Register  |   |   |  Calendar  |  Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
Moderator

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 3,096
Reply with quote  #1 

http://www.iowafathers.com/fed-ia-courts.htm

 

United States District Court for Northern District of Iowa, United States District Court for Southern District of Iowa, & U.S. Court of Appeals For The Eighth Circuit

 

·         United States District Court – Northern District of Iowa   

o   Eastern Division

§  4200 C Street SW, Cedar Rapids, IA 52404  Ph: 319.286.2300

o   Cedar Rapids Division

§  4200 C Street SW, Cedar Rapids, IA 52404  Ph: 319.286.2300

o   Central Division

§  320 Sixth Street, Sioux City, IA  51101   Ph: 712.233.3900

o   Western Division

§  320 Sixth Street, Sioux City, IA  51101   Ph: 712.233.3900

o   Chief Judge Linda R. Reade

o   Court fees and costs

o   Pro Se Help

o   Divisional Map by County  

 

·         United States District Court – Southern District of Iowa   

o   Central Division

§  123 East Walnut, Des Moines, IA  50309  Ph: 515.284.6248

o   Western Division

§  6th & Broadway, Council Bluffs, IA  51502  Ph: 712.328.0283

o   Davenport Division

§  131 E. 4th Street,  Davenport, IA   52801  Ph: 563.884.7607

o   Chief Judge Robert W. Pratt

o   Divisional Map by County  

 

·         8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals   

o   Thomas F. Eagleton Courthouse, 111 South 10th Street. St. Louis, MO  63102  Ph: 314.244.2400

o   United States Court House, 316 N. Robert Street. St. Paul, MN  55101  Ph: 651.848.1300

o   Chief Judge James B. Loken

o   Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals Judges

 

 

U.S. District Court Civil Forms:

 

A-Complaint Process
pro se filing ltr.pdf
Pro Se Instructions for Civil Complaint.pdf
Civil Cover Sheet & Instructions.pdf
cause.wpd
cause.pdf
AO_240.pdf
C-Consent and Service Documents
LR 7.1 Disclosure Statement.wpd
LR 7.1 Disclosure Statement.doc
AO440(fillable).pdf
AO440 (fillable).wpd
Notice of Lawsuit & Waiver of Service of Summons.pdf
Waiver of Service of Summons ao399.wpd
Waiver of Service of Summons ao399.pdf
Notice, Consent & Order of Reference.pdf
Consent to Proceed Before Magistrate Judge AO85.wpd
D-Answers/Counterclaims/Crossclaims
Attorney Appearance ao458.pdf
Attorney Appearance ao458.wpd
Third Party Summons in a Civil Action ao441.pdf
Third Party Summons in a Civil Action ao441.wpd
E-Scheduling Orders
Sch Order, Disc Plan, redlined amended pages for 2007 version.pdf
Sch order, Disc Plan & wksht, revised 2007, amended 02 07 2007.pdf
Sch Order, Disc Plan & wksht revised 2007, amended 02 07 2007.wpd
Sch Order, Disc Plan & wksht revised 2007, amended 02 07 2007.doc
ERISA Scheduling Order,Discovery Plan & Worksheet.pdf
F-Subpoenas
AO088.pdf
G-Settlement Conference
Judge Zoss's Standard Settlement Conference Order.pdf
stlcf form.wpd
stlcf form.pdf
H.1 Trial(Pretrial/Trial Orders Bench&Jury)
Final Pretrial Order format 07-07-08.wpd
Final Pretrial Order format 07-07-08 for Word.doc
Final Pretrial Order format 07-07-08.pdf
Judge Zoss's Order for Pretrial Scheduling Conference in Patent Cases.pdf
PAZ Civil Jury Trial setting order rev 07 08 08.pdf
PAZ Civil Jury Trial setting order rev 07 08 08.wpd
PAZ Civil Bench Trial setting order rev 07 08 08.wpd
PAZ Civil Bench Trial setting order rev 07 08 08.pdf
Judge Zoss's Voir Dire Instructions.pdf
Final Pretrial Order format 07-07-08.wpd
Final Pretrial Order format 07-07-08 for Word.doc
Final Pretrial Order format 07-07-08.pdf
MWB Civil Bench Trial setting order rev 07 07 08.wpd
MWB Civil Bench Trial setting order rev 07 07 08.pdf
MWB Civil Jury Trial setting order rev 07 07 08.wpd
MWB Civil Jury Trial setting order rev 07 07 08.pdf
H.2 Trial - Witness/Exhibit List
 
