14 May 2012

Grassley, GOP Judiciary Members Question Handling of Known Hezbollah Figure who was in U.S. Custody

By Grassley Press

WASHINGTON - After learning that an Iraqi court would release Ali Musa Daqduq, a known Hezbollah figure and orchestrator of a plot that led to the deaths of five American soldiers, all Republican members of the Judiciary Committee asked Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta for information about the Obama administration's plans for dealing with the terrorist.

 

The members wrote, "Now an Iraqi court has cleared Daqduq of any criminal charges under Iraqi law and, as we and many other observers had feared, may be set free without being held to account for his crimes against the United States and its soldiers."

 

Daqduq was captured on the battlefield in Iraq and was in U.S. custody until December 2011 when the Obama administration turned him over to Iraqi authorities.  Before handing the terrorist over to Iraq, a number of senators sent several letters to the administration urging them to try Daqduq before a military tribunal, instead of releasing him to Iraq, because of concerns that the Iraqi government would free the terrorist and he would be able to rejoin the battlefield and innocent people could be killed.  Those letters can be found here.

 

Following the turnover of Daqduq to Iraqi custody, the administration charged Daqduq with war crimes, but knowledge of those charges were only made public when the New York Times obtained a copy of the document.  It appears the administration made the charges only after the handover when Daqduq wouldn't be accessible to the U.S. government.

 

Here's a copy of the letter to Holder and Panetta.  A signed copy of the letter can be found here.

 

May 10, 2012

 

Via Electronic Transmission

The Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr.                            The Honorable Leon Panetta

Attorney General                        Secretary of Defense

U.S. Department of Justice                        Department of Defense

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.                           Pentagon

Washington, D.C. 20530                          Washington, D.C. 20301

 

Dear Attorney General Holder and Secretary Panetta:

 

According to a report in the New York Times on May 7, 2012, an Iraqi court has ordered the release of Ali Musa Daqduq.  Daqduq is a senior Hezbollah field commander who allegedly orchestrated a kidnapping that resulted in the deaths of five U. S. soldiers in Karbala, Iraq in 2007.  He also has close ties with Iran's Qods Force, including training its fighters in the use of improvised explosive devices (IED) and other insurgent tactics employed against U.S. troops.  Daqduq had been in U.S. military custody until the United States turned him over to Iraqi authorities upon exiting Iraq in December 2011.

 

According to another report in the New York Times earlier this year, Daqduq has been charged with war crimes, including murder, terrorism, and espionage, before a U.S. military commission.  However, those charges were not made public until the New York Times obtained a copy of the charging document.   In fact, it appears that the Administration knew it was going to pursue charges against Daqduq, waited until he was released to Iraq, and then filed the charges, but failed to keep Congress apprised of its plans.

 

We have expressed a keen interest in Daqduq and in the Administration's plans for him.  In May 2011, Attorney General Holder appeared before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary (Committee) and was specifically asked about prosecution plans for Daqduq.  We followed up with a letter to Attorney General Holder on May 16, 2011, again expressing concerns about, and interest in, how the Administration was going to prosecute Daqduq.  On July 29, 2011, another letter was sent to Secretary Panetta, seeking information about issues relating to Daqduq held by the Department of Defense.  Finally, on August 8, 2011, the Department of Justice responded through a letter from Ronald Weich that indicated the "ultimate disposition of this matter is under consideration by an interagency process that includes . . . the Department of Justice."

 

Subsequently, Administration officials briefed Congress about Daqduq's imminent release into Iraqi custody.  Yet, they never mentioned that the Administration was considering charges, which were filed approximately two weeks later.  Eight pages of charges, surely involving classified materials or evidence, would require more than two weeks to review, organize, and approve.  This appears to indicate that either the Administration was purposefully withholding information from Congress or it had not done the due diligence required to file charges in a serious case against a dangerous terrorist.  Furthermore, in the future, when the Administration claims that it is aggressively pursuing Daqduq, it will sound disingenuous since we know that he was only charged after he was released to another country.  If the Administration was serious in pursuing Daqduq, officials had many years when they could have brought charges against him, yet the Administration waited until he was not available to prosecute.

 

Now an Iraqi court has cleared Daqduq of any criminal charges under Iraqi law and, as we and many other observers had feared, may be set free without being held to account for his crimes against the United States and its soldiers.  As it appears Daqduq is on the verge of escaping justice, we again ask for information about the Administration's plans for dealing with this situation.

 

Accordingly, provide the following information:

 

·         A copy of the military commission charging document filed against Daqduq;

·         A list of who was involved in this decision and who was the final decision-maker;

·         An explanation of when, if at all, the families of his U.S. victims were consulted about his prosecution;

·         An explanation of whether Daqduq has been notified of the U.S. charges against him;

·         A description of which components in the Administration have been, currently are, or expect to be involved in the Daqduq matter;

·         A description of efforts to have Daqduq transferred into U.S. custody after he was charged, including whether any formal extradition request was made to the Iraqi government;

·         A description of any conditions (such as transfer to a civilian court) required by the Iraqi government for extraditing Daqduq and the U.S. response to those conditions;

·         An explanation of where Daqduq is expected to be held, if he were transferred into U.S. custody;

·         A description of charges against Daqduq from any other country of which the Administration is aware;

·         A description of whether and how the Administration assisted in Daqduq's prosecution by the Iraqi government;

·         An explanation of why briefers from the Administration failed to indicate that criminal charges were prepared but not presented to a military commission prior to turning Daqduq over to the Iraqi government.

