Photo - #TAKEN #AmericasTakenChildren: #TAKEN #AmericasTakenChildren
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2akJkyo
Sunday, July 31, 2016
FB-RSS
Photo - #TAKEN #AmericasTakenChildren: #TAKEN #AmericasTakenChildren
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2akJkyo
FB-RSS
The Schwabs have shared their Federal lawsuit with the public. #TAKEN #AmericasTakenChildren #SchwabStrong
Fed Lawsuit 1 PDF SAM BROWNBACK in official and individual capacity, PHYLLIS GILMORE in official and individual capacity, THERESA FREED in official and individual capacity KENDRA BAKER in official and individual capacity RANDY DEBENHAM in official and individual capacity KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF…
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2aI1MVd
Fed Lawsuit 1 PDF SAM BROWNBACK in official and individual capacity, PHYLLIS GILMORE in official and individual capacity, THERESA FREED in official and individual capacity KENDRA BAKER in official and individual capacity RANDY DEBENHAM in official and individual capacity KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF…
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2aI1MVd
FB-RSS
Photo - Children of Elle Broderick #TAKEN: Children of Elle Broderick #TAKEN
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2aI1Cgn
FB-RSS
'No kid deserves that': Police say barefoot child was forced outside on 110-degree day as ...
Police claim Simmons's child was forced to stand outside for about 10 minutes, ... and aware of the brutal punishment, according to the Arizona Republic. ... has had “approximately 30 prior reports with the Department of Child Safety.
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2aavBgg
Police claim Simmons's child was forced to stand outside for about 10 minutes, ... and aware of the brutal punishment, according to the Arizona Republic. ... has had “approximately 30 prior reports with the Department of Child Safety.
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2aavBgg
FB-RSS
Safety Policy And Procedure Manual
Health amp Safety Policy amp Procedure Manual Safety Rules And Regulations This ... Arizona Department Of Child Safety Policy Procedure Manual.
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2aV6ICs
Health amp Safety Policy amp Procedure Manual Safety Rules And Regulations This ... Arizona Department Of Child Safety Policy Procedure Manual.
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2aV6ICs
FB-RSS
#TAKEN #AmericasTakenChildren
Why Did International Adoption Suddenly End? More parents than ever want to adopt. So why has the number of children that Americans adopt from overseas fallen by 75%!!(MISSING)?(MISSING)
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2aavNML
Why Did International Adoption Suddenly End? More parents than ever want to adopt. So why has the number of children that Americans adopt from overseas fallen by 75%!!(MISSING)?(MISSING)
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2aavNML
FB-RSS
Photo - My friend, Karmen got this tshirt made for me. I really like it #Taken #AmericasTakenChildren #NeverStopLooking: My friend, Karmen got this tshirt made for me. I really like it #Taken #AmericasTakenChildren #NeverStopLooking
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2aavGkf
FB-RSS
Photo - #TAKEN #AmericasTakenChildren: #TAKEN #AmericasTakenChildren
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2aor3Sc
FB-RSS
child safety guide department
Arizona Department of Child Safety Child Safety and Risk Assessment (CSRA) Practice Guide Effective Date: January 8, 2016 Revision History: June ...
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2aHim7R
Arizona Department of Child Safety Child Safety and Risk Assessment (CSRA) Practice Guide Effective Date: January 8, 2016 Revision History: June ...
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2aHim7R
FB-RSS
Photo - #TAKEN #AmericasTakenChildren: #TAKEN #AmericasTakenChildren
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2aHhGj3
FB-RSS
#OpExposeCps a post from Velvet Martin....ongoing ... Ongoing http://bit.ly/2aHhqAD Robert P. Lee, Lawyer February 18, 2009 Re: Robert P. Lee, Lawyer To: the Right Honorable Premier Ed Stelmach, and others From: Brian M. Sa…
Robert P. Lee, Lawyer Re: Robert P. Lee, Lawyer To: the Right Honorable Premier Ed Stelmach, and others From: Brian M. Samuels, executive director, LRWCR Date: 2009-02-18 We are writing to express our concern about the …
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2aJk4mh
Robert P. Lee, Lawyer Re: Robert P. Lee, Lawyer To: the Right Honorable Premier Ed Stelmach, and others From: Brian M. Samuels, executive director, LRWCR Date: 2009-02-18 We are writing to express our concern about the …
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2aJk4mh
FB-RSS
Photo - Big announcement Monday night! Live streaming every Monday night at 11:00 pm with Melissa Diegel. Tune in here to this page A Miracle For Two Sisters. #MelissaDiegel http://bit.ly/1OFBNLs http://bit.ly/2aC6ZOm Archived shows: http://bit.ly/2aeOiN8: Big announcement Monday night! Live streaming every Monday night at 11:00 pm with Melissa Diegel. Tune in here to this page A Miracle For Two Sisters. #MelissaDiegel http://bit.ly/1OFBNLs http://bit.ly/2aC6ZOm Archived shows: http://bit.ly/2aeOiN8
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2amKJbJ
FB-RSS
#MelissaDiegel http://bit.ly/1OFBNLs
Medical Kidnapping in Los Angeles: 2 Day Old Infant Seized at Hospital From Mother Using Medical Marijuana A California mother had her newborn child kidnapped in Los Angeles earlier this month (July 2016). Lori Ibrahim had her 2-day old infant seized from her right after giving birth at Kaiser…
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2areTWf
Medical Kidnapping in Los Angeles: 2 Day Old Infant Seized at Hospital From Mother Using Medical Marijuana A California mother had her newborn child kidnapped in Los Angeles earlier this month (July 2016). Lori Ibrahim had her 2-day old infant seized from her right after giving birth at Kaiser…
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2areTWf
FB-RSS
Photo - #MelissaDiegel http://bit.ly/1OFBNLs: #MelissaDiegel http://bit.ly/1OFBNLs
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2aB6Ms8
FB-RSS
The Antithesis of Robin Hood's quest ? TANF has turned into a massive slush fund for states across our nation. The TANF block grants issued by the Fed are now being used to fund a variety of programs including child protective services and ad…
How Welfare Reform Failed If you want a sense of how thoroughly America’s welfare system has decayed thanks to the reforms Bill Clinton signed into law two decades ago, consider ...
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://slate.me/2amLfqd
How Welfare Reform Failed If you want a sense of how thoroughly America’s welfare system has decayed thanks to the reforms Bill Clinton signed into law two decades ago, consider ...
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://slate.me/2amLfqd
FB-RSS
Children who are re-homed can face many unknown dangers. In the most high-profile case, an Arkansas State Representative re-homed two of his female children adopted from Haiti to a man who later sexually assaulted one of the girls, who was 6-…
Shadow Children: Putting An End To Re-Homing Adopted Children In Massachusetts The executive director of the Children's League of Massachusetts writes that our State Legislature should act now to prevent the re-homing of children whose adoptive parents no longer want them.
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://wbur.fm/2a9Fo6s
Shadow Children: Putting An End To Re-Homing Adopted Children In Massachusetts The executive director of the Children's League of Massachusetts writes that our State Legislature should act now to prevent the re-homing of children whose adoptive parents no longer want them.
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://wbur.fm/2a9Fo6s
FB-RSS
“Sometimes we’ll have babies that will come in, and you know, luckily there are a lot of people who want to hold babies. But if you have a super fussy baby it makes it hard for everybody to work. Because there’s babies crying or toddler…
Social Workers Say What It's Like To Deal With Foster Kids Living In The Office OPB broke the news that some foster children are spending the night in offices and hotel rooms. Social workers tell what it's like to tuck them into cots on office floors.
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2aUfzEA
Social Workers Say What It's Like To Deal With Foster Kids Living In The Office OPB broke the news that some foster children are spending the night in offices and hotel rooms. Social workers tell what it's like to tuck them into cots on office floors.
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2aUfzEA
FB-RSS
One of the issues that come up frequently in my advocacy is the difference between a CPS case and a custody battle. This mother took it upon herself to disappear with her two daughters until she was caught. The father of the children did not …
Lakeville mom who hid daughter found guilty A Lakeville mother who hid her daughters in a secluded ranch for more than two years has been found guilty of purposely keeping the girls away from their father.
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://kare11.tv/2a9FZoG
Lakeville mom who hid daughter found guilty A Lakeville mother who hid her daughters in a secluded ranch for more than two years has been found guilty of purposely keeping the girls away from their father.
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://kare11.tv/2a9FZoG
FB-RSS
California is at it once again! A newborn baby and his sibling were #Taken after an anonymous hotline call to DCFS was placed by a member of the hospital staff. As can be seen in the reports the baby tested negative but is being given methado…
Medical Kidnapping in Los Angeles: 2 Day Old Infant Seized at Hospital From Mother Using Medical Marijuana A California mother had her newborn child kidnapped in Los Angeles earlier this month (July 2016). Lori Ibrahim had her 2-day old infant seized from her right after giving birth at Kaiser…
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2areTWf
Medical Kidnapping in Los Angeles: 2 Day Old Infant Seized at Hospital From Mother Using Medical Marijuana A California mother had her newborn child kidnapped in Los Angeles earlier this month (July 2016). Lori Ibrahim had her 2-day old infant seized from her right after giving birth at Kaiser…
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2areTWf
Saturday, July 30, 2016
FB-RSS
Video - #TAKEN #AmericasTakenChildren: #TAKEN #AmericasTakenChildren
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps https://youtu.be/5_Hlpbun5BI?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook
FB-RSS
The powerful and sedating psychotropic medications like the ones that I was on caused serious side effects like weight gain, tunnel vision and a zombified feeling. I also ended up developing an irregular heartbeat. I would often refuse to tak…
Foster Youth are Traumatized Enough: Why Psych Meds Should be Better Regulated - The Chronicle of Social Change I had always been a good student, getting A’s and B’s, but everything changed in tenth grade when I failed English, one of my favorite classes. Although we were reading...
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2a8kJzy
Foster Youth are Traumatized Enough: Why Psych Meds Should be Better Regulated - The Chronicle of Social Change I had always been a good student, getting A’s and B’s, but everything changed in tenth grade when I failed English, one of my favorite classes. Although we were reading...
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2a8kJzy
FB-RSS
Photo - Nora is a mother who lost her three children to forced adoption. In her own words: This was my last visit with my children, as children in 2014. I regained my rights to my daughter who was sexually abused to the point that she has severe mental health problems at the age of 19. She is currently in jail in Georgia. My middle child is now 15 and basically in the world with me trying to get our story out. He ran away 5 months ago from the same abusive home my daughter was removed from. My baby is now 12 and completely brainwashed and still residing in that abusive home!!!!!! There foster/adoptive mom has a domestic violence charge on her record yet she was still able to 1st foster, then adopt, my children....... It makes me so mad that children in the USA or anywhere for that matter are seen as paychecks for people. I do not have a criminal record or anything. I just recently graduated Valedictorian of my nursing class so again I ask WHY COULDN'T I BE FIT TO PARENT MY CHILDREN in Richland county's eyes in MANSFIELD Ohio but I'm fit to be a NURSE!!!!!!! This system is set to fail us and make corporate America rich I can honestly say all the people I've encountered in the small town of Mansfield more then half are not raising their own children. It seems like that little town which has a book written about it called ROTTEN TO THE CORE found yet another avenue for REVENUE & ITS SELLING KIDS!!!!!!! #TAKEN #ForcedAdoption #AmericasTakenChildren #CorruptFamilyCourts #CpsFAIL AmericasTakenChildren.com: Nora is a mother who lost her three children to forced adoption. In her own words: This was my last visit with my children, as children in 2014. I regained my rights to my daughter who was sexually abused to the point that she has severe mental health problems at the age of 19. She is currently in jail in Georgia. My middle child is now 15 and basically in the world with me trying to get our story out. He ran away 5 months ago from the same abusive home my daughter was removed from. My baby is now 12 and completely brainwashed and still residing in that abusive home!!!!!! There foster/adoptive mom has a domestic violence charge on her record yet she was still able to 1st foster, then adopt, my children....... It makes me so mad that children in the USA or anywhere for that matter are seen as paychecks for people. I do not have a criminal record or anything. I just recently graduated Valedictorian of my nursing class so again I ask WHY COULDN'T I BE FIT TO PARENT MY CHILDREN in Richland county's eyes in MANSFIELD Ohio but I'm fit to be a NURSE!!!!!!! This system is set to fail us and make corporate America rich I can honestly say all the people I've encountered in the small town of Mansfield more then half are not raising their own children. It seems like that little town which has a book written about it called ROTTEN TO THE CORE found yet another avenue for REVENUE & ITS SELLING KIDS!!!!!!! #TAKEN #ForcedAdoption #AmericasTakenChildren #CorruptFamilyCourts #CpsFAIL AmericasTakenChildren.com
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2aAxRNV
FB-RSS
Video - Poster maker in training. #TAKEN #AmericasTakenChildren: Poster maker in training. #TAKEN #AmericasTakenChildren
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2aAxUsN
FB-RSS
Video - Leiani has been saved from the system however in this video both she and her mother are interviewed by Dr. Netreia Carrol about the entire saga they experienced. The viewers will see that there was medical malpractice committed in this case and the medical community along with the state attempted to cover it up by blaming the parents for their teen's illness. #TAKEN #AmericasTakenChildren: Leiani has been saved from the system however in this video both she and her mother are interviewed by Dr. Netreia Carrol about the entire saga they experienced. The viewers will see that there was medical malpractice committed in this case and the medical community along with the state attempted to cover it up by blaming the parents for their teen's illness. #TAKEN #AmericasTakenChildren
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAjXxEXOcjw&feature=share&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook
FB-RSS
Photo - #TAKEN #AmericasTakenChildren: #TAKEN #AmericasTakenChildren
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2aH02sg
FB-RSS
AS IT SHOULD BE!!! Kudos to Safe Families for stepping in and giving families a helping hand in a time of need or crisis. These children are not #TAKEN and are returned to their families once their issues are resolved.
Safe Families fills families' needs When a family is having a difficult, family-foundation shaking moment, whether we realize it before hand or not, someone is there to step up and lighten the load. That someone
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2aF1jn9
Safe Families fills families' needs When a family is having a difficult, family-foundation shaking moment, whether we realize it before hand or not, someone is there to step up and lighten the load. That someone
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2aF1jn9
FB-RSS
Photo - #AmericasTakenChildren.com: #AmericasTakenChildren.com
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2aorYA3
FB-RSS
Photo - #TAKEN #AmericasTakenChildren: #TAKEN #AmericasTakenChildren
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2azXoGX
FB-RSS
Social Security...this is where the bulk of the funding for foster children and adoption bonuses are derived from for each state. Is it any wonder that we keep hearing that in a few short years Social Security will not be available to retiree…
Social Security Act §473A Social Security delivers a broad range of services online at socialsecurity.gov. We have a proud history of protecting the integrity of our programs and service to the public.
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2ayGd76
Social Security Act §473A Social Security delivers a broad range of services online at socialsecurity.gov. We have a proud history of protecting the integrity of our programs and service to the public.
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2ayGd76
FB-RSS
http://bit.ly/2ayGo2c
Johns busted, at-risk youths sent to safe spaces by cops Police arrested four males — including a 14-year-old — for buying sex during an outreach project Thursday.
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2akckKO
Johns busted, at-risk youths sent to safe spaces by cops Police arrested four males — including a 14-year-old — for buying sex during an outreach project Thursday.
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2akckKO
FB-RSS
Photo - #TAKEN #AmericasTakenChildren: #TAKEN #AmericasTakenChildren
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2aCqJzZ
FB-RSS
Photo - #opexposecps Their fake little PR stunts are so disgusting! kiss the baby`s head for the photograph now... yeah shout out on the internet for everyone to see...does it make you lookgood yet? http://bit.ly/2apfUOg InDa_Stix: #opexposecps Their fake little PR stunts are so disgusting! kiss the baby`s head for the photograph now... yeah shout out on the internet for everyone to see...does it make you lookgood yet? http://bit.ly/2apfUOg InDa_Stix
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2apeS4X
FB-RSS
Photo - In case you missed the significance of the article posted today, here is a breakdown. Doug Ducey the Governor of Arizona is on the board of TGen> TGen has a contract with the state and funding is given to them (FOR WHAT???????) > The Mayor of Phoenix is on the board of TGen (Stanton) > He is trying to make property deals on behalf of the city of Phoenix > Stanton also works for Nantworks (The company billionaire Dr. Patrick owns )> Dr. Patrick has been trying to buy the TGen building in downtown Phoenix> Dr. Patrick is a billionaire and researcher who works at Phoenix Children’s Hospital> Dr. Patrick works with TGen > Phoenix Childrens Hospital has 200 clinical research trials going on right now> Phoenix Children's Hospital has a collaborative agreement with TGen> Phoenix Children's Hospital has a contract with the state of Arizona they get paid $865 minimum for every child they turn over to CPS Once a child become a ward of the state under the code of federal regulations kids can be used in a drug trial at any point. We have irrefutable proof that drug/clinical/research trials are being done at Phoenix Children’s Hospital on children without their parents consent. Does this seem legal to you? Does this seem moral or ethical to you? We know multiple children who have been kidnapped and used as their guinea kids. Article: http://bit.ly/2aCqrch #NoMoreGuineaKids #MelissaDiegel http://bit.ly/1OFBNLs: In case you missed the significance of the article posted today, here is a breakdown. Doug Ducey the Governor of Arizona is on the board of TGen> TGen has a contract with the state and funding is given to them (FOR WHAT???????) > The Mayor of Phoenix is on the board of TGen (Stanton) > He is trying to make property deals on behalf of the city of Phoenix > Stanton also works for Nantworks (The company billionaire Dr. Patrick owns )> Dr. Patrick has been trying to buy the TGen building in downtown Phoenix> Dr. Patrick is a billionaire and researcher who works at Phoenix Children’s Hospital> Dr. Patrick works with TGen > Phoenix Childrens Hospital has 200 clinical research trials going on right now> Phoenix Children's Hospital has a collaborative agreement with TGen> Phoenix Children's Hospital has a contract with the state of Arizona they get paid $865 minimum for every child they turn over to CPS Once a child become a ward of the state under the code of federal regulations kids can be used in a drug trial at any point. We have irrefutable proof that drug/clinical/research trials are being done at Phoenix Children’s Hospital on children without their parents consent. Does this seem legal to you? Does this seem moral or ethical to you? We know multiple children who have been kidnapped and used as their guinea kids. Article: http://bit.ly/2aCqrch #NoMoreGuineaKids #MelissaDiegel http://bit.ly/1OFBNLs
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2aCqYei
FB-RSS
Video - Exposure 101. Great job sir! #MelissaDiegel http://bit.ly/1OFBNLs: Exposure 101. Great job sir! #MelissaDiegel http://bit.ly/1OFBNLs
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2aCqi96
FB-RSS
ADCS Guardian Platform
Buyer: State of Arizona Department of Child Safety, Office of Procurement. Address: 3003 N. Central Ave., 20th Floor. City: Phoenix, State: AZ ...