Exhibit and Witness List - Fillable PDF.pdf
Exhibit and Witness List Continuation Page- Fillable PDF.pdf
H.3 Trial - Jury Instructions
Zoss Prelim & Final Instr's.wpd
Zoss Prelim & Final Instr's.pdf
LRR-Stock Civil Preliminary Jury Instructions - updated 1-17-08.wpd
LRR-Stock Civil Preliminary Jury Instructions - updated 1-17-08.pdf
I-Post Trial
Prisoner Appeal Packet.pdf
prisoner appeal packet.wpd
Bill of Costs AO133.wpd
Bill of Costs AO133.pdf
J-Pro Se Filing
pro se filing ltr.pdf
Pro Se Instructions for Civil Complaint.pdf

 

Rules and Procedures:

Local Rules
2008 Local Rules.pdf
2009 Local Rules Redline Version.pdf
2009 Local Rules.pdf
Federal Rules
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.pdf
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (12-1-2007).pdf
Federal Rules of Evidence.pdf
CM-ECF Procedures
2008 Procedural Manual.pdf

 


__________________
IowaFathers
P.O. Box 2884
Waterloo, IA 50704-2884
support@IowaFathers.com
Website: http://www.IowaFathers.com
Visit us on facebook under Groups: Iowa Fathers



"Political reasons have not the requisite certainty to afford juridical interpretation. They are different in different men. They are different in the same men at different times. And when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under a government of individual men, who for the time being have the power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of that it ought to mean." Dred Scott v.Sanford, 19 How. 393, 620 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).
Moderator

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 3,096
Reply with quote  #2 

The Supreme Court of Iowa had better change gears involving our fundamental right to parent over the next few appellate cases headed their way or they're in for a major headache!!!


__________________
IowaFathers
P.O. Box 2884
Waterloo, IA 50704-2884
support@IowaFathers.com
Website: http://www.IowaFathers.com
Visit us on facebook under Groups: Iowa Fathers



"Political reasons have not the requisite certainty to afford juridical interpretation. They are different in different men. They are different in the same men at different times. And when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under a government of individual men, who for the time being have the power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of that it ought to mean." Dred Scott v.Sanford, 19 How. 393, 620 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).
Moderator

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 3,096
Reply with quote  #3 
I want to clarify something with our members.  The cases of members we have pending before the Iowa Supreme Court, are going to be appealed should they continue to shun our civil liberties to the United State Supreme Court via 28 USC § 1257. 
 

·         Types of U.S. Supreme Court Jurisdiction:

o   Direct Appeal – the appellant can bypass the courts of appeals and have the Supreme Court hear the case. Note: Congress limited direct appeals in 1988, as part of its reform to give the Supreme Court much greater control over its own docket.

o   Certiorari – review for the petitioner is discretionary. Virtually all review to the Supreme Court now occurs when the Supreme Court, in its discretion, decides to accept a case.  Note: The Court grants certiorari for the interest of the public, not merely for the interest of the parties.  Thus, the Court will not ordinarily grant certiorari merely to achieve justice in a particular case.

o   Appeal - the appellant will receive Supreme Court review, in theory as a right.  The Supreme Court rules require the appellant to file a jurisdictional statement, which is similar to the petition for certiorari.


__________________
IowaFathers
P.O. Box 2884
Waterloo, IA 50704-2884
support@IowaFathers.com
Website: http://www.IowaFathers.com
Visit us on facebook under Groups: Iowa Fathers



"Political reasons have not the requisite certainty to afford juridical interpretation. They are different in different men. They are different in the same men at different times. And when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under a government of individual men, who for the time being have the power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of that it ought to mean." Dred Scott v.Sanford, 19 How. 393, 620 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).
Moderator

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 3,096
Reply with quote  #4 

§  Be

Below is a sample of a few cases we may expand upon or reference in federal court for various reasons.  Rest assured, equality is coming and at a faster pace than what our Courts are apparently willing to accept.

 

Ex parte Young (1908) where the Court held that a state officer could be forbidden in a federal suit from enforcing state law.

·         The holding was based upon legal fiction that the officer could not be given authority to violate federal law so that the suit was not against the state authority itself.

·         Today, fiction is maintained to the extent that a state officer must be the named defendant in such a suit.

 

Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer (1976) found that Congress had explicitly made states subject to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits race and gender discrimination in employment matters.

 

Monell v. Dept. of Social Services (1978) the Supreme Court ruled that Cities and other local government units were “persons” who could be sued for violating an individual’s civil rights or other federal rights un 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983.

 

Personal Standing

·         The plaintiff must establish, at a minimum, a “personal state” in the outcome. This stake requires a two-fold showing:

o   First, a “distinct and palpable (obvious) injury” to the plaintiff.

o   Second, a “fairly traceable causal connection” between the claimed injury and the contact that conduct that plaintiff challenges.   Burden can be met by showing a “substantial likelihood” that the relief requested of the court will redress the claimed injury.