·         An assessment of why the Iraqi prosecution of Daqduq failed, including any problems with the Iraqi court's willingness or capability to consider valid evidence provided by the United States, such as forensic evidence and statements made while in U.S. custody;

·         A description of options the Administration is considering for next steps in the handling of Daqduq's case; and,

·         A description of Administration discussions with the Iraqi government about next steps in the handling of Daqduq's case.

 

Given the serious consequences that could result from Daqduq's release from Iraqi custody and the important issues raised regarding future decisions to turn over detainees to foreign governments, we appreciate your response no later than May 25, 2012.

 

Sincerely,

09 May 2012

New Forms Help Iowans Who Represent Themselves in Small Claims Court

By Steve Davis

Des Moines, May 7, 2012–Iowans who choose to represent themselves in small claims court will find it easier to do so with the help of new, easy-to-use forms. The Iowa Supreme Court approved a large number of new forms to help Iowans navigate the ins and outs of a small claims court case, from beginning to end. The court also updated some existing forms by making them easier to understand and use.

 

"More and more people are going to court without the assistance of lawyers. Representing yourself is never an easy thing to do. However, the new forms should help," said Iowa Court of Appeals Judge David Danilson, who is co-chair of the committee that designed the forms. "These forms are all a person needs to complete a routine small claims case without the aid of a lawyer."

 

The small claim process is a low-cost, simple process for resolving civil disputes without going through extensive court proceedings. In a small claims case, a person can file a suit for nearly any civil claim against another party, such as for breach of contract, damages suffered in an accident, and landlord tenant disputes, so long as the claim is for $5000 or less. Small claims cases are tried before a judge, not a jury, and without strict regard to the technicalities of rules of procedure. More information about small claim procedures is available on the Iowa Judicial Branch website at: http://www.iowacourts.gov/Representing_Yourself/Civil_Law/Small_Claims/.

 

The new and updated forms may be used starting today. Lawyers and litigants currently using the old forms may continue to do so through June 30. Beginning July 1, 2012, the new forms must be used exclusively in all small claims cases. The forms are available on the Iowa Judicial Branch website at: http://www.iowacourts.gov/Court_Rules_and_Forms/Recent_Amendments__New_Rules/ .

 

# # #

09 May 2012

A Dose of Reality on Judicial Nominations

By Grassley Press

Prepared Floor Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley

Ranking Member, Senate Committee on the Judiciary

On the Nominations of

Jacqueline Nguyen, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit;

Kristine Gerhard Baker, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas;

John Z. Lee, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois

Monday, May 7, 2012

 

Mr. President,

 

Today, the Senate is expected to confirm three additional judicial nominees.  With the confirmation of Judge Nguyen to the 9th Circuit, Ms. Baker to the Eastern District of Arkansas, and Mr. Lee to the Northern District of Illinois, we will have confirmed 83 judicial nominees during this Congress.

 

It is somewhat ironic that today, according to press accounts, the White House is holding  a forum and strategy session with administration officials  and 150 supporters from across the country concerned about the judicial vacancy rate.

 

I wonder if at this strategy session, the White House took a look in the mirror, when addressing the vacancy rate.  Only the President can make nominations to the Senate.  While we have a responsibility to advise and consent, Senators cannot nominate individuals to fill vacancies.  I would note the President has failed to do this in 47 of the 76 remaining vacancies, including 21 of 35 seats designated as judicial emergencies.  That is more than 60 percent of current vacancies with no nominee.

 

The White House and the Democrats in the Senate are fond of their claim that "millions of Americans" are living in districts with vacancies.  Of course, what the other side fails to tell you is that 88 million Americans live in judicial districts where vacancies exist because the President has failed to nominate judges.  Most of those seats have been vacant for more than a year.  Once again, if the White House is serious about judicial vacancies, it holds the key to nominations for those vacancies.  It has failed in too many instances, to use that key.

 

Furthermore, according to the press accounts, in its invitation, the White House accused Republicans of subjecting consensus nominees to "unprecedented delays and filibusters."  This is a statement without factual basis and ignores the record of judicial confirmations.

 

I would note that after today's confirmations, there are 12 nominees on the executive calendar that might fall into the category of "consensus nominees."  Seven nominees on the calendar had significant opposition in committee, and clearly are not consensus nominees.  The substantial majority of those 12 nominees were reported out of committee fewer than 10 legislative days ago.  Not only is there no filibuster against any of the consensus nominees, but I am not sure how there can be any accusation of delay.

 

Let me remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle of the obstructionism, delay and filibusters, which they perfected.  The history of President Bush's nominees to the Ninth Circuit provides some examples.

 

President Bush nominated nine individuals to the Ninth Circuit.  Three of those nominations were filibustered.  Two of those filibusters were successful.  The nominations of Carolyn Kuhl and William Gerry Myers languished for years before being returned to the President.  A fourth nominee, Randy Smith waited over 14 months before finally being confirmed after his nomination was blocked and returned to the President.  After being renominated, he was finally confirmed by a unanimous vote.