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2agNVS6
Buyer: State of Arizona Department of Child Safety, Office of Procurement. Address: 3003 N. Central Ave., 20th Floor. City: Phoenix, State: AZ ...
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2agNVS6
Friday, July 29, 2016
FB-RSS
#TAKEN #AmericasTakenChildren
Lori FINALLY! SOME GOOD NEWS; NEW JERSEY; Case watch of the mother who had her parental rights terminated due to poverty has won her case!! ex. To protect “the invaluable right to raise a child,” the justices ruled that the mother must get new proceedings at the trial court as she seeks to reunite…
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2aR9lp5
Lori FINALLY! SOME GOOD NEWS; NEW JERSEY; Case watch of the mother who had her parental rights terminated due to poverty has won her case!! ex. To protect “the invaluable right to raise a child,” the justices ruled that the mother must get new proceedings at the trial court as she seeks to reunite…
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2aR9lp5
FB-RSS
Police: Boy severely burned after being forced to stand barefoot outside
Police said in court records that, prior to the latest incident, she has been the subject of approximately 30 Arizona Department of Child Safety reports.
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2a6Amrs
Police said in court records that, prior to the latest incident, she has been the subject of approximately 30 Arizona Department of Child Safety reports.
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2a6Amrs
FB-RSS
A Mobile man is continuing a three-year fight to regain custody of his son, who was placed for adoption without his knowledge after his ex-wife faked the child’s death in 2013. #TAKEN #AmericasTakenChildren
Child’s death faked to conceal adoption A Mobile man is continuing a three-year fight to regain custody of his son, who was placed for adoption without his knowledge after his ex-wife faked the child’s death in 2013. The case is another disputed adoption overseen by Mobile County Probate Judge Don…
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2alFIeW
Child’s death faked to conceal adoption A Mobile man is continuing a three-year fight to regain custody of his son, who was placed for adoption without his knowledge after his ex-wife faked the child’s death in 2013. The case is another disputed adoption overseen by Mobile County Probate Judge Don…
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2alFIeW
FB-RSS
http://bit.ly/2alFO6j
Law firm under investigation employs lawyers involved in politics - APTN National News By Kathleen Martens APTN Investigates WINNIPEG – One former and one current Manitoba politician are part of a law firm that is being accused of …
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2aydGQr
Law firm under investigation employs lawyers involved in politics - APTN National News By Kathleen Martens APTN Investigates WINNIPEG – One former and one current Manitoba politician are part of a law firm that is being accused of …
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2aydGQr
FB-RSS
#MelissaDiegel #OpExposeCPS #TheArizonaTeam #Johnson http://bit.ly/1OFBNLs #FreeTheChildren #FreeTheDiegelSisters #KaylaDiegel #HannahDiegel #JoeyKangarooMeltzer #NoMoreGuineaKids
Billionaire doctor cancels deal to buy TGen building in Phoenix The city will look for a new buyer of the building at the Phoenix Biomedical Campus after Patrick Soon-Shiong dropped his bid.
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2aQPjed
Billionaire doctor cancels deal to buy TGen building in Phoenix The city will look for a new buyer of the building at the Phoenix Biomedical Campus after Patrick Soon-Shiong dropped his bid.
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2aQPjed
FB-RSS
Photo - #MelissaDiegel http://bit.ly/1OFBNLs: #MelissaDiegel http://bit.ly/1OFBNLs
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2aQPF4r
FB-RSS
Photo - #MelissaDiegel http://bit.ly/1OFBNLs: #MelissaDiegel http://bit.ly/1OFBNLs
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2a6h5WM
FB-RSS
Photo - You said it Mr. President, this is an act of CRUELTY when children are ripped from their parents arms. This happens in every single state in our nation EACH AND EVERY DAY! Hillary Clinton, the candidate you are endorsing for the highest position in this country, can claim responsibility for these #TAKEN children due to the American Safe Families Act which she penned and her husband signed into law. This Act has only incentivized states to remove children unjustly due to the fact each state only receives federal bonuses if and only if they increase their adoptions year over year. We are a nation that values keeping families together however CPS agencies across this country DO NOT, NOR do those agencies work at keeping those families together. Mr. President your statement was in regards to immigrant children but shouldn't these words hold true for the citizens of our own nation? #TAKEN #AmericasTakenChildren: You said it Mr. President, this is an act of CRUELTY when children are ripped from their parents arms. This happens in every single state in our nation EACH AND EVERY DAY! Hillary Clinton, the candidate you are endorsing for the highest position in this country, can claim responsibility for these #TAKEN children due to the American Safe Families Act which she penned and her husband signed into law. This Act has only incentivized states to remove children unjustly due to the fact each state only receives federal bonuses if and only if they increase their adoptions year over year. We are a nation that values keeping families together however CPS agencies across this country DO NOT, NOR do those agencies work at keeping those families together. Mr. President your statement was in regards to immigrant children but shouldn't these words hold true for the citizens of our own nation? #TAKEN #AmericasTakenChildren
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2a6fws4
FB-RSS
Phoenix PD: Parents force 6-year-old to stand outside barefoot causing severe burns
... that she was afraid to tell police for fear of having her children taken away due to former Arizona Department of Child Safety involvement in her life.
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2aQOWjH
... that she was afraid to tell police for fear of having her children taken away due to former Arizona Department of Child Safety involvement in her life.
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2aQOWjH
FB-RSS
Photo - Do you tweet? Follow us on Twitter @MelissaDiegel or @jftsisters If you are an avid tweeter we need you on our team!! Please pm us. #MelissaDiegel #OpExposeCPS #JoeyKangarooMeltzer #StopTheFosterGames #KaylaDiegel #HannahDiegel #TheArizonaTeam #OpExposeCPSAZ #TheMothersAreComing #Johnson #FreeChristopher #EspinozasAngels #FireDrSiaw #WhyRUTrying2KillMyKids #KnockKnockJudgeHoffman: Do you tweet? Follow us on Twitter @MelissaDiegel or @jftsisters If you are an avid tweeter we need you on our team!! Please pm us. #MelissaDiegel #OpExposeCPS #JoeyKangarooMeltzer #StopTheFosterGames #KaylaDiegel #HannahDiegel #TheArizonaTeam #OpExposeCPSAZ #TheMothersAreComing #Johnson #FreeChristopher #EspinozasAngels #FireDrSiaw #WhyRUTrying2KillMyKids #KnockKnockJudgeHoffman
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2axhrE6
FB-RSS
#MelissaDiegel http://bit.ly/1OFBNLs
Arizona Mom Still Fighting to Get Her 5 Children Back From the State 2 Years After Accident Arizona mother Aprili Coumpy is still fighting to get her five children, ages 2-17, back from the state. We published her story a year ago. Her children were taken away by the state of Arizona after her…
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2axhBvu
Arizona Mom Still Fighting to Get Her 5 Children Back From the State 2 Years After Accident Arizona mother Aprili Coumpy is still fighting to get her five children, ages 2-17, back from the state. We published her story a year ago. Her children were taken away by the state of Arizona after her…
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2axhBvu
FB-RSS
What about grandparents rights? #TAKEN #AmericasTakenChildren
F4J News - What of Grandparents’ “RIGHTS”? | Fathers 4 Justice Australia Current news keeping fathers aware of world events relating to men, women, family, children, separation and divorce.
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2aiIDcV
F4J News - What of Grandparents’ “RIGHTS”? | Fathers 4 Justice Australia Current news keeping fathers aware of world events relating to men, women, family, children, separation and divorce.
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2aiIDcV
FB-RSS
Arizona mother Aprilli Coumpy is still fighting to get her five children, ages 2-17, back from the state. We published her story a year ago. Her children were taken away by the state of Arizona after her baby was accidentally burned. Her 6 an…
Arizona Mom Still Fighting to Get Her 5 Children Back From the State 2 Years After Accident Arizona mother Aprili Coumpy is still fighting to get her five children, ages 2-17, back from the state. We published her story a year ago. Her children were taken away by the state of Arizona after her…
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2axhBvu
Arizona Mom Still Fighting to Get Her 5 Children Back From the State 2 Years After Accident Arizona mother Aprili Coumpy is still fighting to get her five children, ages 2-17, back from the state. We published her story a year ago. Her children were taken away by the state of Arizona after her…
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2axhBvu
FB-RSS
Fosterarizona a judge's perspective: But please note: Parents are guilty until proven innocent. The system is backwards. When a child is brought in the only thing that is used in the initial hearing is the hearsay testimony from the caseworke…
How Kids Come Into Foster Care When I initially began hearing dependency cases in juvenile court in 2012, there were approximately 12,000 kids in out-of-home placements throughout Arizona. When I left the juvenile court bench i…
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2aki18F
How Kids Come Into Foster Care When I initially began hearing dependency cases in juvenile court in 2012, there were approximately 12,000 kids in out-of-home placements throughout Arizona. When I left the juvenile court bench i…
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2aki18F
FB-RSS
Photo - #OpExposeCps: #OpExposeCps
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2akimIq
FB-RSS
Free range parenting and a case in Florida is discussed in this short audio clip. #TAKEN #AmericasTakenChildren
11-Year-Old Boy Plays in His Yard. CPS Takes Him, Felony Charge for Parents. One afternoon a Florida mom and dad could not get home in time to let their 11-year-old son into the house. So he played basketball in the yard. A neighbor called the cops, and when the parents arrived—they were arrested…
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2aQ905P
11-Year-Old Boy Plays in His Yard. CPS Takes Him, Felony Charge for Parents. One afternoon a Florida mom and dad could not get home in time to let their 11-year-old son into the house. So he played basketball in the yard. A neighbor called the cops, and when the parents arrived—they were arrested…
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2aQ905P
FB-RSS
Hillary is pulling out all the adoption propaganda she can including touting the advantages of selling children. Tear jerk plays for sympathy do not hide the fact that children are being #TAKEN, not because they are abused, but because they a…
Hillary Clinton and the Children | National Adoption Center contributed by Gloria Hochman
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2a5zGm8
Hillary Clinton and the Children | National Adoption Center contributed by Gloria Hochman
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2a5zGm8
FB-RSS
Photo - FACT: The largest settlement in US history involving CPS was awarded by a jury the tune of 500 million dollars. In their lawsuit against the state, Pam & Will Gaston attached the judge's pension and his assets to their suit. This occurred in Oregon where Pamela took on the system pro se. Will's daughter, Melissa had been kidnapped by the state and his young daughter was made to participate in sexual videos by a school teacher at the direction of a CPS agent to falsely frame her father. Their story is ripe with CPS and judicial corruption, stalking, perjury, falsified documents and Pamela's death, which occurred after they won their lawsuit and Wilbur claims was murder. Not one penny has ever been collected after winning the 500 million dollar award. http://bit.ly/2ajOQ5E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0LCc3HB7wE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYCnjSV7bGk: FACT: The largest settlement in US history involving CPS was awarded by a jury the tune of 500 million dollars. In their lawsuit against the state, Pam & Will Gaston attached the judge's pension and his assets to their suit. This occurred in Oregon where Pamela took on the system pro se. Will's daughter, Melissa had been kidnapped by the state and his young daughter was made to participate in sexual videos by a school teacher at the direction of a CPS agent to falsely frame her father. Their story is ripe with CPS and judicial corruption, stalking, perjury, falsified documents and Pamela's death, which occurred after they won their lawsuit and Wilbur claims was murder. Not one penny has ever been collected after winning the 500 million dollar award. http://bit.ly/2ajOQ5E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0LCc3HB7wE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYCnjSV7bGk
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2ajOnQV
FB-RSS
Photo - #opexposevps notice the problem with the system in Alberta in comparison to the other provinces? THIS NEEDS TO CHANGE! this is why the system gets away with murder and sex trafficking, they have nothing to MAKE THEM ACCOUNTABLE!! InDa_Stix http://bit.ly/2aiVnu1: #opexposevps notice the problem with the system in Alberta in comparison to the other provinces? THIS NEEDS TO CHANGE! this is why the system gets away with murder and sex trafficking, they have nothing to MAKE THEM ACCOUNTABLE!! InDa_Stix http://bit.ly/2aiVnu1
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2aiVdmm
FB-RSS
Local Texas media has been reporting the story of the Wartena family, who recently had been returning to California from vacation and stopped in Texas along the way. Tragically, their oldest daughter who was autistic wandered away from their …
California Family Traveling Through Texas Loses Children to CPS After Autistic Daughter Drowns in Accident Local Texas media has been reporting the story of the Wartena family, who recently had been returning to California from vacation and stopped in Texas along the way. Tragically, their oldest…
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2ahpL9B
California Family Traveling Through Texas Loses Children to CPS After Autistic Daughter Drowns in Accident Local Texas media has been reporting the story of the Wartena family, who recently had been returning to California from vacation and stopped in Texas along the way. Tragically, their oldest…
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2ahpL9B
FB-RSS
#MelissaDiegel #OpExposeCPS #JoeyKangarooMeltzer http://bit.ly/1OFBNLs
Grandparent Visitation Law goes into effect Monday A law goes into effect August 1 that could give some grandparents the right to see their grandchildren.It replaces a previous visitation law that was deemed unconstitutional by the Alabama Supreme Court.Opponents said parents have the right choose…
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2aC7O9A
Grandparent Visitation Law goes into effect Monday A law goes into effect August 1 that could give some grandparents the right to see their grandchildren.It replaces a previous visitation law that was deemed unconstitutional by the Alabama Supreme Court.Opponents said parents have the right choose…
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2aC7O9A
FB-RSS
Photo - Live streaming every Monday night at 11:00 pm with Melissa Diegel. Tune in here to this page A Miracle For Two Sisters. #MelissaDiegel http://bit.ly/1OFBNLs http://bit.ly/2aC6ZOm Archived shows: http://bit.ly/2aeOiN8: Live streaming every Monday night at 11:00 pm with Melissa Diegel. Tune in here to this page A Miracle For Two Sisters. #MelissaDiegel http://bit.ly/1OFBNLs http://bit.ly/2aC6ZOm Archived shows: http://bit.ly/2aeOiN8
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2aC6Z0O
FB-RSS
#MelissaDiegel http://bit.ly/1OFBNLs
Social worker: 'Why I falsely accused father of abusing daughter' Suzi Smith has admitted falsely accusing Jonathan Coupland, 53, from Spalding, Lancashire, of attacking his six-year-old child in an official custody case note.
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://dailym.ai/2a4leur
Social worker: 'Why I falsely accused father of abusing daughter' Suzi Smith has admitted falsely accusing Jonathan Coupland, 53, from Spalding, Lancashire, of attacking his six-year-old child in an official custody case note.
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://dailym.ai/2a4leur
FB-RSS
Video - #opexposecps If you`re thinking about cutting off contact between your child and their other parent why not actually consider what parental alienation does to a child, or better yet, think about YOUR CHILD FIRST.! InDa_Stix: #opexposecps If you`re thinking about cutting off contact between your child and their other parent why not actually consider what parental alienation does to a child, or better yet, think about YOUR CHILD FIRST.! InDa_Stix
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2alpdSb
Thursday, July 28, 2016
FB-RSS
burdette et al v. arizona department of child safety et al
View detailed case information for BURDETTE ET AL V. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SAFETY ET AL, a FEDERAL case filed on November 7, ...
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2afC2uR
View detailed case information for BURDETTE ET AL V. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SAFETY ET AL, a FEDERAL case filed on November 7, ...