 

Craig v. Boren (1976), bar owners and bartenders were prosecuted for selling beer to men at the age of 18, even though they could have sold beer legally under the statute to women who were under the age of 18. The Court allowed a third party, “sellers of beer” to raise the equal protection claims of young men between the ages of 18 and 21 and found that the classification allowing sales of beer to women at those ages, but not men, violated equal protection.

 

The Child Labor Tax Case (1922) – the Court held that this tax was not a true tax but only a “penalty” for violation of commercial regulation.

·         It was invalid under the prior decision because it exceeded the power of Congress and invaded that areas reserved for control by the states.

·         “Incidental” regulatory motives could be tolerated, but there was some point “in the extension of the penalizing features of the so-called tax when it loses its character as such and becomes a mere penalty, which the characteristics of legislation and punishment.”

 

 

Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan (1935) – the Supreme Court held that  the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 [NIRA] was an excessive delegation of the legislative power to the executive because it did not set any standards for when the President should exercise his discretionary power to prohibit shipment of these products.


__________________
IowaFathers
P.O. Box 2884
Waterloo, IA 50704-2884
support@IowaFathers.com
Website: http://www.IowaFathers.com
Visit us on facebook under Groups: Iowa Fathers



"Political reasons have not the requisite certainty to afford juridical interpretation. They are different in different men. They are different in the same men at different times. And when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under a government of individual men, who for the time being have the power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of that it ought to mean." Dred Scott v.Sanford, 19 How. 393, 620 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).
RJL

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 345
Reply with quote  #5 

good direction

yeagertaxman

Member
Registered:
Posts: 30
Reply with quote  #6 

Did we ever get a ruling on the appeal against Iowa child support recovery?

Moderator

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 3,096
Reply with quote  #7 
No but we are contemplating a class action lawsuit against the Iowa Supreme Court. Here is a brief article that points out many of the reasons why...http://mensnewsdaily.com/2010/02/18/why-the-current-iowa-child-support-guidelines-are-unconstitutional/

__________________
IowaFathers
P.O. Box 2884
Waterloo, IA 50704-2884
support@IowaFathers.com
Website: http://www.IowaFathers.com
Visit us on facebook under Groups: Iowa Fathers



"Political reasons have not the requisite certainty to afford juridical interpretation. They are different in different men. They are different in the same men at different times. And when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under a government of individual men, who for the time being have the power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of that it ought to mean." Dred Scott v.Sanford, 19 How. 393, 620 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).
Greegor

Member
Registered:
Posts: 5
Reply with quote  #8 
I'd like to see it.

 
Moderator

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 3,096
Reply with quote  #9 
I promise you we have many exciting things planned for the upcoming year...all will be major Migraine Headaches for the Justice System.

__________________
IowaFathers
P.O. Box 2884
Waterloo, IA 50704-2884
support@IowaFathers.com
Website: http://www.IowaFathers.com
Visit us on facebook under Groups: Iowa Fathers



"Political reasons have not the requisite certainty to afford juridical interpretation. They are different in different men. They are different in the same men at different times. And when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under a government of individual men, who for the time being have the power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of that it ought to mean." Dred Scott v.Sanford, 19 How. 393, 620 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).
FatherX

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 60
Reply with quote  #10 
Dear Gentle President and Founder,

I am delighted you have committed to such a promise! I believe if there is any person that organize us and mobilize us to change things it's you. I assure you my loyalty and my commitment to the cause.

Now I don"t wish to knit picky but I have to qutote you "all will be major Migraine Headaches for the Justice System". Interestingly enough I looked up the word Justice: 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/justice.

1. the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness: to uphold the justice of a cause.
2. rightfulness or lawfulness, as of a claim or title; justness of ground or reason: to complain with justice.
3. the moral principle determining just conduct.
4. conformity to this principle, as manifested in conduct; just conduct, dealing, or treatment.
5.the administering of deserved punishment or reward.
6.the maintenance or administration of what is just by law, as by judicial or other proceedings: a court of justice.
7. judgment of persons or causes by judicial process: to administer justice in a community.


I certainly do not want to correct you but after reading it's multiple definitions I came to a couple of conclusions:


A: "The Iowa Family Court System" not a Justice system, I mean after all if Justice as defined were part of the Iowa Family Court System we'd not have a cause would we?

B. That we are on a mission of Justice for the children of Iowa!

Stay Strong,


__________________
My hope is in God...Spes mea in Deo

How am I going to live today in order to create the tomorrow I'm committed to?

I challenge you to make your life a masterpiece. I challenge you to join the ranks of those people who live what they teach, who walk their talk.
Tony Robbins

Children are a heritage from God

I am a Dad, I am not disposable.

I love my kids more than the Iowa Courts do!
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:


Create your own forum with Website Toolbox!