of the past; in reality, however, there are more human slaves in the world today than ever before in history, with roughly 27 million people are held as slaves worldwide,” Buchbinder says. “Unfortunately, this is likely to be a persistent problem – a human trafficker can potentially earn 20 times the amount paid for a girl, which can be worth a quarter million dollars. Unlike drugs and guns, girls can be used over and over again.”

About Sharon Buchbinder

Sharon Buchbinder is an award-winning author published in contemporary, erotic, paranormal and romantic-suspense genres. After working in health care delivery for years, Buchbinder became an executive, a health care researcher and an academic in higher education. Despite enjoying the good life with a good career, her supportive husband and an amazing son, the itch to write kept beckoning her. She credits much of her success to the kindness of family, friends, critique partners, Romance Writers of America and Maryland Romance Writers.

 
Iowa Supreme Court to Hold Public Hearing in Des Moines PDF Print E-mail
News Releases - Crime/Courts
Written by Iowa Judical Branch   
Friday, 05 July 2013 11:44

Des Moines, (July 1, 2013) —The Iowa Supreme Court will hold a public hearing Tuesday, July 9, 2013, on the fourth floor of the Judicial Branch Building, 1111 East Court Avenue, Des Moines, beginning at 9:00 a.m.

The supreme court will hear public input on the proposed new rule of juvenile procedure 8.36, which would establish standards for practice, a minimum experience requirement, and a separate continuing legal education requirement for attorneys representing parents in juvenile court.

The morning schedule consists of oral presentations from individuals expressing different viewpoints on the proposed rule. These include:

Sam Langholz, State Public Defender

Bethany J. Currie, Attorney, Peglow, O'Hare & See, PLC

Brent Pattison, Middleton Center for Children's Rights

Former Judge John G. Mullen

Marti Nerentstone, Attorney, Marti Nerenstone Law Office

Judge Susan Christensen and Judge Connie Cohen

Judge Karen Kaufman Salic

After the oral presentations and a lunch break, the public hearing will move to the historic Supreme Court Courtroom (Room 103) of the State Capitol at 1:30 p.m. for a roundtable discussion with the presenters and the court.

Copies of the proposed rule, accompanying practice standards, and public comments can be found at www.iowacourts.gov/Supreme_Court/Orders/. Copies are also available at the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court. Additional resource information related to the proposed rule is available at http://www.iowacourts.gov/Administration/Childrens_Justice/Childrens_Justice/Task_Forces_on_Attorney_Standards/

# # #

 
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>

Page 3 of 34