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2afC2uR
FB-RSS
Our nightmare: Created and nursed thru congress by Hillary Clinton, signed by Bill Clinton, and then perpetrated by corrupt family court judges, caseworkers, district attorney's, CASA, and lawmakers. #TAKEN #AmericasTakenChildren #CorruptFami…
Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 | Children's Bureau | Administration for Children and Families http://bit.ly/2a8CnyI
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2al13HN
Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 | Children's Bureau | Administration for Children and Families http://bit.ly/2a8CnyI
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2al13HN
FB-RSS
As a victim of child sexual abuse I feel this page carries an important message and I encourage you to like and follow Believe the Child. Sexual abuse of children occurs in all quarters of our society by persons we are least likely to suspect…
Believe the Child: Advocating Against Sexual Abuse Delaware Child sexual abuse is a reality and when my daughter disclosed I had no idea how hard it would be this page is for resources PLEASE POST if you have any
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2al0vBD
Believe the Child: Advocating Against Sexual Abuse Delaware Child sexual abuse is a reality and when my daughter disclosed I had no idea how hard it would be this page is for resources PLEASE POST if you have any
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2al0vBD
FB-RSS
Photo - #TAKEN #AmericasTakenChildren: #TAKEN #AmericasTakenChildren
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2al0VI3
FB-RSS
#MelissaDiegel http://bit.ly/1OFBNLs
DCF Audit: Organization falls short of expectations An audit of the Kansas Department of Children & Families' Foster Care and Adoption System finds the organization only implemented one of nine safety-related recommendations for its child protective services function.
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2a3tU4a
DCF Audit: Organization falls short of expectations An audit of the Kansas Department of Children & Families' Foster Care and Adoption System finds the organization only implemented one of nine safety-related recommendations for its child protective services function.
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2a3tU4a
FB-RSS
The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted behind closed doors Tuesday to approve a settlement with the family of Gabriel Fernandez, the 8-year-old Palmdale boy who was beaten to death, allegedly by his mother and her then-boyfriend. T…
LA County Board approves settlement over 8-year-old’s death in Palmdale The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted behind closed doors Tuesday to approve a settlement with the family of Gabriel Fernandez, the 8-year-old Palmdale boy who was beaten to death, allegedly by his mother and her…
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2aO8yVF
LA County Board approves settlement over 8-year-old’s death in Palmdale The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted behind closed doors Tuesday to approve a settlement with the family of Gabriel Fernandez, the 8-year-old Palmdale boy who was beaten to death, allegedly by his mother and her…
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2aO8yVF
FB-RSS
Photo - #TAKEN #AmericasTakenChildren: #TAKEN #AmericasTakenChildren
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2aO87dU
FB-RSS
#OpExposeCps #ctv Children as young as ten are selling themselves on the street for sex. In this article it mentions that it is the economic down fall that is having kids turn to the streets and sell them selves for sex. I am sweetAnOn and I …
Edmonton kids sold as sex workers, as teen prostitution becomes more common Some children who haven't yet reached their teens are being recruited for sex work in Edmonton, as child prostitution becomes more prevalent because of the economic downturn, say front-line workers in social service…
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2a3tPxD
Edmonton kids sold as sex workers, as teen prostitution becomes more common Some children who haven't yet reached their teens are being recruited for sex work in Edmonton, as child prostitution becomes more prevalent because of the economic downturn, say front-line workers in social service…
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2a3tPxD
FB-RSS
In fact, faking maladies of one sort or another are so common that there's a website tracking them, along with other fundraising scams. GoFraudMe specifically looks at fake GoFundMe campaigns. According to the site, GoFundMe raised more than …
Ex-beauty queen faked cancer to get US$30Gs Brandi Lee Weaver-Gates does not have cancer.
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2aO89Tb
Ex-beauty queen faked cancer to get US$30Gs Brandi Lee Weaver-Gates does not have cancer.
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2aO89Tb
FB-RSS
#MelissaDiegel http://bit.ly/1OFBNLs
Due to the reckless behavior of the Kansas DCF a father is dead and mom Due to the reckless and unregulated behavior of the Kansas DCF a father is dead and a mother still lays in SICU. The Kansas DCF has fallen under heavy
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2aA1u2U
Due to the reckless behavior of the Kansas DCF a father is dead and mom Due to the reckless and unregulated behavior of the Kansas DCF a father is dead and a mother still lays in SICU. The Kansas DCF has fallen under heavy
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2aA1u2U
FB-RSS
Low cost health insurance restored to 30,000 children on July 26th 2016. Thank you legislators. This is a federal program that does not cost the state any money. The program is called kidscare! #MelissaDiegel http://bit.ly/1OFBNLs
Ducey signs bill restoring kids health insurance More than 30,000 Arizona children from low-income families will be eligible for health insurance after a lightning-quick revival of KidsCare, which appeared all but dead earlier this week.
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2aBVAuZ
Ducey signs bill restoring kids health insurance More than 30,000 Arizona children from low-income families will be eligible for health insurance after a lightning-quick revival of KidsCare, which appeared all but dead earlier this week.
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2aBVAuZ
FB-RSS
Photo - #MelissaDiegel http://bit.ly/1OFBNLs: #MelissaDiegel http://bit.ly/1OFBNLs
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2aBVKTg
FB-RSS
As a parent myself I can’t imagine anything more horrible than losing my children. They are my world and my reason for being. But when I hear stories of child abuse, violence, neglect or sexual abuse it makes me feel physically ill. Parents…
Could we all be accused of bad parenting? As a parent myself I can’t imagine anything more horrible than losing my children. They are my world and my reason for being. But when I hear stories of child abuse, violence, neglect or sexual abuse it makes me feel physically ill. Parents who do that…
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2aA1MXs
Could we all be accused of bad parenting? As a parent myself I can’t imagine anything more horrible than losing my children. They are my world and my reason for being. But when I hear stories of child abuse, violence, neglect or sexual abuse it makes me feel physically ill. Parents who do that…
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2aA1MXs
FB-RSS
Photo - #TAKEN #AmericasTakenChildren: #TAKEN #AmericasTakenChildren
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2aes1hR
FB-RSS
Kansas' audit report of their foster care system raises concerns and one legislator is calling for Kansas DCF's Director, Phyllis Gilmore's resignation. #TAKEN #AmericasTakenChildren
Audit levels serious accusations against Kansas foster care system A new audit is leveling serious allegations against the Kansas Department of Children and Families.
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2aA5Q9J
Audit levels serious accusations against Kansas foster care system A new audit is leveling serious allegations against the Kansas Department of Children and Families.
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2aA5Q9J
FB-RSS
One of the victims, who was 11 when the abuse began, said in a letter read in court that Hicks raped her more than two dozen times in a nine-month span. The girl said she would stay awake at night because she was afraid Hicks would come in an…
Central Point foster parent sentenced for raping 3 girls in his care Samuel Hicks was running a therapeutic foster home in Central Point when the crimes occurred, Jackson County court documents show.
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2acPmB2
Central Point foster parent sentenced for raping 3 girls in his care Samuel Hicks was running a therapeutic foster home in Central Point when the crimes occurred, Jackson County court documents show.
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2acPmB2
FB-RSS
http://bit.ly/2acOTyW
Sex allegations led to Tootoo’s ouster from Liberal caucus Sex allegations led to Tootoo’s ouster from Liberal caucus
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2aA6X9o
Sex allegations led to Tootoo’s ouster from Liberal caucus Sex allegations led to Tootoo’s ouster from Liberal caucus
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2aA6X9o
FB-RSS
Photo - #MelissaDiegel http://bit.ly/1OFBNLs: #MelissaDiegel http://bit.ly/1OFBNLs
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2aeDsdZ
FB-RSS
#MelissaDiegel #OpExposeCPS http://bit.ly/1OFBNLs
Out-of-home spending outweighs Arizona's DCS prevention costs The Arizona Department of Child Safety continues to overfund foster care, underfund prevention, report shows
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2atmxRU
Out-of-home spending outweighs Arizona's DCS prevention costs The Arizona Department of Child Safety continues to overfund foster care, underfund prevention, report shows
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2atmxRU
FB-RSS
A Miracle For Two Sisters
This page and Melissa Diegel's page have been severely hacked. In order to receive notices you will have to continually rehit the like button/ and the follow button at A Miracle for Two Sisters or visit Melissa's page often. Thank you for your continued support. If it ask you to type in a password....exit out of there immediately and try again. You should never have to enter in your Facebook password to follow a page. Right now instead of reaching in the thousands it has been reaching only hundreds of people for the last 5 days. ~ Melissa Diegel
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2axSxr5
This page and Melissa Diegel's page have been severely hacked. In order to receive notices you will have to continually rehit the like button/ and the follow button at A Miracle for Two Sisters or visit Melissa's page often. Thank you for your continued support. If it ask you to type in a password....exit out of there immediately and try again. You should never have to enter in your Facebook password to follow a page. Right now instead of reaching in the thousands it has been reaching only hundreds of people for the last 5 days. ~ Melissa Diegel
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2axSxr5
Wednesday, July 27, 2016
FB-RSS
People in Alabama connected to the Prince family story that Health Impact News has been reporting on since the seizure of the new-born baby born to a 14 year-old alleged rape victim while still in the hospital, have reported to us that everyo…
Reporter Relates First-hand View of Corruption and Child Kidnapping in Alabama Shelby County Court House People in Alabama connected to the Prince family story that Health Impact News has been reporting on since the seizure of the new-born baby born to a 14 year-old alleged rape victim while still…
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2ais0fa
Reporter Relates First-hand View of Corruption and Child Kidnapping in Alabama Shelby County Court House People in Alabama connected to the Prince family story that Health Impact News has been reporting on since the seizure of the new-born baby born to a 14 year-old alleged rape victim while still…
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2ais0fa
FB-RSS
#MelissaDiegel http://bit.ly/1OFBNLs
AZ doctor indicted on felony fraud, drug charges, attorney general says The state attorney general’s office said Dr. Harinder Kumar Takyar prescribed drugs without no medical necessity and also paid money to people in the medical field for patient referrals.
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2a647UK
AZ doctor indicted on felony fraud, drug charges, attorney general says The state attorney general’s office said Dr. Harinder Kumar Takyar prescribed drugs without no medical necessity and also paid money to people in the medical field for patient referrals.
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2a647UK
FB-RSS
#MelissaDiegel http://bit.ly/1OFBNLs
Capitol Hill Briefing Set for August 2 - Parentalrights.org - Protecting Children by Empowering Parents Capitol Hill Briefing Set for August 2-- July 26, 2016 ParentalRights.org is excited to announce that we will be hosting a Capitol Hill briefing on Passing the Parental Rights Amendment: Why…
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2airg9B
Capitol Hill Briefing Set for August 2 - Parentalrights.org - Protecting Children by Empowering Parents Capitol Hill Briefing Set for August 2-- July 26, 2016 ParentalRights.org is excited to announce that we will be hosting a Capitol Hill briefing on Passing the Parental Rights Amendment: Why…
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2airg9B
FB-RSS
DCS SPECIALIST Job Openings in Prescott, AZ - State of Arizona Recruitment 2016
A New Beginning for Arizona's Children DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SAFETY SPECIALIST 1000 Ainsworth Prescott, Arizona 86301 www.dcs.az.gov
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2arJm8t
A New Beginning for Arizona's Children DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SAFETY SPECIALIST 1000 Ainsworth Prescott, Arizona 86301 www.dcs.az.gov
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2arJm8t
FB-RSS
NASHVILLE, Tenn. - The Department of Children's Services was named in a civil lawsuit involving a former caseworker charged with sexual battery, accusing the department of negligence. #TAKEN #AmericasTakenChildren
DCS Names In Sexual Battery Lawsuit Involving Former Caseworker DCS was named in a civil lawsuit involving a former caseworker charged with sexual battery, accusing the department of negligence.
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2acYlq7
DCS Names In Sexual Battery Lawsuit Involving Former Caseworker DCS was named in a civil lawsuit involving a former caseworker charged with sexual battery, accusing the department of negligence.
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2acYlq7
FB-RSS
Photo - #TAKEN #AmericasTakenChildren: #TAKEN #AmericasTakenChildren
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2anQtQT
FB-RSS
Quote from Phyllis Gilmore, the head of DCF in the following article: “The Kansas Department for Children and Families has no tolerance for anyone taking advantage of vulnerable families.” REALLY Phyllis??? You cannot possibly be serious!…
Foster care contractor has begun review after sexual harassment lawsuit A Kansas foster care and family preservation contractor said it has begun an internal review of allegations raised in a federal lawsuit that one of its caseworkers sexually harassed and coerced a mother seeking to regain…
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2ayxYHt
Foster care contractor has begun review after sexual harassment lawsuit A Kansas foster care and family preservation contractor said it has begun an internal review of allegations raised in a federal lawsuit that one of its caseworkers sexually harassed and coerced a mother seeking to regain…
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2ayxYHt
FB-RSS
Photo - #TAKEN #AmericasTakenChildren: #TAKEN #AmericasTakenChildren
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2aenieF
FB-RSS
Former foster child, survivor, and activist Trinity Slack bravely steps forward to tell her story of abuse and rape in foster care. We must reach foster children where they are to let them know they have family who loves them and waiting for …
Wall Post in the year of 2011-2012 i was removed from my mothers care because she asked for help from the DHS office in Stantion Mi. for housing fit for her kids and her to live in and that fit our budget they placed me with my father and step mother for about 7 months at that time i was kicked…
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2a02QCX
Wall Post in the year of 2011-2012 i was removed from my mothers care because she asked for help from the DHS office in Stantion Mi. for housing fit for her kids and her to live in and that fit our budget they placed me with my father and step mother for about 7 months at that time i was kicked…
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2a02QCX
FB-RSS
Photo - #MelissaDiegel #OpExposeCPS http://bit.ly/1OFBNLs: #MelissaDiegel #OpExposeCPS http://bit.ly/1OFBNLs
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2ahaqs2
FB-RSS
Photo - #MelissaDiegel #OpExposeCPS http://bit.ly/1OFBNLs: #MelissaDiegel #OpExposeCPS http://bit.ly/1OFBNLs
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2a4MXGT
FB-RSS
Hillary actually had the nerve to recruit an adopter to the convention to speak on behalf of the crimes of The Adoption and Safe Families Act like it is some sacred mission from God. We know the truth about the Adoption and Safe Families Act:…
Daniele Mellott Daniele Mellott spoke about her support for Hillary Clinton and her work helping families with adopted children.
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://cs.pn/2ahamZf
Daniele Mellott Daniele Mellott spoke about her support for Hillary Clinton and her work helping families with adopted children.
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://cs.pn/2ahamZf
FB-RSS
Texas is a mess! In this particular case, riddled with blatant neglect by the state for this girl, Centene which is the company who handles Medicaid for Texas denied a nurse to provide and administer the insulin that this foster child needed.…
Nightmare Keeps Repeating for Girl In Texas Foster Care System Less than 24 hours after state child welfare workers were warned of the risks of suddenly relocating a 16-year-old foster care child with severe medical and psychological problems to a new home, the girl was hospitalized, and her…
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2a4MIMi
Nightmare Keeps Repeating for Girl In Texas Foster Care System Less than 24 hours after state child welfare workers were warned of the risks of suddenly relocating a 16-year-old foster care child with severe medical and psychological problems to a new home, the girl was hospitalized, and her…
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2a4MIMi
FB-RSS
Photo - One of the hundreds of thousands of mothers who have lost their children is protesting today. This is her message. #TAKEN #AmericasTakenChildren: One of the hundreds of thousands of mothers who have lost their children is protesting today. This is her message. #TAKEN #AmericasTakenChildren
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2a4NgBD
FB-RSS
Photo - #TAKEN #AmericasTakenChildren: #TAKEN #AmericasTakenChildren
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2a4NfNW
FB-RSS
The family who lost their little girl to a drowning accident last week and had their other children removed by CPS have had those children returned after one was injured in foster care. #TAKEN #AmericasTakenChildren
Wartena children returned to family amid injury accusation Four children removed from their parents after their oldest sibling drowned last week have been returned to their family, according to attorney Jesse Quackenbush.
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2ahaqbw
Wartena children returned to family amid injury accusation Four children removed from their parents after their oldest sibling drowned last week have been returned to their family, according to attorney Jesse Quackenbush.
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2ahaqbw
FB-RSS
Traffickers use fear and abuse to coerce their victims to cooperate. Jessica Midkiff, currently a consultant for the county probation office, shares her story of the hell she lived as a victim of trafficking. She witnessed “girls in dog cag…
Human Trafficking: Foster Children in L.A. | NCRP eJournal As many as 400,000 children in the U.S. are being forced into sex slavery each year according to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO, 2011) estimates. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)…
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2a4MR2h
Human Trafficking: Foster Children in L.A. | NCRP eJournal As many as 400,000 children in the U.S. are being forced into sex slavery each year according to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO, 2011) estimates. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)…
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2a4MR2h
FB-RSS
Video - New theme song for no gov. (*Limited*) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqP76XWHQI0: New theme song for no gov. (*Limited*) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqP76XWHQI0
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqP76XWHQI0&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook
FB-RSS
Video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OawiTae0bA: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OawiTae0bA
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OawiTae0bA&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook
FB-RSS
#NeverGiveUp #Love #Hope #Arizona #Anonymous #OpCPSArizona Nobody has the right to take our children. Not the government nor the other parent. Fight for ur rights and never give up.