 

President Obama, on the other hand, has nominated six individuals to the Ninth Circuit. Only one of those nominees was subject to a cloture vote.  After that vote failed, the nominee withdrew.  Today, we confirm the third nomination by President Obama to the Ninth Circuit.   Those three confirmations took an average of about 8 months from the date of nomination.  For all of President Obama's Circuit nominees, the average time from nomination to confirmation is about 242 days.  For President Bush's Circuit nominees, the average wait for confirmation was 350 days.  One might ask why President Bush was treated differently than this President.

 

Another example of past Democratic obstruction and delay is in Arkansas.  Today, we confirm President Obama's nominee to the Eastern District of Arkansas within about six months of her nomination.  I would note that President Bush's nominee, J. Leon Holmes, sat on the executive calendar for more than 14 months awaiting confirmation.  From nomination, his confirmation took over 17 months.  Again, why was President Bush's nominee treated worse than this President's nominee?

 

I can only conclude that the White House has selective memory, or a different definition, when it accuses Republicans of unprecedented delay and obstruction.  I am disappointed that the President continues to blame Republicans for vacancies which have no nominee and chooses to follow a political strategy of blaming, rather than working with the Senate to nominate consensus nominees.

 

I will put the remainder of my statement in the record which discusses the qualifications of today's nominees.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Jacqueline Nguyen, presently serving as a United States District Judge, is nominated to be United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit.  Judge Nguyen received her A.B. from Occidental College in 1987 and her J.D. from the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law in 1991. She began her legal career as an associate in the Litigation Department at the Los Angeles law firm of Musick, Peeler & Garrett where she handled litigation matters involving commercial disputes, intellectual property, and construction defects.  From 1995 until 2002, Judge Nguyen was an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Central District of California.  There, she handled the investigation and prosecution of human trafficking, immigration fraud, mail and tax fraud, and money laundering cases.  In 2000, Judge Nguyen became Deputy Chief of the General Crimes Section.  In that position, she handled the training and supervision of all new Assistant U.S. Attorneys and various types of criminal cases involving violent crimes, drug trafficking, firearms violations, and fraud.

 

In 2002, Governor Gray Davis appointed Judge Nguyen to the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles.  In 2009, she was nominated by President Obama to be United States District Judge for the Central District of California.  The Senate approved her nomination on December 1, 2009 by a vote of 97 -0.  In her capacity as a judge, she has presided over thousands of cases.

 

The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated her as Qualified for this position.

 

Kristine Gerhard Baker is nominated to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.  Ms. Baker received her B.A. from St. Louis University in 1993 and her J.D. from University of Arkansas School of Law in 1996.  She served as a Law Clerk for the Honorable Susan Webber Wright, then the Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.  In 1998, she became an associate in the law firm Williams & Anderson, LLP where she handled commercial litigation cases involving breach of contract and fraud. In 2000, Ms. Baker joined the law firm Quattlebaum, Grooms, Tull & Burrow PLLC.  Her focus at the firm has been devoted to complex commercial litigation cases, including cases involving employment discrimination, securities violations, unfair competition, products liability, Fair Housing Act claims and Freedom of Information Act claims.  She has handled in administrative proceedings and in federal and state court claims for discrimination, harassment and wrongful termination as well as claims arising under the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.  The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary gave her a substantial majority rating of Well Qualified and a minority Qualified.

 

John Z. Lee is nominated to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois.  Mr. Lee received his A.B. from Harvard College in 1989 and his J.D. from Harvard Law School in 1992. He began his legal career as a trial attorney for the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), Environment & Natural Resources Division.  There he represented the United States in federal courts on issues primarily involving environmental statutes.  He also served as Special Assistant to the Counsel to former Attorney General Janet Reno.

 

In 1994, he left the public sector to take a job as an associate at Mayer Brown.  In 1996, he joined a new firm, Grippo & Elden, as an associate.  In 1999, he moved to his current firm, Freeborn & Peters.  There he made Income Partner in 2001 and Equity Partner in 2004.  In private practice, Mr. Lee has focused almost entirely on litigation, expanding his expertise to complex commercial disputes, including cases involving antitrust, intellectual property, employment and business tort issues.  Most of these cases were in federal courts, particularly the Seventh and Ninth Circuits.  He also represented clients in criminal investigations of antitrust and financial regulations violations.  In private practice, he represents public and private companies, individual businesspersons and low-income clients pro bono. He has an ABA rating of Substantial Majority Qualified, Minority Not Qualified.

 

-30-
09 May 2012

Grassley Questions DEA about Detainment of CA College Student

By Grassley Press

Justice Department IG Expected to Investigate

WASHINGTON - Senator Chuck Grassley, Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is pressing for answers in the alleged mistreatment and detainment by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) of a University of California-San Diego student.

In a letter to DEA Administrator Michele Leonhart, Grassley specifically asks about an investigation by the Department of Justice Inspector General and the DEA's cooperation with the Inspector General.   He also inquired about the DEA's general detention policies and the detailed actions by the DEA in the case of the California student.

"Judging from the press reports, the Inspector General will have a lot to look into," Grassley said.  "And, if the allegations are true, the DEA and its agents need to be held accountable for the treatment of this young man."

The Senate Judiciary Committee has jurisdiction over the Drug Enforcement Administration.

Here's a copy of Grassley's letter to Leonhart.