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2aq0dst
FB-RSS
"Alabama DHR Continues to Destroy Family of 14 Year Old Rape Victim "They just make it up as they go along." That is what more than one person told Health Impact News about Alabama Shelby County DHR's treatment of the Prince family. Friends o…
Alabama DHR Continues to Destroy Family of 14 Year Old Rape Victim "They just make it up as they go along." That is what more than one person told Health Impact News about Alabama Shelby County DHR's treatment of the Prince
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2abfsZj
Alabama DHR Continues to Destroy Family of 14 Year Old Rape Victim "They just make it up as they go along." That is what more than one person told Health Impact News about Alabama Shelby County DHR's treatment of the Prince
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2abfsZj
FB-RSS
Reason for Protest: To bring awareness to the corruption and fraudulent acts of Family Courts and Child Protective Services. Our children, parents and families are being abused, destroyed and in some cases, murdered while the APA maintains its "no policy" policy, which we believe contributes to the problem which consist with the corruption within the system that is supposed to be in the best interest of our children and families. We ask for a conference: http://bit.ly/2aq0FXI Sponsors: Truth Exposed, Central Ohio Parental Alienation, the National Alliance of Targeted Parents. In support of a petition: http://bit.ly/new-apa-position-statement In support of the NATP Strategic Plan to Fight Child Psychological Abuse (see the NATP Facebook page) http://bit.ly/2abeYCq Peaceful, polite protests also to be held simultaneously at State APA Headquarters and at Psychological Organizations around the world: http://bit.ly/2aq0ewx Sign/Poster Themes: - "Collusion with Delusion Must Stop" - "Mental Health Must Not Be Complicit in Child Abuse" - "Pathogenic Parenting is Child Abuse" http://bit.ly/2abfz7a 1. A parent beat/drowned their children to death rather than let the other parent see them. The APA has neither acknowledged the obvious motive nor condemned the motive, by virtue of its “no position” policy: http://on.11alive.com/2aq0P1i 2. Another parent shot their children rather than let them see the other parent. The APA has neither acknowledged the obvious motive nor condemned the motive, by virtue of its "no position" policy: http://cbsloc.al/2abfeBt 3. A parent manipulated a child to enter into a suicide pact, rather than let the child see their other parent. The APA has neither acknowledged the obvious motive nor condemned the suicide pact, by virtue of its “no position” policy: http://bit.ly/2aq0cEZ 4. Since we first contacted the APA to request a revision of the APA policy on parental alienation, a child was diagnosed with cancer and died. The child was denied an opportunity for one of his parents to tell him how much he loved him. A hospital administrator misinterpreted the hospital's policy. The APA is unable to condemn this tragedy by virtue of its “no position” policy. The parent is one of the protestors. 5. A teen says she had been manipulated/controlled to say she hated her other parent. The APA has neither acknowledged nor condemned this manipulation, by virtue of its "no position" policy: https://youtu.be/MzwOmSLL0Pc 6. The APA has not responded to the testimony of a teen, who says "And then the child therapists. What did they do? Nothing! What therapy can you give to children who are suffering because they’re not allowed to see their [other parent]? What complete rubbish. They should’ve enforced it, and I was taken to see three of them. They should’ve given therapy to my [parent], so [they would have] let us go, without terror: http://bit.ly/2abfxMM 7. The APA has neither acknowledged nor condemned this incident in front of the Dallas Courthouse, by virtue of it's "no position" policy: https://youtu.be/f-0aneFygOo 8. The APA has not acknowledge that this can and does occur in "intact" families: http://bit.ly/2aq0oUK 9. By virtue of its "no position" policy, the APA cannot admit that if a parent causes a child to have developmental problems (attachment suppression), psychotic symptoms (fixed false believes about a parent), and some personality disorder traits (splitting, grandiosity, lack of empathy, haughty arrogance, and entitlement), that it rises to the level of Child Psychological Abuse (V995.51), which is defined as significant psychological harm to a child, especially when that parent is displaying the same basic symptoms: http://bit.ly/2abeZX8 10. The APA admits that "Childhood Psychological Abuse as Harmful as Sexual or Physical Abuse" but has not discharged its self proclaimed charter, the "dissemination of psychological knowledge about child abuse and neglect to the public, the state associations, and the divisions"; http://bit.ly/2aq0qfk http://bit.ly/2abfy3i 11. The left hand of the APA has a "no position" policy, while the right hand of the APA publishes associated peer reviewed research in its journals and publishes the 2015 "APA Handbook on Forensic Psychology, Volume 2" that acknowledges that existence of "parental alienation": http://bit.ly/2aq0sU7 12. The APA has not acknowledged that if a child is fine, but then after their parent’s relationship conflict, displays developmental issues, psychotic symptoms, and personality disorder symptoms, when the same symptoms and worse are displayed by a parent, it rises to the level of Child Psychological Abuse DSM V V995.51: http://bit.ly/2abeZX8 13. The APA has not acknowledge that severe "parental alienation", perhaps more accurately called pathogenic parenting, is simply a "manifestation of well understood pathologies", each of which has "substantial empirical support in the established literature of professional psychology": http://bit.ly/2abffWf 14. The APA has neither condemned nor acknowledged the horror of 3 children that is documented in "Victims of Another War", by virtue of its "no position" policy: https://youtu.be/9z-Tfs2C3hU 15. The APA admits that their current policy gets misinterpreted but has not updated it: http://bit.ly/2aq1Xlc 16. The APA admits that the task force report on which the current policy is based is "outdated" and "in need of review" , and declines to make it available, but has not updated its policy: http://bit.ly/2abfgJp 17. The APA has failed to acknowledge the testimony of Joe Rabiega, who told Newsweek: “It was like my [other parent] did not exist. My [aligned parent] brainwashed me to believe that the only parent figure or family member that mattered was [my aligned parent],” adding that his [aligned parent] would often tell him that if he didn’t do what he was told, no one would want him. His [aligned parent] also routinely threatened to kill himself" ... “I was trapped in this delusional world my [aligned parent] created.” http://bit.ly/2aq0SKg 18. The APA has not acknowledge the testimony of Ryan Thomas, who tells how he was manipulated to reject a parent in extensive video commentary: http://bit.ly/2abfvEE 19. While the APA maintains its "no position" policy, even an outspoken leading critic admits that " "I do not deny that parental alienation occurs and that a lot of people are hurt when there is an alienator." http://bit.ly/2aq0BHd 20. The "Big APA" has not kept pace with the "Little APA" in acknowledging what disordered parenting is like: http://bit.ly/2abfe4D 21. The APA has not acknowledged Dr. Miller's statements that a. "severe parental alienation cases are the most profoundly counter intuitive diagnosis in clinical science , even surpassing borderline personality disorders cases" (which is ironic because BPD/NPD is just one of the pathologies involved in pathogenic parenting ) b. "non-experts almost always get it exactly backwards" http://bit.ly/2aq0Wdh Dr. Miller teaches clinical decision making at Harvard Medical 22. By virtue of its 'no position" policy, the APA has not condemned an event, where, according to multiple investigations by 60 Minutes, much of the press in Australia was fooled, where later the children admitted there was no abuse: http://bit.ly/2abfbFE 23. Dr. Jennifer Harmon from APA Divisions 8, 9, and 39, says that "parental alienation is domestic violence." She has amassed vast empirical evidence and says that gender and parenting stereotypes fuel parental alienation, as described in this TED Talk: https://youtu.be/v3YdldNXZnQ 24. The APA is unable, by virtue of its "no position" policy, to condemn the following alienation scenario documented by CNN, where the alienated parent is squeaky clean before custodial interference caused the children to completely reject their parent: http://bit.ly/2aq03kG 25. Spoiler Alert for the Force Awakens: Since we contacted the APA about its "no position" policy, Hollywood released an alienation themed movie and pulled in $2 billion. Smoke manipulates Kylo Ren, as explained in depth here: https://youtu.be/m0EKkcN7r9s 26. The top US Law Enforcement expert in child sexual abuse, FBI special agent Ken Lanning, writing in a training manual for police, noted an extreme reluctance of people to believe the child sexual abuse could have happened. This tendency underlies each of the failure to report scandals. We believe there is a similar tendency in child psychological abuse, making it nearly impossible for people to accept that a parent could go a little delusional and harm their child. The exact quote is "Last and most importantly" .... "Regardless of intelligence and education and often despite common sense and evidence to the contrary, adults tend to believe what they want or need to believe. The greater the need, the greater the tendency." A PhD does not make someone immune to this natural tendency. http://bit.ly/2abfaS7 27. In many cases, entire sides of families are cut off. Grandparents no longer see their grandchildren. Children no longer benefit from relationships with grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins. Frequently, the beloved family pet is rejected also. We ask the APA "What exactly did Fido do to be rejected"? "What criticisms does the APA wish to send Fido"? 28. A parent has told a very typical, tragic story, which the APA is unable to admit is tragic, by virtue of its "no position" policy. There are thousands more of similar stories: http://bit.ly/2aq0XO8 A permit with the Washington DC Metropolitan Police is "in press". Logistics: The APA building is right next to Union Station, which has a DC Metro Stop. Google maps show it as a 0.2 mile walk (5 minutes). Press: The CNN building in Washington is only 187 feet away from the APA. We will be protesting on both sides of the building, including in front of CNN: http://bit.ly/2abfkZN
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2aq0WK5
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2aq0WK5
FB-RSS
Photo - #TAKEN #AmericasTakenChildren: #TAKEN #AmericasTakenChildren
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2aq124w
FB-RSS
Photo - Our post reach this week(so far). A big thank you to Jenn Mallory, Kristy Huggins, Terra Coyne Everett, Mark Mumma, and the contributors to our page. When you give us links and story ideas you are helping raise awareness of the crisis in the corrupt family court and child protective services. Together we will make a difference for our #TAKEN children. UNITE and FIGHT!!! #TAKEN #AmericasTakenChildren #NeverStopLooking #Coming4YouJake #Kids4Cash #CorruptFamilyCourts #CPSfail: Our post reach this week(so far). A big thank you to Jenn Mallory, Kristy Huggins, Terra Coyne Everett, Mark Mumma, and the contributors to our page. When you give us links and story ideas you are helping raise awareness of the crisis in the corrupt family court and child protective services. Together we will make a difference for our #TAKEN children. UNITE and FIGHT!!! #TAKEN #AmericasTakenChildren #NeverStopLooking #Coming4YouJake #Kids4Cash #CorruptFamilyCourts #CPSfail
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2aq0WK7
FB-RSS
Photo - # OpExposeCps If you care then call and demand answers now!: # OpExposeCps If you care then call and demand answers now!
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2aq0YSc
FB-RSS
Photo - #OpExposeCps: #OpExposeCps
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2aq1X4G
Tuesday, July 26, 2016
FB-RSS
Video - Jennifer Winn gives an update on Amanda Hunt, the parent who was in a horrific car accident days ago. Our thoughts and prayers are with Amanda and her children at this most difficult time. *Yesterday a post about the accident along with a pic of Amanda was posted on this page after it was both seen in a group and sent to an administrator. It was brought to our attention by Jennifer Winn that Amanda did not give permission to use it and in hindsight we agree, Jennifer is absolutely right therefore it's been removed from this page. #AmericasTakenChildren: Jennifer Winn gives an update on Amanda Hunt, the parent who was in a horrific car accident days ago. Our thoughts and prayers are with Amanda and her children at this most difficult time. *Yesterday a post about the accident along with a pic of Amanda was posted on this page after it was both seen in a group and sent to an administrator. It was brought to our attention by Jennifer Winn that Amanda did not give permission to use it and in hindsight we agree, Jennifer is absolutely right therefore it's been removed from this page. #AmericasTakenChildren
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2a3Vmv2
FB-RSS
#TAKEN
Adoptees in Search - Colorado's Triad Connection (AIS-CTC) Established in 1975, AIS-CTC is Colorado's leading community resource for search assistance, emotional support, post-reunion process and legislative reform.
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2ancDBe
Adoptees in Search - Colorado's Triad Connection (AIS-CTC) Established in 1975, AIS-CTC is Colorado's leading community resource for search assistance, emotional support, post-reunion process and legislative reform.
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2ancDBe
FB-RSS
#MelissaDiegel #OpExposeCPS http://bit.ly/1OFBNLs
Valerie Borum Smith: Prevention funding for at-risk families could keep kids out of foster care As a pediatrician working with at-risk families and children in foster care in east Texas, I am increasingly concerned about the inconsistencies in the care they receive and the resources available to…
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2a8mu0M
Valerie Borum Smith: Prevention funding for at-risk families could keep kids out of foster care As a pediatrician working with at-risk families and children in foster care in east Texas, I am increasingly concerned about the inconsistencies in the care they receive and the resources available to…
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2a8mu0M
FB-RSS
NATIONAL CALL TO ACTION; WRITE THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN; "I have emailed Mr. Trump a several page letter containing what I have found in my research regarding the financial scam backing the child welfare divisions, and, the involvement of the Clint…
SHOW YOUR SUPPORT FOR DONALD TRUMP Donald J. Trump is the very definition of the American success story, continually setting the standards of excellence in business, real estate and entertainment. Show support for his presidential campaign here.
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2ars26C
SHOW YOUR SUPPORT FOR DONALD TRUMP Donald J. Trump is the very definition of the American success story, continually setting the standards of excellence in business, real estate and entertainment. Show support for his presidential campaign here.
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2ars26C
FB-RSS
A Miracle For Two Sisters
Important to note in the Diegel case that on July 8th 2014 judge Lisa Flores ordered for the state to disclose all discovery and Medical records within 10 days. The state never complied and despite additional motions to hold the state in contempt and/or allow Melissa to receive discovery judge Hoffman denied it. In addition, there are multiple ways to ask for discovery 1. it had already been ordered by a previous judge. 2. to receive due process and for trial rules it is required to disclose certain things to the other party. 3. I had filed properly for disclosure. Judge Hoffman then stated I needed to subpoena under rule 45. Funny but not really because I had had three private attorneys that subpoenaed records. In addition, at one point judge Hoffman had forced a state-appointed attorney on me and why didn't she subpoena the records? Right now I am in the court of appeals and they still will not release the records to me. I am representing myself now. Here we are two and a half years later.... Serial killers have been able to represent themselves in the court of law and have had full access to their records. But not me with no criminal history??? One of the reasons the State of Arizona is hiding the records is because my daughters are on a drug trial. What you have done is hide criminal behavior! #KnockKnockJudgeHoffman #MelissaDiegel Cornell University Law school Rule 45. Subpoena (a) In General. (1) Form and Contents. (A) Requirements—In General. Every subpoena must: (i) state the court from which it issued; (ii) state the title of the action and its civil-action number; (iii) command each person to whom it is directed to do the following at a specified time and place: attend and testify; produce designated documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things in that person's possession, custody, or control; or permit the inspection of premises; and (iv) set out the text of Rule 45(d) and (e). (B) Command to Attend a Deposition—Notice of the Recording Method. A subpoena commanding attendance at a deposition must state the method for recording the testimony. (C) Combining or Separating a Command to Produce or to Permit Inspection; Specifying the Form for Electronically Stored Information. A command to produce documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things or to permit the inspection of premises may be included in a subpoena commanding attendance at a deposition, hearing, or trial, or may be set out in a separate subpoena. A subpoena may specify the form or forms in which electronically stored information is to be produced. (D) Command to Produce; Included Obligations. A command in a subpoena to produce documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things requires the responding person to permit inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of the materials. (2) Issuing Court. A subpoena must issue from the court where the action is pending. (3) Issued by Whom. The clerk must issue a subpoena, signed but otherwise in blank, to a party who requests it. That party must complete it before service. An attorney also may issue and sign a subpoena if the attorney is authorized to practice in the issuing court. (4) Notice to Other Parties Before Service. If the subpoena commands the production of documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things or the inspection of premises before trial, then before it is served on the person to whom it is directed, a notice and a copy of the subpoena must be served on each party. (b) Service. (1) By Whom and How; Tendering Fees. Any person who is at least 18 years old and not a party may serve a subpoena. Serving a subpoena requires delivering a copy to the named person and, if the subpoena requires that person's attendance, tendering the fees for 1 day's attendance and the mileage allowed by law. Fees and mileage need not be tendered when the subpoena issues on behalf of the United States or any of its officers or agencies. (2) Service in the United States. A subpoena may be served at any place within the United States. (3) Service in a Foreign Country. 28 U.S.C. §1783 governs issuing and serving a subpoena directed to a United States national or resident who is in a foreign country. (4) Proof of Service. Proving service, when necessary, requires filing with the issuing court a statement showing the date and manner of service and the names of the persons served. The statement must be certified by the server. (c) Place of Compliance. (1) For a Trial, Hearing, or Deposition. A subpoena may command a person to attend a trial, hearing, or deposition only as follows: (A) within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person; or (B) within the state where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person, if the person (i) is a party or a party's officer; or (ii) is commanded to attend a trial and would not incur substantial expense. (2) For Other Discovery. A subpoena may command: (A) production of documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things at a place within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person; and (B) inspection of premises at the premises to be inspected. (d) Protecting a Person Subject to a Subpoena; Enforcement. (1) Avoiding Undue Burden or Expense; Sanctions. A party or attorney responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the subpoena. The court for the district where compliance is required must enforce this duty and impose an appropriate sanction—which may include lost earnings and reasonable attorney's fees—on a party or attorney who fails to comply. (2) Command to Produce Materials or Permit Inspection. (A) Appearance Not Required. A person commanded to produce documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things, or to permit the inspection of premises, need not appear in person at the place of production or inspection unless also commanded to appear for a deposition, hearing, or trial. (B) Objections. A person commanded to produce documents or tangible things or to permit inspection may serve on the party or attorney designated in the subpoena a written objection to inspecting, copying, testing or sampling any or all of the materials or to inspecting the premises—or to producing electronically stored information in the form or forms requested. The objection must be served before the earlier of the time specified for compliance or 14 days after the subpoena is served. If an objection is made, the following rules apply: (i) At any time, on notice to the commanded person, the serving party may move the court for the district where compliance is required for an order compelling production or inspection. (ii) These acts may be required only as directed in the order, and the order must protect a person who is neither a party nor a party's officer from significant expense resulting from compliance. (3) Quashing or Modifying a Subpoena. (A) When Required. On timely motion, the court for the district where compliance is required must quash or modify a subpoena that: (i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply; (ii) requires a person to comply beyond the geographical limits specified in Rule 45(c); (iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or waiver applies; or (iv) subjects a person to undue burden. (B) When Permitted. To protect a person subject to or affected by a subpoena, the court for the district where compliance is required may, on motion, quash or modify the subpoena if it requires: (i) disclosing a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information; or (ii) disclosing an unretained expert's opinion or information that does not describe specific occurrences in dispute and results from the expert's study that was not requested by a party. (C) Specifying Conditions as an Alternative. In the circumstances described in Rule 45(d)(3)(B), the court may, instead of quashing or modifying a subpoena, order appearance or production under specified conditions if the serving party: (i) shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be otherwise met without undue hardship; and (ii) ensures that the subpoenaed person will be reasonably compensated. (e) Duties in Responding to a Subpoena. (1) Producing Documents or Electronically Stored Information. These procedures apply to producing documents or electronically stored information: (A) Documents. A person responding to a subpoena to produce documents must produce them as they are kept in the ordinary course of business or must organize and label them to correspond to the categories in the demand. (B) Form for Producing Electronically Stored Information Not Specified. If a subpoena does not specify a form for producing electronically stored information, the person responding must produce it in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms. (C) Electronically Stored Information Produced in Only One Form. The person responding need not produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form. (D) Inaccessible Electronically Stored Information. The person responding need not provide discovery of electronically stored information from sources that the person identifies as not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. On motion to compel discovery or for a protective order, the person responding must show that the information is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. If that showing is made, the court may nonetheless order discovery from such sources if the requesting party shows good cause, considering the limitations of Rule 26(b)(2)(C). The court may specify conditions for the discovery. (2) Claiming Privilege or Protection. (A) Information Withheld. A person withholding subpoenaed information under a claim that it is privileged or subject to protection as trial-preparation material must: (i) expressly make the claim; and (ii) describe the nature of the withheld documents, communications, or tangible things in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable the parties to assess the claim. (B) Information Produced. If information produced in response to a subpoena is subject to a claim of privilege or of protection as trial-preparation material, the person making the claim may notify any party that received the information of the claim and the basis for it. After being notified, a party must promptly return, sequester, or destroy the specified information and any copies it has; must not use or disclose the information until the claim is resolved; must take reasonable steps to retrieve the information if the party disclosed it before being notified; and may promptly present the information under seal to the court for the district where compliance is required for a determination of the claim. The person who produced the information must preserve the information until the claim is resolved. (f) Transferring a Subpoena-Related Motion. When the court where compliance is required did not issue the subpoena, it may transfer a motion under this rule to the issuing court if the person subject to the subpoena consents or if the court finds exceptional circumstances. Then, if the attorney for a person subject to a subpoena is authorized to practice in the court where the motion was made, the attorney may file papers and appear on the motion as an officer of the issuing court. To enforce its order, the issuing court may transfer the order to the court where the motion was made. (g) Contempt. The court for the district where compliance is required — and also, after a motion is transferred, the issuing court — may hold in contempt a person who, having been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey the subpoena or an order related to it. Notes (As amended Dec. 27, 1946, eff. Mar. 19, 1948; Dec. 29, 1948, eff. Oct. 20, 1949; Mar. 30, 1970, eff. July 1, 1970; Apr. 29, 1980, eff. Aug. 1, 1980; Apr. 29, 1985, eff. Aug. 1, 1985; Mar. 2, 1987, eff. Aug. 1, 1987; Apr. 30, 1991, eff. Dec. 1, 1991; Apr. 25, 2005, eff. Dec. 1, 2005; Apr. 12, 2006, eff. Dec. 1, 2006; Apr. 30, 2007, eff. Dec. 1, 2007; Apr. 16, 2013, eff. Dec. 1, 2013.) Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1937 This rule applies to subpoenas ad testificandum and duces tecum issued by the district courts for attendance at a hearing or a trial, or to take depositions. It does not apply to the enforcement of subpoenas issued by administrative officers and commissions pursuant to statutory authority. The enforcement of such subpoenas by the district courts is regulated by appropriate statutes. Many of these statutes do not place any territorial limits on the validity of subpoenas so issued, but provide that they may be served anywhere within the United States. Among such statutes are the following: U.S.C., Title 7, §§222 and 511n (Secretary of Agriculture) U.S.C., Title 15, §49 (Federal Trade Commission) U.S.C., Title 15, §§77v(b), 78u(c), 79r(d) (Securities and Exchange Commission) U.S.C., Title 16, §§797(g) and 825f (Federal Power Commission) U.S.C., Title 19, §1333(b) (Tariff Commission) U.S.C., Title 22, §§268, 270d and 270e (International Commissions, etc.) U.S.C., Title 26, §§614, 619(b) [see 7456] (Board of Tax Appeals) U.S.C., Title 26, §1523(a) [see 7608] (Internal Revenue Officers) U.S.C., Title 29, §161 (Labor Relations Board) U.S.C., Title 33, §506 (Secretary of Army) U.S.C., Title 35, §§54–56 [now 24] (Patent Office proceedings) U.S.C., Title 38, [former] §133 (Veterans’ Administration) U.S.C., Title 41, §39 (Secretary of Labor) U.S.C., Title 45, §157 Third. (h) (Board of Arbitration under Railway Labor Act) U.S.C., Title 45, §222(b) (Investigation Commission under Railroad Retirement Act of 1935) U.S.C., Title 46 [App.], §1124(b) (Maritime Commission) U.S.C., Title 47, §409(c) and (d) (Federal Communications Commission) U.S.C., Title 49, §12(2) and (3) [see 721(c) and 13301(c)] (Interstate Commerce Commission) U.S.C., Title 49, §173a [see 46104] (Secretary of Commerce) Note to Subdivisions (a) and (b). These simplify the form of subpoena as provided in U.S.C., Title 28, [former] §655 (Witnesses; subpoena; form; attendance under); and broaden U.S.C., Title 28, [former] §636 (Production of books and writings) to include all actions, and to extend to any person. With the provision for relief from an oppressive or unreasonable subpoena duces tecum, compare N.Y.C.P.A. (1937) §411. Note to Subdivision (c). This provides for the simple and convenient method of service permitted under many state codes; e.g., N.Y.C.P.A. (1937) §§220, 404, J.Ct.Act, §191; 3 Wash.Rev.Stat.Ann. (Remington, 1932) §1218. Compare Equity Rule 15 (Process, by Whom Served). For statutes governing fees and mileage of witnesses see: U.S.C., Title 28: §600a [now 1871] (Per diem; mileage) §600c [now 1821, 1825] (Amount per diem and mileage for witnesses; subsistence) §600d [former] (Fees and mileage in certain states) §601 [former] (Witnesses; fees; enumeration) §602 [now 1824] (Fees and mileage of jurors and witnesses) §603 [see Title 5, §§5515, 5537] (No officer of court to have witness fees) Note to Subdivision (d). The method provided in paragraph (1) for the authorization of the issuance of subpoenas has been employed in some districts. See Henning v. Boyle, 112 Fed. 397 (S.D.N.Y., 1901). The requirement of an order for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum is in accordance with U.S.C., Title 28, [former] §647 (Deposition under dedimus potestatem; subpoena duces tecum). The provisions of paragraph (2) are in accordance with common practice. See U.S.C., Title 28, [former] §648 (Deposition under dedimus potestatem; witnesses, when required to attend); N.Y.C.P.A. (1937) §300; 1 N.J.Rev.Stat. (1937) 2:27–174. Note to Subdivision (e). The first paragraph continues the substance of U.S.C., Title 28, [former] §654 (Witnesses; subpoenas; may run into another district). Compare U.S.C., Title 11, [former] §69 (Referees in bankruptcy; contempts before) (production of books and writings) which is not affected by this rule. For examples of statutes which allow the court, upon proper application and cause shown, to authorize the clerk of the court to issue a subpoena for a witness who lives in another district and at a greater distance than 100 miles from the place of the hearing or trial, see: U.S.C., Title 15: §23 (Suits by United States; subpoenas for witnesses) (under antitrust laws). U.S.C., Title 38: §445 [now 1984] (Actions on claims; jurisdiction; parties; procedure; limitation; witnesses; definitions) (Veterans; insurance contracts). The second paragraph continues the present procedure applicable to certain witnesses who are in foreign countries. See U.S.C., Title 28, §§711 [now 1783] (Letters rogatory to take testimony of witness, addressed to court of foreign country; failure of witness to appear; subpoena) and 713 [now 1783] (Service of subpoena on witness in foreign country). Note to Subdivision (f). Compare [former] Equity Rule 52 (Attendance of Witnesses Before Commissioner, Master, or Examiner). Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1946 Amendment Subdivision (b). The added words, “or tangible things” in subdivision (b) merely make the rule for the subpoena duces tecum at the trial conform to that of subdivision (d) for the subpoena at the taking of depositions. The insertion of the words “or modify” in clause (1) affords desirable flexibility. Subdivision (d). The added last sentence of amended subdivision (d)(1) properly gives the subpoena for documents or tangible things the same scope as provided in Rule 26(b), thus promoting uniformity. The requirement in the last sentence of original Rule 45(d)(1)—to the effect that leave of court should be obtained for the issuance of such a subpoena—has been omitted. This requirement is unnecessary and oppressive on both counsel and court, and it has been criticized by district judges. There is no satisfactory reason for a differentiation between a subpoena for the production of documentary evidence by a witness at a trial (Rule 45(a)) and for the production of the same evidence at the taking of a deposition. Under this amendment, the person subpoenaed may obtain the protection afforded by any of the orders permitted under Rule 30(b) or Rule 45(b). See Application of Zenith Radio Corp. (E.D.Pa. 1941) 4 Fed.Rules Serv. 30b.21, Case 1, 1 F.R.D. 627; Fox v. House (E.D.Okla. 1939) 29 F.Supp. 673; United States of America for the Use of Tilo Roofing Co., Inc. v. J. Slotnik Co. (D.Conn. 1944) 3 F.R.D. 408. The changes in subdivision (d)(2) give the court the same power in the case of residents of the district as is conferred in the case of non-residents, and permit the court to fix a place for attendance which may be more convenient and accessible for the parties than that specified in the rule. Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1948 Amendment The amendment substitutes the present statutory reference. Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1970 Amendment At present, when a subpoena duces tecum is issued to a deponent, he is required to produce the listed materials at the deposition, but is under no clear compulsion to permit their inspection and copying. This results in confusion and uncertainty before the time the deposition is taken, with no mechanism provided whereby the court can resolve the matter. Rule 45(d)(1), as revised, makes clear that the subpoena authorizes inspection and copying of the materials produced. The deponent is afforded full protection since he can object, thereby forcing the party serving the subpoena to obtain a court order if he wishes to inspect and copy. The procedure is thus analogous to that provided in Rule 34. The changed references to other rules conform to changes made in those rules. The deletion of words in the clause describing the proper scope of the subpoena conforms to a change made in the language of Rule 34. The reference to Rule 26(b) is unchanged but encompasses new matter in that subdivision. The changes make it clear that the scope of discovery through a subpoena is the same as that applicable to Rule 34 and the other discovery rules. Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1980 Amendment Subdivision (d)(1). The amendment defines the term “proof of service” as used in the first sentence of the present subdivision. For want of a definition, the district court clerks have been obliged to fashion their own, with results that vary from district to district. All that seems required is a simple certification on a copy of the notice to take a deposition that the notice has been served on every other party to the action. That is the proof of service required by Rule 25(d) of both the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and the Supreme Court Rules. Subdivision (e)(1). The amendment makes the reach of a subpoena of a district court at least as extensive as that of the state courts of general jurisdiction in the state in which the district court is held. Under the present rule the reach of a district court subpoena is often greater, since it extends throughout the district. No reason appears why it should be less, as it sometimes is because of the accident of district lines. Restrictions upon the reach of subpoenas are imposed to prevent undue inconvenience to witnesses. State statutes and rules of court are quite likely to reflect the varying degrees of difficulty and expense attendant upon local travel. Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1985 Amendment Present Rule 45(d)(2) has two sentences setting forth the territorial scope of deposition subpoenas. The first sentence is directed to depositions taken in the judicial district in which the deponent resides; the second sentence addresses situations in which the deponent is not a resident of the district in which the deposition is to take place. The Rule, as currently constituted, creates anomalous situations that often cause logistical problems in conducting litigation. The first sentence of the present Rule states that a deponent may be required to attend only in the county wherein that person resides or is employed or transacts business in person, that is, where the person lives or works. Under this provision a deponent can be compelled, without court order, to travel from one end of that person's home county to the other, no matter how far that may be. The second sentence of the Rule is somewhat more flexible, stating that someone who does not reside in the district in which the deposition is to be taken can be required to attend in the county where the person is served with the subpoena, or within 40 miles from the place of service. Under today's conditions there is no sound reason for distinguishing between residents of the district or county in which a deposition is to be taken and nonresidents, and the Rule is amended to provide that any person may be subpoenaed to attend a deposition within a specified radius from that person's residence, place of business, or where the person was served. The 40-mile radius has been increased to 100 miles. Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1987 Amendment The amendments are technical. No substantive change is intended. Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1991 Amendment Purposes of Revision. The purposes of this revision are (1) to clarify and enlarge the protections afforded persons who are required to assist the court by giving information or evidence; (2) to facilitate access outside the deposition procedure provided by Rule 30 to documents and other information in the possession of persons who are not parties; (3) to facilitate service of subpoenas for depositions or productions of evidence at places distant from the district in which an action is proceeding; (4) to enable the court to compel a witness found within the state in which the court sits to attend trial; (5) to clarify the organization of the text of the rule. Subdivision (a). This subdivision is amended in seven significant respects. First, Paragraph (a)(3) modifies the requirement that a subpoena be issued by the clerk of court. Provision is made for the issuance of subpoenas by attorneys as officers of the court. This revision perhaps culminates an evolution. Subpoenas were long issued by specific order of the court. As this became a burden to the court, general orders were made authorizing clerks to issue subpoenas on request. Since 1948, they have been issued in blank by the clerk of any federal court to any lawyer, the clerk serving as stationer to the bar. In allowing counsel to issue the subpoena, the rule is merely a recognition of present reality. Although the subpoena is in a sense the command of the attorney who completes the form, defiance of a subpoena is nevertheless an act in defiance of a court order and exposes the defiant witness to contempt sanctions. In ICC v. Brimson, 154 U.S. 447 (1894), the Court upheld a statute directing federal courts to issue subpoenas to compel testimony before the ICC. In CAB v. Hermann, 353 U.S. 322 (1957), the Court approved as established practice the issuance of administrative subpoenas as a matter of absolute agency right. And in NLRB v. Warren Co., 350 U.S. 107 (1955), the Court held that the lower court had no discretion to withhold sanctions against a contemnor who violated such subpoenas. The 1948 revision of Rule 45 put the attorney in a position similar to that of the administrative agency, as a public officer entitled to use the court's contempt power to investigate facts in dispute. Two courts of appeals have touched on the issue and have described lawyer-issued subpoenas as mandates of the court. Waste Conversion, Inc. v. Rollins Environmental Services (NJ), Inc., 893 F.2d 605 (3d cir., 1990); Fisher v. Marubent Cotton Corp., 526 F.2d 1338, 1340 (8th cir., 1975). Cf. Young v. United States ex rel Vuitton et Fils S.A., 481 U.S. 787, 821 (1987) (Scalia, J., concurring). This revision makes the rule explicit that the attorney acts as an officer of the court in issuing and signing subpoenas. Necessarily accompanying the evolution of this power of the lawyer as officer of the court is the development of increased responsibility and liability for the misuse of this power. The latter development is reflected in the provisions of subdivision (c) of this rule, and also in the requirement imposed by paragraph (3) of this subdivision that the attorney issuing a subpoena must sign it. Second, Paragraph (a)(3) authorizes attorneys in distant districts to serve as officers authorized to issue commands in the name of the court. Any attorney permitted to represent a client in a federal court, even one admitted pro hac vice, has the same authority as a clerk to issue a subpoena from any federal court for the district in which the subpoena is served and enforced. In authorizing attorneys to issue subpoenas from distant courts, the amended rule effectively authorizes service of a subpoena anywhere in the United States by an attorney representing any party. This change is intended to ease the administrative burdens of inter-district law practice. The former rule resulted in delay and expense caused by the need to secure forms from clerks’ offices some distance from the place at which the action proceeds. This change does not enlarge the burden on the witness. Pursuant to Paragraph (a)(2), a subpoena for a deposition must still issue from the court in which the deposition or production would be compelled. Accordingly, a motion to quash such a subpoena if it overbears the limits of the subpoena power must, as under the previous rule, be presented to the court for the district in which the deposition would occur. Likewise, the court in whose name the subpoena is issued is responsible for its enforcement. Third, in order to relieve attorneys of the need to secure an appropriate seal to affix to a subpoena issued as an officer of a distant court, the requirement that a subpoena be under seal is abolished by the provisions of Paragraph (a)(1). Fourth, Paragraph (a)(1) authorizes the issuance of a subpoena to compel a non-party to produce evidence independent of any deposition. This revision spares the necessity of a deposition of the custodian of evidentiary material required to be produced. A party seeking additional production from a person subject to such a subpoena may serve an additional subpoena requiring additional production at the same time and place. Fifth, Paragraph (a)(2) makes clear that the person subject to the subpoena is required to produce materials in that person's control whether or not the materials are located within the district or within the territory within which the subpoena can be served. The non-party witness is subject to the same scope of discovery under this rule as that person would be as a party to whom a request is addressed pursuant to Rule 34. Sixth, Paragraph (a)(1) requires that the subpoena include a statement of the rights and duties of witnesses by setting forth in full the text of the new subdivisions (c) and (d). Seventh, the revised rule authorizes the issuance of a subpoena to compel the inspection of premises in the possession of a non-party. Rule 34 has authorized such inspections of premises in the possession of a party as discovery compelled under Rule 37, but prior practice required an independent proceeding to secure such relief ancillary to the federal proceeding when the premises were not in the possession of a party. Practice in some states has long authorized such use of a subpoena for this purpose without apparent adverse consequence. Subdivision (b). Paragraph (b)(1) retains the text of the former subdivision (c) with minor changes. The reference to the United States marshal and deputy marshal is deleted because of the infrequency of the use of these officers for this purpose. Inasmuch as these officers meet the age requirement, they may still be used if available. A provision requiring service of prior notice pursuant to Rule 5 of compulsory pretrial production or inspection has been added to paragraph (b)(1). The purpose of such notice is to afford other parties an opportunity to object to the production or inspection, or to serve a demand for additional documents or things. Such additional notice is not needed with respect to a deposition because of the requirement of notice imposed by Rule 30 or 31. But when production or inspection is sought independently of a deposition, other parties may need notice in order to monitor the discovery and in order to pursue access to any information that may or should be produced. Paragraph (b)(2) retains language formerly set forth in subdivision (e) and extends its application to subpoenas for depositions or production. Paragraph (b)(3) retains language formerly set forth in paragraph (d)(1) and extends its applications to subpoenas for trial or hearing or production. Subdivision (c). This provision is new and states the rights of witnesses. It is not intended to diminish rights conferred by Rules 26–37 or any other authority. Paragraph (c)(1) gives specific application to the principle stated in Rule 26(g) and specifies liability for earnings lost by a non-party witness as a result of a misuse of the subpoena. No change in existing law is thereby effected. Abuse of a subpoena is an actionable tort, Board of Ed. v. Farmingdale Classroom Teach. Ass'n, 38 N.Y.2d 397, 380 N.Y.S.2d 635, 343 N.E.2d 278 (1975), and the duty of the attorney to the non-party is also embodied in Model Rule of Professional Conduct 4.4. The liability of the attorney is correlative to the expanded power of the attorney to issue subpoenas. The liability may include the cost of fees to collect attorneys’ fees owed as a result of a breach of this duty. Paragraph (c)(2) retains language from the former subdivision (b) and paragraph (d)(1). The 10-day period for response to a subpoena is extended to 14 days to avoid the complex calculations associated with short time periods under Rule 6 and to allow a bit more time for such objections to be made. A non-party required to produce documents or materials is protected against significant expense resulting from involuntary assistance to the court. This provision applies, for example, to a non-party required to provide a list of class members. The court is not required to fix the costs in advance of production, although this will often be the most satisfactory accommodation to protect the party seeking discovery from excessive costs. In some instances, it may be preferable to leave uncertain costs to be determined after the materials have been produced, provided that the risk of uncertainty is fully disclosed to the discovering party. See, e.g., United States v. Columbia Broadcasting Systems, Inc., 666 F.2d 364 (9th Cir. 1982). Paragraph (c)(3) explicitly authorizes the quashing of a subpoena as a means of protecting a witness from misuse of the subpoena power. It replaces and enlarges on the former subdivision (b) of this rule and tracks the provisions of Rule 26(c). While largely repetitious, this rule is addressed to the witness who may read it on the subpoena, where it is required to be printed by the revised paragraph (a)(1) of this rule. Subparagraph (c)(3)(A) identifies those circumstances in which a subpoena must be quashed or modified. It restates the former provisions with respect to the limits of mandatory travel that are set forth in the former paragraphs (d)(2) and (e)(1), with one important change. Under the revised rule, a federal court can compel a witness to come from any place in the state to attend trial, whether or not the local state law so provides. This extension is subject to the qualification provided in the next paragraph, which authorizes the court to condition enforcement of a subpoena compelling a non-party witness to bear substantial expense to attend trial. The traveling non-party witness may be entitled to reasonable compensation for the time and effort entailed. Clause (c)(3)(A)(iv) requires the court to protect all persons from undue burden imposed by the use of the subpoena power. Illustratively, it might be unduly burdensome to compel an adversary to attend trial as a witness if the adversary is known to have no personal knowledge of matters in dispute, especially so if the adversary would be required to incur substantial travel burdens. Subparagraph (c)(3)(B) identifies circumstances in which a subpoena should be quashed unless the party serving the subpoena shows a substantial need and the court can devise an appropriate accommodation to protect the interests of the witness. An additional circumstance in which such action is required is a request for costly production of documents; that situation is expressly governed by subparagraph (b)(2)(B). Clause (c)(3)(B)(i) authorizes the court to quash, modify, or condition a subpoena to protect the person subject to or affected by the subpoena from unnecessary or unduly harmful disclosures of confidential information. It corresponds to Rule 26(c)(7). Clause (c)(3)(B)(ii) provides appropriate protection for the intellectual property of the non-party witness; it does not apply to the expert retained by a party, whose information is subject to the provisions of Rule 26(b)(4). A growing problem has been the use of subpoenas to compel the giving of evidence and information by unretained experts. Experts are not exempt from the duty to give evidence, even if they cannot be compelled to prepare themselves to give effective testimony, e.g., Carter-Wallace, Inc. v. Otte, 474 F.2d 529 (2d Cir. 1972), but compulsion to give evidence may threaten the intellectual property of experts denied the opportunity to bargain for the value of their services. See generally Maurer, Compelling the Expert Witness: Fairness and Utility Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure , 19 GA.L.REV. 71 (1984); Note, Discovery and Testimony of Unretained Experts, 1987 DUKE L.J. 140. Arguably the compulsion to testify can be regarded as a “taking” of intellectual property. The rule establishes the right of such persons to withhold their expertise, at least unless the party seeking it makes the kind of showing required for a conditional denial of a motion to quash as provided in the final sentence of subparagraph (c)(3)(B); that requirement is the same as that necessary to secure work product under Rule 26(b)(3) and gives assurance of reasonable compensation. The Rule thus approves the accommodation of competing interests exemplified in United States v. Columbia Broadcasting Systems Inc., 666 F.2d 364 (9th Cir. 1982). See also Wright v. Jeep Corporation, 547 F. Supp. 871 (E.D. Mich. 1982). As stated in Kaufman v. Edelstein, 539 F.2d 811, 822 (2d Cir. 1976), the district court's discretion in these matters should be informed by “the degree to which the expert is being called because of his knowledge of facts relevant to the case rather than in order to give opinion testimony; the difference between testifying to a previously formed or expressed opinion and forming a new one; the possibility that, for other reasons, the witness is a unique expert; the extent to which the calling party is able to show the unlikelihood that any comparable witness will willingly testify; and the degree to which the witness is able to show that he has been oppressed by having continually to testify. . . .” Clause (c)(3)(B)(iii) protects non-party witnesses who may be burdened to perform the duty to travel in order to provide testimony at trial. The provision requires the court to condition a subpoena requiring travel of more than 100 miles on reasonable compensation. Subdivision (d). This provision is new. Paragraph (d)(1) extends to non-parties the duty imposed on parties by the last paragraph of Rule 34(b), which was added in 1980. Paragraph (d)(2) is new and corresponds to the new Rule 26(b)(5). Its purpose is to provide a party whose discovery is constrained by a claim of privilege or work product protection with information sufficient to evaluate such a claim and to resist if it seems unjustified. The person claiming a privilege or protection cannot decide the limits of that party's own entitlement. A party receiving a discovery request who asserts a privilege or protection but fails to disclose that claim is at risk of waiving the privilege or protection. A person claiming a privilege or protection who fails to provide adequate information about the privilege or protection claim to the party seeking the information is subject to an order to show cause why the person should not be held in contempt under subdivision (e). Motions for such orders and responses to motions are subject to the sanctions provisions of Rules 7 and 11. A person served a subpoena that is too broad may be faced with a burdensome task to provide full information regarding all that person's claims to privilege or work product protection. Such a person is entitled to protection that may be secured through an objection made pursuant to paragraph (c)(2). Subdivision (e). This provision retains most of the language of the former subdivision (f). “Adequate cause” for a failure to obey a subpoena remains undefined. In at least some circumstances, a non-party might be guilty of contempt for refusing to obey a subpoena even though the subpoena manifestly overreaches the appropriate limits of the subpoena power. E.g., Walker v. City of Birmingham, 388 U.S. 307 (1967). But, because the command of the subpoena is not in fact one uttered by a judicial officer, contempt should be very sparingly applied when the non-party witness has been overborne by a party or attorney. The language added to subdivision (f) is intended to assure that result where a non-party has been commanded, on the signature of an attorney, to travel greater distances than can be compelled pursuant to this rule. Committee Notes on Rules—2005 Amendment This amendment closes a small gap in regard to notifying witnesses of the manner for recording a deposition. A deposition subpoena must state the method for recording the testimony. Rule 30(b)(2) directs that the party noticing a deposition state in the notice the manner for recording the testimony, but the notice need not be served on the deponent. The deponent learns of the recording method only if the deponent is a party or is informed by a party. Rule 30(b)(3) permits another party to designate an additional method of recording with prior notice to the deponent and the other parties. The deponent thus has notice of the recording method when an additional method is designated. This amendment completes the notice provisions to ensure that a nonparty deponent has notice of the recording method when the recording method is described only in the deposition notice. A subpoenaed witness does not have a right to refuse to proceed with a deposition due to objections to the manner of recording. But under rare circumstances, a nonparty witness might have a ground for seeking a protective order under Rule 26(c) with regard to the manner of recording or the use of the deposition if recorded in a certain manner. Should such a witness not learn of the manner of recording until the deposition begins, undesirable delay or complication might result. Advance notice of the recording method affords an opportunity to raise such protective issues. Other changes are made to conform Rule 45(a)(2) to current style conventions. Changes Made After Publication and Comment. Only a small style change has been made in the proposal as published. Committee Notes on Rules—2006 Amendment Rule 45 is amended to conform the provisions for subpoenas to changes in other discovery rules, largely related to discovery of electronically stored information. Rule 34 is amended to provide in greater detail for the production of electronically stored information. Rule 45(a)(1)(C) is amended to recognize that electronically stored information, as defined in Rule 34(a), can also be sought by subpoena. Like Rule 34(b), Rule 45(a)(1) is amended to provide that the subpoena can designate a form or forms for production of electronic data. Rule 45(c)(2) is amended, like Rule 34(b), to authorize the person served with a subpoena to object to the requested form or forms. In addition, as under Rule 34(b), Rule 45(d)(1)(B) is amended to provide that if the subpoena does not specify the form or forms for electronically stored information, the person served with the subpoena must produce electronically stored information in a form or forms in which it is usually maintained or in a form or forms that are reasonably usable. Rule 45(d)(1)(C) is added to provide that the person producing electronically stored information should not have to produce the same information in more than one form unless so ordered by the court for good cause. As with discovery of electronically stored information from parties, complying with a subpoena for such information may impose burdens on the responding person. Rule 45(c) provides protection against undue impositions on nonparties. For example, Rule 45(c)(1) directs that a party serving a subpoena “shall take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the subpoena,” and Rule 45(c)(2)(B) permits the person served with the subpoena to object to it and directs that an order requiring compliance “shall protect a person who is neither a party nor a party's officer from significant expense resulting from” compliance. Rule 45(d)(1)(D) is added to provide that the responding person need not provide discovery of electronically stored information from sources the party identifies as not reasonably accessible, unless the court orders such discovery for good cause, considering the limitations of Rule 26(b)(2)(C), on terms that protect a nonparty against significant expense. A parallel provision is added to Rule 26(b)(2). Rule 45(a)(1)(B) is also amended, as is Rule 34(a), to provide that a subpoena is available to permit testing and sampling as well as inspection and copying. As in Rule 34, this change recognizes that on occasion the opportunity to perform testing or sampling may be important, both for documents and for electronically stored information. Because testing or sampling may present particular issues of burden or intrusion for the person served with the subpoena, however, the protective provisions of Rule 45(c) should be enforced with vigilance when such demands are made. Inspection or testing of certain types of electronically stored information or of a person's electronic information system may raise issues of confidentiality or privacy. The addition of sampling and testing to Rule 45(a) with regard to documents and electronically stored information is not meant to create a routine right of direct access to a person's electronic information system, although such access might be justified in some circumstances. Courts should guard against undue intrusiveness resulting from inspecting or testing such systems. Rule 45(d)(2) is amended, as is Rule 26(b)(5), to add a procedure for assertion of privilege or of protection as trial-preparation materials after production. The receiving party may submit the information to the court for resolution of the privilege claim, as under Rule 26(b)(5)(B). Other minor amendments are made to conform the rule to the changes described above. Changes Made After Publication and Comment. The Committee recommends a modified version of the proposal as published. The changes were made to maintain the parallels between Rule 45 and the other rules that address discovery of electronically stored information. These changes are fully described in the introduction to Rule 45 and in the discussions of the other rules. [Omitted] The changes from the published proposed amendment are shown below. [Omitted] Committee Notes on Rules—2007 Amendment The language of Rule 45 has been amended as part of the general restyling of the Civil Rules to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic only. The reference to discovery of “books” in former Rule 45(a)(1)(C) was deleted to achieve consistent expression throughout the discovery rules. Books remain a proper subject of discovery. Former Rule 45(b)(1) required “prior notice” to each party of any commanded production of documents and things or inspection of premises. Courts have agreed that notice must be given “prior” to the return date, and have tended to converge on an interpretation that requires notice to the parties before the subpoena is served on the person commanded to produce or permit inspection. That interpretation is adopted in amended Rule 45(b)(1) to give clear notice of general present practice. The language of former Rule 45(d)(2) addressing the manner of asserting privilege is replaced by adopting the wording of Rule 26(b)(5). The same meaning is better expressed in the same words. Changes Made After Publication and Comment. See Note to Rule 1, supra. Committee Notes on Rules—2013 Amendment Rule 45 was extensively amended in 1991. The goal of the present amendments is to clarify and simplify the rule. The amendments recognize the court where the action is pending as the issuing court, permit nationwide service of subpoena, and collect in a new subdivision (c) the previously scattered provisions regarding place of compliance. These changes resolve a conflict that arose after the 1991 amendment about a court's authority to compel a party or party officer to travel long distances to testify at trial; such testimony may now be required only as specified in new Rule 