 

May 4, 2012

Via Electronic Transmission

The Honorable Michele Leonhart

Administrator

Drug Enforcement Administration

700 Army Navy Drive, Room 12060

Arlington, VA 22202

 

Dear Administrator Leonhart,

I write today regarding reports of the alleged mistreatment of Daniel Chong, a University of California-San Diego college student, by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in San Diego.  If the reports are accurate that Mr. Chong was left for five days in a five-by-ten foot windowless cell without the basic human necessities of food, water, or a bathroom, the actions of the DEA raise serious and troubling questions.

According to media reports, Amy Roderick, a DEA spokeswoman states "seven suspects were brought to county detention after processing, one was released and the individual in question was accidentally left in one of the cells."  In the same article, Mr. Chong himself states that, from his cell, he heard occasional footsteps, doors opening and closing, and the sound of muffled voices and that he even saw shadows beneath the door.  If that is true, it is difficult for me to comprehend how no one could have heard what he says were his own repeated cries for help over his course of time in the cell.  I appreciate that Acting Special Agent-in-Charge William Sherman has expressed his "deepest apologies" to Mr. Chong and has willingly opened an internal investigation into the matter, but I am not sure that will be enough to put the matter to rest.

The physical and psychological trauma that Mr. Chong was subjected to because of the apparent neglect by the DEA is the most troubling to me.  The article asserts that Mr. Chong resorted to survival skills to stay alive and when he was eventually found he was immediately "taken to the hospital and treated for cramps, dehydration and a perforated lung - the result of ingesting some broken glass."

As Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, I have a distinct responsibility in conducting oversight over the DEA.  Further, given the alleged actions give rise to serious constitutional violations; I would appreciate expeditious responses to the following questions.

·         What is DEA's written policy on the detention of suspects at DEA facilities?  Please provide a copy of all relevant policy and training manuals that reference procedures for handling detainees in DEA custody at DEA facilities.

·         Is there a shift supervisor responsible for oversight of the facility and the detainees?

·         What are the policies and procedures of the facility for the handling of a detainee, from intake to discharge?

·         Is there a log system in place to maintain and track the detainees?  If yes, please explain the process.

·         Routinely, holding cells are monitored by surveillance cameras for the protection of both the detainee and the law enforcement official.  Is this technology available at the DEA facility?  If so, is someone responsible for monitoring the cameras?

·         Is there a system in place to indicate when someone is located inside a holding cell (ie. strobe light indicator)?

·         What was the reason that Mr. Chong was originally apprehended in the raid?  Was he interviewed or the subject of questioning?  If questioned and determined to be innocent, why was he returned to the holding cell instead of being released?

·         Was Mr. Chong searched for weapons and contraband before placing him in the holding cell?  Was the holding cell searched for weapons and contraband before receiving Mr. Chong?

·         Can you explain where the methamphetamines came from?  Was it inventoried as evidence or contraband on DEA records?  If so, please provide the chain-of-custody records for the methamphetamines found in the holding cell?

·         How would it have been possible for Mr. Chong to hear others in nearby rooms and for them not to have heard his reported cries for help?

·         Mr. Chong asserts that "when they opened the door, one of them said: 'Here's the water you've been asking for."  How was Mr. Chong finally discovered?  Was Mr. Chong discovered by someone from the DEA?  Please provide a timeline showing the time when Mr. Chong was received into the county facility until the time he was discharged.

·         It is my understanding that the Department of Justice Inspector General (OIG) has initiated an investigation into the DEA's conduct in this matter.  What if any contact has the DEA had with the OIG?  Will DEA cooperate with the OIG's inquiry?

Thank you for your cooperation and attention to this important matter.  I look forward to your prompt response no later than May 11, 2012.

Sincerely,

Charles E. Grassley

Ranking Member
08 May 2012

Iowa Supreme Court Opinions

By Iowa Judicial Branch

May 4, 2012

Notice: The opinions posted on this site are slip opinions only. Under the Rules of Appellate Procedure a party has a limited number of days to request a rehearing after the filing of an opinion. Also, all slip opinions are subject to modification or correction by the court. Therefore, opinions on this site are not to be considered the final decisions of the court. The official published opinions of the Iowa Supreme Court are those published in the North Western Reporter published by West Group.

Opinions released before April 2006 and available in the archives are posted in Word format. Opinions released after April 2006 are posted to the website in PDF (Portable Document Format).   Note: To open a PDF you must have the free Acrobat Reader installed. PDF format preserves the original appearance of a document without requiring you to possess the software that created that document. For more information about PDF read: Using the Adobe Reader.

For your convenience, the Judicial Branch offers a free e-mail notification service for Supreme Court opinions, Court of Appeals opinions, press releases and orders. To subscribe, click here.

NOTE: Copies of these opinions may be obtained from the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Judicial Branch Building, 1111 East Court Avenue, Des Moines, IA 50319, for a fee of fifty cents per page.

No. 09-1633

JULIE K. BURTON vs. HILLTOP CARE CENTER and IOWA LONG TERM CARE RISK MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION

No. 10-1911

ROGER B. ENNENGA vs. STATE OF IOWA

No. 11-0293

KRIS KOLZOW vs. STATE OF IOWA
03 May 2012

Recent Amendments and New Rules

By Iowa Judicial Branch

The following documents are amendments to the Iowa Court Rules or new court rules recently approved by the Iowa Supreme Court.

 

 

In the Matter of Amendments to Iowa Court Rules Regulating the Practice of Law (May 2, 2012)

Amendments concerning the attorney disciplinary process, client trust account reconciliation and record retention procedures, continuing legal education, and the bar exam.
Amended effective immediately

Nunc Pro Tunc (59 kb)


OPR Rules Revisions (Strikethrough version) (4618 kb)


OPR Rules Revisions (Final version) (396 kb)



In the Matter of Amendments to Iowa Court Rule 32:7.4 (March 12, 2012)

The Court adds Veterans Law to the list of fields of practice and specialization.

Order (80 kb)



Iowa Courts Rules

The Chief Justice has signed a supplemental order specifying the effective date of the amendment to Rule 41.3(2)

Supplemental Order (35 kb)



Iowa Court Rules (February 20, 2012)

Amendments concerning the attorney disciplinary process, client trust account reconciliation and record retention procedures, continuing legal education, and the bar exam.
Amended effective immediately

Order (183 kb)


Amendments (10043 kb)


Summary of Amendments (87 kb)



In the Matter of Amendment to Chapter 11 (December 30, 2011)

New Standards of Conduct for Mediators is based on the 2005 Model Standards of Conduct for Mediators. Prior to publication of the new standards, the Iowa Code Editor's office has revised the numbering format of the new standards. In addition, the court has made punctuation and grammatical changes to the new standards.

Nunc Pro Tunc (361 kb)



In the Matter of Amendments to Iowa Court Rules Chapter 46.13(4) (December 12, 2011)

Causes for disciplinary action.

Order and Amendment (338 kb)



In the Matter of Amendments to Iowa Court Rules Chapter 12 (November 14, 2011)

Earlier this year, the General Assembly approved statutory changes that prohibit the possession, receipt, and shipment of firearms and ammunition by a person found by a court to be mentally ill. To comply with this legislation, the court amended two forms used for civil commitments pursuant to Chapter 229 of the Iowa Code.

Order (1202 kb)


Forms - Rule 12.36 - Form 3 and Form 13 (762 kb)



Iowa Court Rules (November 10, 2011)

Amendment to chapter 11 of the Iowa Court Rules? Adoption of Standards of Conduct for Mediators Summary?At the recommendation of the Iowa State Bar Association, the American Academy of Alternate Dispute Resolution Attorneys, and others, the court replaces chapter 11 of the Iowa Court Rules, "Rules Governing Standards of Practice for Lawyer Mediators in Family Disputes," with new standards of conduct for mediators. The current standards have changed little since their adoption in 1987. The new standards mirror the 2005 Model Standards of Conduct for Mediators with one exception. The court added a provision concerning the scope of the rules. This provision provides that the "standards apply to mediators who are lawyers licensed to practice law in Iowa, mediators who participate in any mediation program approved by a court of this state, and mediators in any matter required to be mediated by an Iowa court order or rule." The standards for mediators in the prior version of chapter 11 applied to lawyer mediators in family disputes only. The new standards take effect January 1, 2012.

Order and Amended Rule (352 kb)



Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure (November 30, 2010)

Amendment to Rules of Civil Procedure 1.909 -- The supreme court amends Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.909, setting the fee for late settlement of jury trials, to include a party's waiver of jury trial within the rule's time frame.
Temporarily amended, effective immediately
Permanently effective January 28, 2011

Order and amended rule (479 kb)



Iowa Court Rules (November 24, 2010)

Amendment to Rule 41.12 requires all lawyers newly admitted by examination to complete a basic skills course on Iowa law within one year after admission to the Iowa bar. The supreme court amends the rule to permit new lawyers to take the basic skills course during the time between completion of the bar examination and admission to practice.
Effective immediately

Order and amended rule (565 kb)



Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure (August 3, 2010)

Amendments to Rules of Civil Procedure 1.1007 and 1.1008--Time to file certain post-ruling motions
These amendments increase the amount of time that a party has to file certain post-ruling motions. The court increased the time to file such motions from ten days after the filing of a verdict to fifteen days after the filing of a verdict. This additional time is intended to address case processing delays that cut into the time parties have to file such motions. These delays are the on-going consequence of the severe cuts in the judicial branch budget over the past decade.
Efffective August 9, 2010

Amendment (483 kb)


Supervisory Order (638 kb)



Amendment to Code of Judicial Conduct (June 23, 2010)

Amendment to Application Section
Summary ? This amendment is a technical correction.
Effective immediately

Amendment (342 kb)



Amendment to Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.19(4) (June 17, 2010)

Amendment to Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.19(4) Reporting Opening Statements and Closing Arguments?This amendment requires the reporting of opening statements and final arguments in a criminal trial. The former version of the rule required reporting of these remarks only upon request of a party. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that a complete record of all aspects of a trial exists to enable a complete review of a case on appeal. Under the former rule, the absence of a record of opening statements and closing arguments frequently hampered appellate review, particularly with regard to questions of error preservation and prejudice.
Effective August 16, 2010

Order and Rule (239 kb)



Rule 22.28 Report Form (May 27, 2010)

Amended form for filing transcript income and expense reports.

Supervisory Order (589 kb)



Amendment to Rule of Judicial Administration (May 27, 2010)

Amendments to Rule 22.28(7) ?Court Reporter Transcript Income and Expense Reports
Summary?In response to feedback from court reporters regarding the work involved in producing these reports and confusion about certain reporting requirements, the court amended the rule to require only one report a year (May 1) rather than two reports a year.
Effective immediately

Order and rule (271 kb)



Rules for Expanded Media Coverage (May 27, 2010)

Amendment to Rule 25.3?Witness Objection to Request for Media Coverage
Summary?At the request of the Clerks' Manual Committee, the court amended this rule to provide that a witness is entitled to assistance from the clerk of court in providing copies of the witness's objection to EMC coverage to attorneys, parties, the presiding judge, the district court administrator, and the media coordinator.
Effective immediately

Order and rule (394 kb)



Rule of Appellate Procedure (May 27, 2010)

Procedure 6.1401 Form 5?TPR and CINA Expedited Appeal
Summary?The Iowa Court of Appeals recommended these changes to the CINA/TPR petition form for the purpose of obtaining more direction and information from an appellant regarding the issues being raised on appeal.
Effective immediately

Order and form (1457 kb)



Rules of Civil Procedure (May 26, 2010)

Amendment to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.1013(1) ?Fee for Petition to Vacate or Modify a Judgment
Summary?Earlier this year, the court amended this rule to require the payment of a filing fee when filing a motion or petition for vacating or modifying a judgment. Later, the court was informed of confusion among clerks of court and attorneys about the application of this rule, particularly with respect to small claims cases. Clerks of court asked for guidance. To clarify the rule, the court adopted this amendment. The amendment clarifies that a petition of this nature when filed in small claims shall require payment of the fee for filing a small claims case set forth in section 631.6(1)(a). Currently, the filing fee for small claims cases is $85.

Effective July 24, 2010

Order and rule (641 kb)



Iowa Court Rules (April 30, 2010)

Adopted effective May 3, 2010

Order (17337 kb)


Chapter 51, Code of Judicial Conduct (16861 kb)


22.12 Senior Judges (767 kb)


22.22 Gifts (661 kb)


32:1.12 Professional Conduct (237 kb)



Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure (March 9, 2010)

1.431 Motion practice
1.1013 Procedure for vacating or modifying judgment
Adopted, effective May 10, 2010

Amendments (650 kb)



Iowa Court Rules (March 9, 2010)

Rule 22.30 -- Use of signature facsimile
Amended, effective immediately

Order and amended rule (568 kb)



Iowa Court Rules (January 19, 2010)

Chapter 31--Admission to the Bar
Chapter 39--Client Security Commission
Chapter 41--Continuing Legal Education
Amended, effective immediately

Order and amended rules (1599 kb)



Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure (January 7, 2010)

1.431 Motion practice
1.909 Fee for late settlement of jury trial
Adopted, effective March 8, 2010

Amended rules (445 kb)



Iowa Court Rules (January 6, 2010)

Court Records
Chapter 20
Adopted, effective immediately

Order and new rules (382 kb)



Iowa Rule of Appellate Procedure (December 18, 2009)

Rule 6.702 Filing fees and copies
Effective immediately

Order and rule (435 kb)



Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure (November 12, 2009)

1.442(5) Filing of pleadings or papers with the court

Supervisory Order and amended rule (468 kb)



Iowa Court Rules (November 12, 2009)

Rule 22.39 Staffing offices of clerks of court
Rule 22.40 Public business hours of offices of clerks of court

Order and Rules (365 kb)



Iowa Court Rules (November 9, 2009)

Rule 22.28 Transcripts - transcript fee and expense report
Amended, effective immediately

Order and Amended Rules 22.28 (657 kb)


Supervisory Order and Rule 22, 28 Report (578 kb)


Staff Summary (768 kb)



Iowa Rules of Criminal Procedure (October 28, 2009)

State's duty to disclose witnesses
Amended, effective immediately

Rule 2.11(12) (2045 kb)


Staff Explanation (211 kb)


Nunc Pro Tunc (1670 kb)



Iowa Court Rules (October 12, 2009)

Basic skills course requirement
Effective immediately

Rule 41.12 (new) (483 kb)



Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure (August 10, 2009)

Deposition subpoena 1.715
Court reporter memorandum 1.903(3)
Judgment on the pleadings 1.954
Subpoena 1.1701
Forms 12,13, 14 and 15, 1.1901
Effective October 9, 2009

New Rules and forms (4849 kb)



Iowa Court Rules (August 10, 2009)

Oral Argument, Rule 21.24
Effective immediately

Amended rule (273 kb)



Iowa Court Rules (August 10, 2009)

Admission to the Bar
Rules 31.12, 35.1, 39.14, 42.7, 47.3, and 47.5
Amended, effective immediately

Rule 47.6 adopted
Old Rules 47.6-47.12 renumbered
Effective immediately

Order and amendments (1847 kb)



Iowa Court Rules (July 27, 2009)

Rules 35.19, 35.20, 35.21
Filing Certificates of Noncompliance
Effective immediately

Amended Rules (1831 kb)



Iowa Court Rules (June 29, 2009)

Service by e-mail
Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.453
Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.34
Temporarily amended, effective immediately
Permanently effective August 28, 2009

Emancipation of minors
Rules of Juvenile Procedure 8.35
Temporarily adopted, effective immediately
Permanently effective August 28, 2009

Supervisory Order and amendments (768 kb)



Iowa Rules of Appellate Procedure 6.701(7) (June 29, 2009)

Service by e-mail
Rule 6.701(7)
Effective immediately

Order and rule (201 kb)



Iowa Court Rules ( June 3, 2009)

Organization of Appellate Courts; Judicial Administration
Rules 21.24(3) and 22.30 are amended
Effective immediately

Amended rules (586 kb)



Iowa Court Rules (June 3, 2009)

Admission to the Bar
Rule 31.18 adopted
Rules 31.14 and 31.25 forms 1 and 2 are amended
Effective immediately

Chapter 31 (4765 kb)



Iowa Court Rules (April 9, 2009)

31.2 Admission to the Bar
Effective immediately

Amended Rule (336 kb)



Iowa Court Rules (April 9, 2009)

25.5 Expanded Media Coverage
Effective immediately

Amended Rule (318 kb)



Iowa Court Rules (April 9, 2009)

9.8(2) Child Support Guidelines
Correction to guidelines that take effect on July 1

Amended Rule (251 kb)



Iowa Court Rules (April 3, 2009)

Iowa Rules of Evidence
5.502 Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product
5.615 Exclusion of witnesses
5.803 Hearsay exceptions
5.804 Hearsay exceptions
5.807 Residual Exception
Effective June 1, 2009

new Rules of Evidence (1527 kb)



Iowa Rules of Criminal Procedure (April 3, 2009)

Rule 2.4(6), 2.5(3) and 2.11(11)
Temporarily amended, effective immediately
Permanently effective June 1, 2009

Supervisory Order and amendments (2049 kb)



Iowa Court Rules (March 25, 2009)

Amendments to Rules of Evidence 5.803, 5.902, and 5.1101
Effective May 25, 2009

Amendments to Chapter 5 (940 kb)



Iowa Court Rule 12.36 (March 9, 2009)

Forms 32 and 33
Effective May 11, 2009

Forms (663 kb)



Iowa Court Rules Chapter 9 (March 9, 2009)

Child Support Guidelines
Effective July 1, 2009

Chapter 9, Guidelines and Worksheet (2441 kb)



Iowa Rules of Criminal Procedure 2.4(6) and 2.5(3) (December 23, 2008)

Minutes of evidence--witness information
Temporarily amended, effective immediately
Effective February 23, 2009

Chapters 2.4(6) and 2.5(3) (619 kb)



Iowa Court Rules Chapter 6-Appellate Rules (October 31, 2008)
Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure 1.1010 and 1.1401 - 1.1412
Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.73
Iowa Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.21

Effective January 1, 2009

Chapter 6 and Amended Rules (30755 kb)



Iowa Court Rules Chapters 22 and 51 (October 31, 2008)

Senior judge program
Effective January 1, 2009

Chapters 22 and 51 (1610 kb)



Iowa Court Rules 31.12 and 31.13 (October 16, 2008)

Admission on motion
Effective immediately

Rules 31.12 and 31.13 (1183 kb)



Iowa Court Rules Chapters 12 and 13 (October 1, 2008)

Involuntary commitment proceedings
Effective December 15, 2008

Chapters 12 and 13 (1081 kb)



Iowa Court Rules 31.3, 31.4 and 31.5 (September 17, 2008)

Iowa Bar Examination
Effective immediately

Admission to the Bar, Chapter 31 (1228 kb)



Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.422 (July 31, 2008)

Protected information
Effective October 1, 2008 Delayed until further order

Rule 1.422 (141 kb)



Iowa Rules of Civil Procedures 1.903 and Rule 1.1901 Form 12 (July 31, 2008)

Trial of issues
Court Reporter memorandum
Effective October 1, 2008

Rule 1.1901 and Rule 1.1901 Form 12 (143 kb)



Iowa Court Rules Chapter 23 (June 27, 2008)

Time Standards for case processing, notice of civil trial-setting conference and trial scheduling order
Effective September 1, 2008

Chapter 23 (1836 kb)



Iowa Rules of Civil Procedures 1.906 (June 27, 2008)

Civil trial-setting conference
Effective September 1, 2008

Rule 1.906 (452 kb)



Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.1901 and Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.32 (June 26, 2008)

Rule of Civil Procedure 1.901 forms 8 and 9
Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.32 forms 1 and 2
Temporary adoption of amendments by supervisory order
Permanent effective date September 1, 2008

Rules 1.1901 and 2.32 (1350 kb)


Supervisory Order (198 kb)



Approved Iowa court forms for child support modification (June 16, 2008)

Order (128 kb)


Court Forms


02 May 2012

Supervisory Orders

By Iowa Judicial Branch

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.

 
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)

Rule 1.422

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 (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)
01 May 2012

U.S. Paying Needlessly High Cost for Crime, Expert Says

By Ginny Grimsley
Urges Renewed Focus on Rehabilitation

States are spending $52 billion a year on corrections, with one U.S. adult in 31 either incarcerated, on probation, or on parole, according to the Pew Foundation.

The U.S. incarceration rate is by far the highest in the world. Spending on corrections is now the second fastest-growing item in state budgets after Medicaid. It has quadrupled in the past two decades, many say because of a "get tough on crime" approach.

A steady stream of recidivists - returning offenders - is one major drain. As shrinking state budgets demand legislatures to do more with less, scrutiny of the judicial system is increasing.

"It's high time we start attacking this costly problem at its root, rather than issuing petty punitive sentences for small-time, non-violent crimes," says advocate Adam Young, founder of CommunityServiceHelp.com. His organization partners with charities to help people fulfill community service sentences by taking classes instead of picking up litter.

"Here is the question: Do we want to punish small-time crimes, or should we offer rehabilitation for people who are caught in this costly cycle?"

In the mid-1970s there was more emphasis on rehabilitation, he says. Less than a decade before that, California introduced the concept of community service to the United States. It has since been widely accepted throughout the nation as a space-saving, cost-cutting solution. It's time to make community service sentencing more effective, Young says.

"If states really want to save money, they should address recidivism through programs that include education," he says. "It is better for all of us, for both economic and public safety reasons, to help educate people so they can get and maintain jobs."

He cites New Jersey's Female Offender Reentry Group Effort, or FORGE, which became mandatory in Essex County for female parolees in 2006. The program emphasizes legal, job and emotional support, which is particularly helpful for women, experts say.

A four-year study by Rutgers University compared recidivism rates for female parolees who did not experience the program to those who went through FORGE and an additional monthly support group. Only 28 percent of the FORGE graduates returned to prison; nearly half the non-graduates became repeat offenders.

"Citizens become prisoners because they have had trouble integrating with society from the very beginning," Young says. "Prison without rehab and associated educational programs teaches inmates how to deal with hardened criminals, psychopaths, drug addicts and the mentally ill, but not how to be a productive member of society."

States with the most recidivism could each save about $470 million a year by reducing rates by just 10 percent, he says.

There is a nationwide push to privatize prisons, which cuts off state funding for various rehabilitation programs that are understood to generally reduce recidivism, Young says. In addition, crowding in prisons is leading to more attention being paid to simply controlling the population, and less to rehabilitation efforts.

About Adam Young

Adam Young is a longtime internet marketing professional who launched his educational community service alternative in January 2011. He was inspired by a minor brush with the law when he was an 18-year-old; the community service hours he received cost him his job and nearly caused him to drop out of college. Through his website (www.CommunityServiceHelp.com), offenders have logged more than 300,000 hours of self-scheduled schooling that allows them to remain employed while completing service hours. Young advocates education as the most cost-effective tool for rehabilitating offenders.

01 May 2012

Iowa Supreme Court Opinions

By Iowa Judicial Branch
April 27, 2012

Notice: The opinions posted on this site are slip opinions only. Under the Rules of Appellate Procedure a party has a limited number of days to request a rehearing after the filing of an opinion. Also, all slip opinions are subject to modification or correction by the court. Therefore, opinions on this site are not to be considered the final decisions of the court. The official published opinions of the Iowa Supreme Court are those published in the North Western Reporter published by West Group.

Opinions released before April 2006 and available in the archives are posted in Word format. Opinions released after April 2006 are posted to the website in PDF (Portable Document Format).   Note: To open a PDF you must have the free Acrobat Reader installed. PDF format preserves the original appearance of a document without requiring you to possess the software that created that document. For more information about PDF read: Using the Adobe Reader.

For your convenience, the Judicial Branch offers a free e-mail notification service for Supreme Court opinions, Court of Appeals opinions, press releases and orders. To subscribe, click here.

NOTE: Copies of these opinions may be obtained from the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Judicial Branch Building, 1111 East Court Avenue, Des Moines, IA 50319, for a fee of fifty cents per page.

No. 11-0325

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF ARLEEN MARIE VAUGHAN AND PHILIP JAMES VAUGHAN, Upon the Petition of ARLEEN MARIE WHITE-VAUGHAN

No. 12-0229

IOWA SUPREME COURT ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD vs. RICHARD S. KALLSEN
01 May 2012

New Allegations of Secret Service Misconduct

By Grassley Press

Thursday, April 26, 2012

Senator Chuck Grassley released the following statement after a Seattle-based CBS television station revealed alarming information that Secret Service agents may have paid for escorts while working in El Salvador in advance of the President's trip to the country in March 2011.  Grassley is the Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee which has jurisdiction over the Secret Service.

"This latest allegation only reaffirms the need for independent investigations by the Inspector General.  Regardless of whether the incidents were previously referred to internal investigators, they need to be examined.  There are rumors flying about various incidents over several years about the conduct of Secret Service personnel, as well as other law enforcement and military personnel in locations around the world.  The only way to put to rest the rumors of a much wider problem is for the allegations to receive transparent and independent reviews."

Pages

Subscribe & Listen to Reader Podcasts

On Stands Now

 

Tagged Content

Two Ways to Subscribe

1. Subscribe to free weekly e-mail content updates.

You'll get both the current official narrative challenge and What's Happenin' in the Quad Cities.
(Did you know we publish a new Amy Alkon Advice Goddess, Real Astrology, Red Meat cartoon and RCR Crossword every week?) 

* indicates required

View previous campaigns.

2. Get 12 monthly issues mailed first class for $48

Get 12 issues mailed monthly for $48 per year.

Get the printed Reader edition mailed to you (or anyone you want) first-class for 12 months for $48.
$24 goes to postage and handling, $24 goes to keeping the doors open!

Click this link to Subscribe now.