45(c). In addition, the amendments introduce authority in new Rule 45(f) for the court where compliance is required to transfer a subpoena-related motion to the court where the action is pending on consent of the person subject to the subpoena or in exceptional circumstances. Subdivision (a). This subdivision is amended to provide that a subpoena issues from the court where the action is pending. Subdivision (a)(3) specifies that an attorney authorized to practice in that court may issue a subpoena, which is consistent with current practice. In Rule 45(a)(1)(D), "person" is substituted for "party" because the subpoena may be directed to a nonparty. Rule 45(a)(4) is added to highlight and slightly modify a notice requirement first included in the rule in 1991. Under the 1991 amendments, Rule 45(b)(1) required prior notice of the service of a "documents only" subpoena to the other parties. Rule 45(b)(1) was clarified in 2007 to specify that this notice must be served before the subpoena is served on the witness. The Committee has been informed that parties serving subpoenas frequently fail to give the required notice to the other parties. The amendment moves the notice requirement to a new provision in Rule 45(a) and requires that the notice include a copy of the subpoena. The amendments are intended to achieve the original purpose of enabling the other parties to object or to serve a subpoena for additional materials. Parties desiring access to information produced in response to the subpoena will need to follow up with the party serving it or the person served to obtain such access. The rule does not limit the court's authority to order notice of receipt of produced materials or access to them. The party serving the subpoena should in any event make reasonable provision for prompt access. Subdivision (b). The former notice requirement in Rule 45(b)(1) has been moved to new Rule 45(a)(4). Rule 45(b)(2) is amended to provide that a subpoena may be served at any place within the United States, removing the complexities prescribed in prior versions. Subdivision (c). Subdivision (c) is new. It collects the various provisions on where compliance can be required and simplifies them. Unlike the prior rule, place of service is not critical to place of compliance. Although Rule 45(a)(1)(A)(iii) permits the subpoena to direct a place of compliance, that place must be selected under Rule 45(c). Rule 45(c)(1) addresses a subpoena to testify at a trial, hearing, or deposition. Rule 45(c)(1)(A) provides that compliance may be required within 100 miles of where the person subject to the subpoena resides, is employed, or regularly conducts business in person. For parties and party officers, Rule 45(c)(1)(B)(i) provides that compliance may be required anywhere in the state where the person resides, is employed, or regularly conducts business in person. When an order under Rule 43(a) authorizes testimony from a remote location, the witness can be commanded to testify from any place described in Rule 45(c)(1). Under Rule 45(c)(1)(B)(ii), nonparty witnesses can be required to travel more than 100 miles within the state where they reside, are employed, or regularly transact business in person only if they would not, as a result, incur "substantial expense." When travel over 100 miles could impose substantial expense on the witness, the party that served the subpoena may pay that expense and the court can condition enforcement of the subpoena on such payment. Because Rule 45(c) directs that compliance may be commanded only as it provides, these amendments resolve a split in interpreting Rule 45's provisions for subpoenaing parties and party officers. Compare In re Vioxx Products Liability Litigation, 438 F. Supp. 2d 664 (E.D. La. 2006) (finding authority to compel a party officer from New Jersey to testify at trial in New Orleans), with Johnson v. Big Lots Stores, Inc., 251 F.R.D. 213 (E.D. La. 2008) (holding that Rule 45 did not require attendance of plaintiffs at trial in New Orleans when they would have to travel more than 100 miles from outside the state). Rule 45(c)(1)(A) does not authorize a subpoena for trial to require a party or party officer to travel more than 100 miles unless the party or party officer resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person in the state. Depositions of parties, and officers, directors, and managing agents of parties need not involve use of a subpoena. Under Rule 37(d)(1)(A)(i), failure of such a witness whose deposition was properly noticed to appear for the deposition can lead to Rule 37(b) sanctions (including dismissal or default but not contempt) without regard to service of a subpoena and without regard to the geographical limitations on compliance with a subpoena. These amendments do not change that existing law; the courts retain their authority to control the place of party depositions and impose sanctions for failure to appear under Rule 37(b). For other discovery, Rule 45(c)(2) directs that inspection of premises occur at those premises, and that production of documents, tangible things, and electronically stored information may be commanded to occur at a place within 100 miles of where the person subject to the subpoena resides, is employed, or regularly conducts business in person. Under the current rule, parties often agree that production, particularly of electronically stored information, be transmitted be electronic means. Such arrangements facilitate discovery, and nothing in these amendments limits the ability of parties to make such arrangements. Rule 45(d)(3)(A)(ii) directs the court to quash any subpoena that purports to compel compliance beyond the geographical limits specified in Rule 45(c). Subdivision (d). Subdivision (d) contains the provisions formerly in subdivision (c). It is revised to recognize the court where the action is pending as the issuing court, and to take account of the addition of Rule 45(c) to specify where compliance with a subpoena is required. Subdivision (f). Subdivision (f) is new. Under Rules 45(d)(2)(b), 45(d)(3), and 45(e)(2)(B), subpoena-related motions and applications are to be made to the court where compliance is required under Rule 45(c). Rule 45(f) provides authority for that court to transfer the motion to the court where the action is pending. It applies to all motions under this rule, including an application under Rule 45(e)(2)(B) for a privilege determination. Subpoenas are essential to obtain discovery from nonparties. To protect local nonparties, local resolution of disputes about subpoenas is assured by the limitations of Rule 45(c) and the requirements in Rules 45(d) and (e) that motions be made in the court in which compliance is required under Rule 45(c). But transfer to the court where the action is pending is sometimes warranted. If the person subject to the subpoena consents to transfer, Rule 45(f) provides that the court where compliance is required may do so. In the absence of consent, the court may transfer in exceptional circumstances, and the proponent of transfer bears the burden of showing that such circumstances are present. The prime concern should be avoiding burdens on local nonparties subject to subpoenas, and it should not be assumed that the issuing court is in a superior position to resolve subpoena-related motions. In some circumstances, however, transfer may be warranted in order to avoid disrupting the issuing court's management of the underlying litigation, as when that court has already ruled on issues presented by the motion or the same issues are likely to arise in discovery in many districts. Transfer is appropriate only if such interests outweigh the interests of the nonparty served with the subpoena in obtaining local resolution of the motion. Judges in compliance districts may find it helpful to consult with the judge in the issuing court presiding over the underlying case while addressing subpoena-related motions. If the motion is transferred, judges are encouraged to permit telecommunications methods to minimalize the burden a transfer imposes on nonparties, if it is necessary for attorneys admitted in the court where the motion is made to appear in the court in which the action is pending. The rule provides that if these attorneys are authorized to practice in the court where the motion is made, they may file papers and appear in the court in which the action is pending in relation to the motion as officers of that court. After transfer, the court where the action is pending will decide the motion. If the court rules that discovery is not justified, that should end the matter. If the court orders further discovery, it is possible that retransfer may be important to enforce the order. One consequence of failure to obey such an order is contempt, addressed in Rule 45(g). Rule 45(g) and Rule 37(b)(1) are both amended to provide that disobedience of an order enforcing a subpoena after transfer is contempt of the issuing court and the court where compliance is required under Rule 45(c). In some instances, however, there may be a question about where the issuing court can impose contempt sanctions on a distant nonparty. If such circumstances arise, or if it is better to supervise compliance in the court where compliance is required, the rule provides authority for retransfer for enforcement. Although changed circumstances may prompt a modification of such an order, it is not expected that the compliance court will reexamine the resolution of the underlying motion. Subdivision (g). Subdivision (g) carries forward the authority of former subdivision (e) to punish disobedience of subpoenas as contempt. It is amended to make clear that, in the event of transfer of a subpoena-related motions, such disobedience constitutes contempt of both the court where compliance is required under Rule 45(c) and the court where the action is pending. If necessary for effective enforcement, Rule 45(f) authorizes the issuing court to transfer its order after the motion is resolved. The rule is also amended to clarify that contempt sanctions may be applied to a person who disobeys a subpoena-related order, as well as one who fails entirely to obey a subpoena. In civil litigation, it would be rare for a court to use contempt sanctions without first ordering compliance with a subpoena, and the order might not require all the compliance sought by the subpoena. Often contempt proceedings will be initiated by an order to show cause, and an order to comply or be held in contempt may modify the subpoena's command. Disobedience of such an order may be treated as contempt. The second sentence of former subdivision (e) is deleted as unnecessary. Changes Made After Publication and Comment. As described in the Report, the published preliminary draft was modified in several ways after the public comment period. The words "before trial" were restored to the notice provision that was moved to new Rule 459a)(4). The place of compliance in new Rule 45(c)(2)(A) was changed to a place "within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed or regularly conducts business." In new Rule 45(f), the party consent feature was removed, meaning consent of the person subject to the subpoena is sufficient to permit transfer to the issuing court. In addition, style changes were made after consultation with the Standing Committee's Style Consultant. In the Committee Note, clarifications were made in response to points raised during the public comment period. ‹ Rule 44.1. Determining Foreign LawupRule 46. Objecting to a Ruling or Order › Toolbox LII on your phone: Apple iOS - Download on the App Store Wex: Civil Procedure: Overview AddThis Sharing Buttons Find a Lawyer Lawyers near Phoenix, Arizona Lawyers: get listed for free! Bob Willis Construction Law, Personal Injury, Nursing Home Abuse & Neglect, Insurance Defense, Arbitration & Mediation, Products Liability Mesa, AZ Dwane Cates Criminal Law, Domestic Violence, DUI & DWI, Juvenile Law, White Collar Crime Phoenix, AZ Peter H. Westby Bankruptcy, Business Law, Collections, Divorce, Elder Law, Estate Planning, Family Law, Foreclosure Defense, Landlord Tenant, Probate, Real Estate Law Phoenix, AZ Matthew Harrison Business Law, Construction Law, Estate Planning, Insurance Claims, Personal Injury, Real Estate Law, Environmental Law, Consumer Law, Insurance Defense, Criminal Law Gilbert, AZ Alex Lane Criminal Law, DUI & DWI Phoenix, AZ See More Lawyers All lawyers ABOUT LII CONTACT US ADVERTISE HERE HELP TERMS OF USE PRIVACY
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2atbEPr
Important to note in the Diegel case that on July 8th 2014 judge Lisa Flores ordered for the state to disclose all discovery and Medical records within 10 days. The state never complied and despite additional motions to hold the state in contempt and/or allow Melissa to receive discovery judge Hoffman denied it. In addition, there are multiple ways to ask for discovery 1. it had already been ordered by a previous judge. 2. to receive due process and for trial rules it is required to disclose certain things to the other party. 3. I had filed properly for disclosure. Judge Hoffman then stated I needed to subpoena under rule 45. Funny but not really because I had had three private attorneys that subpoenaed records. In addition, at one point judge Hoffman had forced a state-appointed attorney on me and why didn't she subpoena the records? Right now I am in the court of appeals and they still will not release the records to me. I am representing myself now. Here we are two and a half years later.... Serial killers have been able to represent themselves in the court of law and have had full access to their records. But not me with no criminal history??? One of the reasons the State of Arizona is hiding the records is because my daughters are on a drug trial. What you have done is hide criminal behavior! #KnockKnockJudgeHoffman #MelissaDiegel Cornell University Law school Rule 45. Subpoena (a) In General. (1) Form and Contents. (A) Requirements—In General. Every subpoena must: (i) state the court from which it issued; (ii) state the title of the action and its civil-action number; (iii) command each person to whom it is directed to do the following at a specified time and place: attend and testify; produce designated documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things in that person's possession, custody, or control; or permit the inspection of premises; and (iv) set out the text of Rule 45(d) and (e). (B) Command to Attend a Deposition—Notice of the Recording Method. A subpoena commanding attendance at a deposition must state the method for recording the testimony. (C) Combining or Separating a Command to Produce or to Permit Inspection; Specifying the Form for Electronically Stored Information. A command to produce documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things or to permit the inspection of premises may be included in a subpoena commanding attendance at a deposition, hearing, or trial, or may be set out in a separate subpoena. A subpoena may specify the form or forms in which electronically stored information is to be produced. (D) Command to Produce; Included Obligations. A command in a subpoena to produce documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things requires the responding person to permit inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of the materials. (2) Issuing Court. A subpoena must issue from the court where the action is pending. (3) Issued by Whom. The clerk must issue a subpoena, signed but otherwise in blank, to a party who requests it. That party must complete it before service. An attorney also may issue and sign a subpoena if the attorney is authorized to practice in the issuing court. (4) Notice to Other Parties Before Service. If the subpoena commands the production of documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things or the inspection of premises before trial, then before it is served on the person to whom it is directed, a notice and a copy of the subpoena must be served on each party. (b) Service. (1) By Whom and How; Tendering Fees. Any person who is at least 18 years old and not a party may serve a subpoena. Serving a subpoena requires delivering a copy to the named person and, if the subpoena requires that person's attendance, tendering the fees for 1 day's attendance and the mileage allowed by law. Fees and mileage need not be tendered when the subpoena issues on behalf of the United States or any of its officers or agencies. (2) Service in the United States. A subpoena may be served at any place within the United States. (3) Service in a Foreign Country. 28 U.S.C. §1783 governs issuing and serving a subpoena directed to a United States national or resident who is in a foreign country. (4) Proof of Service. Proving service, when necessary, requires filing with the issuing court a statement showing the date and manner of service and the names of the persons served. The statement must be certified by the server. (c) Place of Compliance. (1) For a Trial, Hearing, or Deposition. A subpoena may command a person to attend a trial, hearing, or deposition only as follows: (A) within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person; or (B) within the state where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person, if the person (i) is a party or a party's officer; or (ii) is commanded to attend a trial and would not incur substantial expense. (2) For Other Discovery. A subpoena may command: (A) production of documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things at a place within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person; and (B) inspection of premises at the premises to be inspected. (d) Protecting a Person Subject to a Subpoena; Enforcement. (1) Avoiding Undue Burden or Expense; Sanctions. A party or attorney responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the subpoena. The court for the district where compliance is required must enforce this duty and impose an appropriate sanction—which may include lost earnings and reasonable attorney's fees—on a party or attorney who fails to comply. (2) Command to Produce Materials or Permit Inspection. (A) Appearance Not Required. A person commanded to produce documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things, or to permit the inspection of premises, need not appear in person at the place of production or inspection unless also commanded to appear for a deposition, hearing, or trial. (B) Objections. A person commanded to produce documents or tangible things or to permit inspection may serve on the party or attorney designated in the subpoena a written objection to inspecting, copying, testing or sampling any or all of the materials or to inspecting the premises—or to producing electronically stored information in the form or forms requested. The objection must be served before the earlier of the time specified for compliance or 14 days after the subpoena is served. If an objection is made, the following rules apply: (i) At any time, on notice to the commanded person, the serving party may move the court for the district where compliance is required for an order compelling production or inspection. (ii) These acts may be required only as directed in the order, and the order must protect a person who is neither a party nor a party's officer from significant expense resulting from compliance. (3) Quashing or Modifying a Subpoena. (A) When Required. On timely motion, the court for the district where compliance is required must quash or modify a subpoena that: (i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply; (ii) requires a person to comply beyond the geographical limits specified in Rule 45(c); (iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or waiver applies; or (iv) subjects a person to undue burden. (B) When Permitted. To protect a person subject to or affected by a subpoena, the court for the district where compliance is required may, on motion, quash or modify the subpoena if it requires: (i) disclosing a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information; or (ii) disclosing an unretained expert's opinion or information that does not describe specific occurrences in dispute and results from the expert's study that was not requested by a party. (C) Specifying Conditions as an Alternative. In the circumstances described in Rule 45(d)(3)(B), the court may, instead of quashing or modifying a subpoena, order appearance or production under specified conditions if the serving party: (i) shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be otherwise met without undue hardship; and (ii) ensures that the subpoenaed person will be reasonably compensated. (e) Duties in Responding to a Subpoena. (1) Producing Documents or Electronically Stored Information. These procedures apply to producing documents or electronically stored information: (A) Documents. A person responding to a subpoena to produce documents must produce them as they are kept in the ordinary course of business or must organize and label them to correspond to the categories in the demand. (B) Form for Producing Electronically Stored Information Not Specified. If a subpoena does not specify a form for producing electronically stored information, the person responding must produce it in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms. (C) Electronically Stored Information Produced in Only One Form. The person responding need not produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form. (D) Inaccessible Electronically Stored Information. The person responding need not provide discovery of electronically stored information from sources that the person identifies as not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. On motion to compel discovery or for a protective order, the person responding must show that the information is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. If that showing is made, the court may nonetheless order discovery from such sources if the requesting party shows good cause, considering the limitations of Rule 26(b)(2)(C). The court may specify conditions for the discovery. (2) Claiming Privilege or Protection. (A) Information Withheld. A person withholding subpoenaed information under a claim that it is privileged or subject to protection as trial-preparation material must: (i) expressly make the claim; and (ii) describe the nature of the withheld documents, communications, or tangible things in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable the parties to assess the claim. (B) Information Produced. If information produced in response to a subpoena is subject to a claim of privilege or of protection as trial-preparation material, the person making the claim may notify any party that received the information of the claim and the basis for it. After being notified, a party must promptly return, sequester, or destroy the specified information and any copies it has; must not use or disclose the information until the claim is resolved; must take reasonable steps to retrieve the information if the party disclosed it before being notified; and may promptly present the information under seal to the court for the district where compliance is required for a determination of the claim. The person who produced the information must preserve the information until the claim is resolved. (f) Transferring a Subpoena-Related Motion. When the court where compliance is required did not issue the subpoena, it may transfer a motion under this rule to the issuing court if the person subject to the subpoena consents or if the court finds exceptional circumstances. Then, if the attorney for a person subject to a subpoena is authorized to practice in the court where the motion was made, the attorney may file papers and appear on the motion as an officer of the issuing court. To enforce its order, the issuing court may transfer the order to the court where the motion was made. (g) Contempt. The court for the district where compliance is required — and also, after a motion is transferred, the issuing court — may hold in contempt a person who, having been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey the subpoena or an order related to it. Notes (As amended Dec. 27, 1946, eff. Mar. 19, 1948; Dec. 29, 1948, eff. Oct. 20, 1949; Mar. 30, 1970, eff. July 1, 1970; Apr. 29, 1980, eff. Aug. 1, 1980; Apr. 29, 1985, eff. Aug. 1, 1985; Mar. 2, 1987, eff. Aug. 1, 1987; Apr. 30, 1991, eff. Dec. 1, 1991; Apr. 25, 2005, eff. Dec. 1, 2005; Apr. 12, 2006, eff. Dec. 1, 2006; Apr. 30, 2007, eff. Dec. 1, 2007; Apr. 16, 2013, eff. Dec. 1, 2013.) Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1937 This rule applies to subpoenas ad testificandum and duces tecum issued by the district courts for attendance at a hearing or a trial, or to take depositions. It does not apply to the enforcement of subpoenas issued by administrative officers and commissions pursuant to statutory authority. The enforcement of such subpoenas by the district courts is regulated by appropriate statutes. Many of these statutes do not place any territorial limits on the validity of subpoenas so issued, but provide that they may be served anywhere within the United States. Among such statutes are the following: U.S.C., Title 7, §§222 and 511n (Secretary of Agriculture) U.S.C., Title 15, §49 (Federal Trade Commission) U.S.C., Title 15, §§77v(b), 78u(c), 79r(d) (Securities and Exchange Commission) U.S.C., Title 16, §§797(g) and 825f (Federal Power Commission) U.S.C., Title 19, §1333(b) (Tariff Commission) U.S.C., Title 22, §§268, 270d and 270e (International Commissions, etc.) U.S.C., Title 26, §§614, 619(b) [see 7456] (Board of Tax Appeals) U.S.C., Title 26, §1523(a) [see 7608] (Internal Revenue Officers) U.S.C., Title 29, §161 (Labor Relations Board) U.S.C., Title 33, §506 (Secretary of Army) U.S.C., Title 35, §§54–56 [now 24] (Patent Office proceedings) U.S.C., Title 38, [former] §133 (Veterans’ Administration) U.S.C., Title 41, §39 (Secretary of Labor) U.S.C., Title 45, §157 Third. (h) (Board of Arbitration under Railway Labor Act) U.S.C., Title 45, §222(b) (Investigation Commission under Railroad Retirement Act of 1935) U.S.C., Title 46 [App.], §1124(b) (Maritime Commission) U.S.C., Title 47, §409(c) and (d) (Federal Communications Commission) U.S.C., Title 49, §12(2) and (3) [see 721(c) and 13301(c)] (Interstate Commerce Commission) U.S.C., Title 49, §173a [see 46104] (Secretary of Commerce) Note to Subdivisions (a) and (b). These simplify the form of subpoena as provided in U.S.C., Title 28, [former] §655 (Witnesses; subpoena; form; attendance under); and broaden U.S.C., Title 28, [former] §636 (Production of books and writings) to include all actions, and to extend to any person. With the provision for relief from an oppressive or unreasonable subpoena duces tecum, compare N.Y.C.P.A. (1937) §411. Note to Subdivision (c). This provides for the simple and convenient method of service permitted under many state codes; e.g., N.Y.C.P.A. (1937) §§220, 404, J.Ct.Act, §191; 3 Wash.Rev.Stat.Ann. (Remington, 1932) §1218. Compare Equity Rule 15 (Process, by Whom Served). For statutes governing fees and mileage of witnesses see: U.S.C., Title 28: §600a [now 1871] (Per diem; mileage) §600c [now 1821, 1825] (Amount per diem and mileage for witnesses; subsistence) §600d [former] (Fees and mileage in certain states) §601 [former] (Witnesses; fees; enumeration) §602 [now 1824] (Fees and mileage of jurors and witnesses) §603 [see Title 5, §§5515, 5537] (No officer of court to have witness fees) Note to Subdivision (d). The method provided in paragraph (1) for the authorization of the issuance of subpoenas has been employed in some districts. See Henning v. Boyle, 112 Fed. 397 (S.D.N.Y., 1901). The requirement of an order for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum is in accordance with U.S.C., Title 28, [former] §647 (Deposition under dedimus potestatem; subpoena duces tecum). The provisions of paragraph (2) are in accordance with common practice. See U.S.C., Title 28, [former] §648 (Deposition under dedimus potestatem; witnesses, when required to attend); N.Y.C.P.A. (1937) §300; 1 N.J.Rev.Stat. (1937) 2:27–174. Note to Subdivision (e). The first paragraph continues the substance of U.S.C., Title 28, [former] §654 (Witnesses; subpoenas; may run into another district). Compare U.S.C., Title 11, [former] §69 (Referees in bankruptcy; contempts before) (production of books and writings) which is not affected by this rule. For examples of statutes which allow the court, upon proper application and cause shown, to authorize the clerk of the court to issue a subpoena for a witness who lives in another district and at a greater distance than 100 miles from the place of the hearing or trial, see: U.S.C., Title 15: §23 (Suits by United States; subpoenas for witnesses) (under antitrust laws). U.S.C., Title 38: §445 [now 1984] (Actions on claims; jurisdiction; parties; procedure; limitation; witnesses; definitions) (Veterans; insurance contracts). The second paragraph continues the present procedure applicable to certain witnesses who are in foreign countries. See U.S.C., Title 28, §§711 [now 1783] (Letters rogatory to take testimony of witness, addressed to court of foreign country; failure of witness to appear; subpoena) and 713 [now 1783] (Service of subpoena on witness in foreign country). Note to Subdivision (f). Compare [former] Equity Rule 52 (Attendance of Witnesses Before Commissioner, Master, or Examiner). Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1946 Amendment Subdivision (b). The added words, “or tangible things” in subdivision (b) merely make the rule for the subpoena duces tecum at the trial conform to that of subdivision (d) for the subpoena at the taking of depositions. The insertion of the words “or modify” in clause (1) affords desirable flexibility. Subdivision (d). The added last sentence of amended subdivision (d)(1) properly gives the subpoena for documents or tangible things the same scope as provided in Rule 26(b), thus promoting uniformity. The requirement in the last sentence of original Rule 45(d)(1)—to the effect that leave of court should be obtained for the issuance of such a subpoena—has been omitted. This requirement is unnecessary and oppressive on both counsel and court, and it has been criticized by district judges. There is no satisfactory reason for a differentiation between a subpoena for the production of documentary evidence by a witness at a trial (Rule 45(a)) and for the production of the same evidence at the taking of a deposition. Under this amendment, the person subpoenaed may obtain the protection afforded by any of the orders permitted under Rule 30(b) or Rule 45(b). See Application of Zenith Radio Corp. (E.D.Pa. 1941) 4 Fed.Rules Serv. 30b.21, Case 1, 1 F.R.D. 627; Fox v. House (E.D.Okla. 1939) 29 F.Supp. 673; United States of America for the Use of Tilo Roofing Co., Inc. v. J. Slotnik Co. (D.Conn. 1944) 3 F.R.D. 408. The changes in subdivision (d)(2) give the court the same power in the case of residents of the district as is conferred in the case of non-residents, and permit the court to fix a place for attendance which may be more convenient and accessible for the parties than that specified in the rule. Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1948 Amendment The amendment substitutes the present statutory reference. Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1970 Amendment At present, when a subpoena duces tecum is issued to a deponent, he is required to produce the listed materials at the deposition, but is under no clear compulsion to permit their inspection and copying. This results in confusion and uncertainty before the time the deposition is taken, with no mechanism provided whereby the court can resolve the matter. Rule 45(d)(1), as revised, makes clear that the subpoena authorizes inspection and copying of the materials produced. The deponent is afforded full protection since he can object, thereby forcing the party serving the subpoena to obtain a court order if he wishes to inspect and copy. The procedure is thus analogous to that provided in Rule 34. The changed references to other rules conform to changes made in those rules. The deletion of words in the clause describing the proper scope of the subpoena conforms to a change made in the language of Rule 34. The reference to Rule 26(b) is unchanged but encompasses new matter in that subdivision. The changes make it clear that the scope of discovery through a subpoena is the same as that applicable to Rule 34 and the other discovery rules. Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1980 Amendment Subdivision (d)(1). The amendment defines the term “proof of service” as used in the first sentence of the present subdivision. For want of a definition, the district court clerks have been obliged to fashion their own, with results that vary from district to district. All that seems required is a simple certification on a copy of the notice to take a deposition that the notice has been served on every other party to the action. That is the proof of service required by Rule 25(d) of both the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and the Supreme Court Rules. Subdivision (e)(1). The amendment makes the reach of a subpoena of a district court at least as extensive as that of the state courts of general jurisdiction in the state in which the district court is held. Under the present rule the reach of a district court subpoena is often greater, since it extends throughout the district. No reason appears why it should be less, as it sometimes is because of the accident of district lines. Restrictions upon the reach of subpoenas are imposed to prevent undue inconvenience to witnesses. State statutes and rules of court are quite likely to reflect the varying degrees of difficulty and expense attendant upon local travel. Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1985 Amendment Present Rule 45(d)(2) has two sentences setting forth the territorial scope of deposition subpoenas. The first sentence is directed to depositions taken in the judicial district in which the deponent resides; the second sentence addresses situations in which the deponent is not a resident of the district in which the deposition is to take place. The Rule, as currently constituted, creates anomalous situations that often cause logistical problems in conducting litigation. The first sentence of the present Rule states that a deponent may be required to attend only in the county wherein that person resides or is employed or transacts business in person, that is, where the person lives or works. Under this provision a deponent can be compelled, without court order, to travel from one end of that person's home county to the other, no matter how far that may be. The second sentence of the Rule is somewhat more flexible, stating that someone who does not reside in the district in which the deposition is to be taken can be required to attend in the county where the person is served with the subpoena, or within 40 miles from the place of service. Under today's conditions there is no sound reason for distinguishing between residents of the district or county in which a deposition is to be taken and nonresidents, and the Rule is amended to provide that any person may be subpoenaed to attend a deposition within a specified radius from that person's residence, place of business, or where the person was served. The 40-mile radius has been increased to 100 miles. Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1987 Amendment The amendments are technical. No substantive change is intended. Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1991 Amendment Purposes of Revision. The purposes of this revision are (1) to clarify and enlarge the protections afforded persons who are required to assist the court by giving information or evidence; (2) to facilitate access outside the deposition procedure provided by Rule 30 to documents and other information in the possession of persons who are not parties; (3) to facilitate service of subpoenas for depositions or productions of evidence at places distant from the district in which an action is proceeding; (4) to enable the court to compel a witness found within the state in which the court sits to attend trial; (5) to clarify the organization of the text of the rule. Subdivision (a). This subdivision is amended in seven significant respects. First, Paragraph (a)(3) modifies the requirement that a subpoena be issued by the clerk of court. Provision is made for the issuance of subpoenas by attorneys as officers of the court. This revision perhaps culminates an evolution. Subpoenas were long issued by specific order of the court. As this became a burden to the court, general orders were made authorizing clerks to issue subpoenas on request. Since 1948, they have been issued in blank by the clerk of any federal court to any lawyer, the clerk serving as stationer to the bar. In allowing counsel to issue the subpoena, the rule is merely a recognition of present reality. Although the subpoena is in a sense the command of the attorney who completes the form, defiance of a subpoena is nevertheless an act in defiance of a court order and exposes the defiant witness to contempt sanctions. In ICC v. Brimson, 154 U.S. 447 (1894), the Court upheld a statute directing federal courts to issue subpoenas to compel testimony before the ICC. In CAB v. Hermann, 353 U.S. 322 (1957), the Court approved as established practice the issuance of administrative subpoenas as a matter of absolute agency right. And in NLRB v. Warren Co., 350 U.S. 107 (1955), the Court held that the lower court had no discretion to withhold sanctions against a contemnor who violated such subpoenas. The 1948 revision of Rule 45 put the attorney in a position similar to that of the administrative agency, as a public officer entitled to use the court's contempt power to investigate facts in dispute. Two courts of appeals have touched on the issue and have described lawyer-issued subpoenas as mandates of the court. Waste Conversion, Inc. v. Rollins Environmental Services (NJ), Inc., 893 F.2d 605 (3d cir., 1990); Fisher v. Marubent Cotton Corp., 526 F.2d 1338, 1340 (8th cir., 1975). Cf. Young v. United States ex rel Vuitton et Fils S.A., 481 U.S. 787, 821 (1987) (Scalia, J., concurring). This revision makes the rule explicit that the attorney acts as an officer of the court in issuing and signing subpoenas. Necessarily accompanying the evolution of this power of the lawyer as officer of the court is the development of increased responsibility and liability for the misuse of this power. The latter development is reflected in the provisions of subdivision (c) of this rule, and also in the requirement imposed by paragraph (3) of this subdivision that the attorney issuing a subpoena must sign it. Second, Paragraph (a)(3) authorizes attorneys in distant districts to serve as officers authorized to issue commands in the name of the court. Any attorney permitted to represent a client in a federal court, even one admitted pro hac vice, has the same authority as a clerk to issue a subpoena from any federal court for the district in which the subpoena is served and enforced. In authorizing attorneys to issue subpoenas from distant courts, the amended rule effectively authorizes service of a subpoena anywhere in the United States by an attorney representing any party. This change is intended to ease the administrative burdens of inter-district law practice. The former rule resulted in delay and expense caused by the need to secure forms from clerks’ offices some distance from the place at which the action proceeds. This change does not enlarge the burden on the witness. Pursuant to Paragraph (a)(2), a subpoena for a deposition must still issue from the court in which the deposition or production would be compelled. Accordingly, a motion to quash such a subpoena if it overbears the limits of the subpoena power must, as under the previous rule, be presented to the court for the district in which the deposition would occur. Likewise, the court in whose name the subpoena is issued is responsible for its enforcement. Third, in order to relieve attorneys of the need to secure an appropriate seal to affix to a subpoena issued as an officer of a distant court, the requirement that a subpoena be under seal is abolished by the provisions of Paragraph (a)(1). Fourth, Paragraph (a)(1) authorizes the issuance of a subpoena to compel a non-party to produce evidence independent of any deposition. This revision spares the necessity of a deposition of the custodian of evidentiary material required to be produced. A party seeking additional production from a person subject to such a subpoena may serve an additional subpoena requiring additional production at the same time and place. Fifth, Paragraph (a)(2) makes clear that the person subject to the subpoena is required to produce materials in that person's control whether or not the materials are located within the district or within the territory within which the subpoena can be served. The non-party witness is subject to the same scope of discovery under this rule as that person would be as a party to whom a request is addressed pursuant to Rule 34. Sixth, Paragraph (a)(1) requires that the subpoena include a statement of the rights and duties of witnesses by setting forth in full the text of the new subdivisions (c) and (d). Seventh, the revised rule authorizes the issuance of a subpoena to compel the inspection of premises in the possession of a non-party. Rule 34 has authorized such inspections of premises in the possession of a party as discovery compelled under Rule 37, but prior practice required an independent proceeding to secure such relief ancillary to the federal proceeding when the premises were not in the possession of a party. Practice in some states has long authorized such use of a subpoena for this purpose without apparent adverse consequence. Subdivision (b). Paragraph (b)(1) retains the text of the former subdivision (c) with minor changes. The reference to the United States marshal and deputy marshal is deleted because of the infrequency of the use of these officers for this purpose. Inasmuch as these officers meet the age requirement, they may still be used if available. A provision requiring service of prior notice pursuant to Rule 5 of compulsory pretrial production or inspection has been added to paragraph (b)(1). The purpose of such notice is to afford other parties an opportunity to object to the production or inspection, or to serve a demand for additional documents or things. Such additional notice is not needed with respect to a deposition because of the requirement of notice imposed by Rule 30 or 31. But when production or inspection is sought independently of a deposition, other parties may need notice in order to monitor the discovery and in order to pursue access to any information that may or should be produced. Paragraph (b)(2) retains language formerly set forth in subdivision (e) and extends its application to subpoenas for depositions or production. Paragraph (b)(3) retains language formerly set forth in paragraph (d)(1) and extends its applications to subpoenas for trial or hearing or production. Subdivision (c). This provision is new and states the rights of witnesses. It is not intended to diminish rights conferred by Rules 26–37 or any other authority. Paragraph (c)(1) gives specific application to the principle stated in Rule 26(g) and specifies liability for earnings lost by a non-party witness as a result of a misuse of the subpoena. No change in existing law is thereby effected. Abuse of a subpoena is an actionable tort, Board of Ed. v. Farmingdale Classroom Teach. Ass'n, 38 N.Y.2d 397, 380 N.Y.S.2d 635, 343 N.E.2d 278 (1975), and the duty of the attorney to the non-party is also embodied in Model Rule of Professional Conduct 4.4. The liability of the attorney is correlative to the expanded power of the attorney to issue subpoenas. The liability may include the cost of fees to collect attorneys’ fees owed as a result of a breach of this duty. Paragraph (c)(2) retains language from the former subdivision (b) and paragraph (d)(1). The 10-day period for response to a subpoena is extended to 14 days to avoid the complex calculations associated with short time periods under Rule 6 and to allow a bit more time for such objections to be made. A non-party required to produce documents or materials is protected against significant expense resulting from involuntary assistance to the court. This provision applies, for example, to a non-party required to provide a list of class members. The court is not required to fix the costs in advance of production, although this will often be the most satisfactory accommodation to protect the party seeking discovery from excessive costs. In some instances, it may be preferable to leave uncertain costs to be determined after the materials have been produced, provided that the risk of uncertainty is fully disclosed to the discovering party. See, e.g., United States v. Columbia Broadcasting Systems, Inc., 666 F.2d 364 (9th Cir. 1982). Paragraph (c)(3) explicitly authorizes the quashing of a subpoena as a means of protecting a witness from misuse of the subpoena power. It replaces and enlarges on the former subdivision (b) of this rule and tracks the provisions of Rule 26(c). While largely repetitious, this rule is addressed to the witness who may read it on the subpoena, where it is required to be printed by the revised paragraph (a)(1) of this rule. Subparagraph (c)(3)(A) identifies those circumstances in which a subpoena must be quashed or modified. It restates the former provisions with respect to the limits of mandatory travel that are set forth in the former paragraphs (d)(2) and (e)(1), with one important change. Under the revised rule, a federal court can compel a witness to come from any place in the state to attend trial, whether or not the local state law so provides. This extension is subject to the qualification provided in the next paragraph, which authorizes the court to condition enforcement of a subpoena compelling a non-party witness to bear substantial expense to attend trial. The traveling non-party witness may be entitled to reasonable compensation for the time and effort entailed. Clause (c)(3)(A)(iv) requires the court to protect all persons from undue burden imposed by the use of the subpoena power. Illustratively, it might be unduly burdensome to compel an adversary to attend trial as a witness if the adversary is known to have no personal knowledge of matters in dispute, especially so if the adversary would be required to incur substantial travel burdens. Subparagraph (c)(3)(B) identifies circumstances in which a subpoena should be quashed unless the party serving the subpoena shows a substantial need and the court can devise an appropriate accommodation to protect the interests of the witness. An additional circumstance in which such action is required is a request for costly production of documents; that situation is expressly governed by subparagraph (b)(2)(B). Clause (c)(3)(B)(i) authorizes the court to quash, modify, or condition a subpoena to protect the person subject to or affected by the subpoena from unnecessary or unduly harmful disclosures of confidential information. It corresponds to Rule 26(c)(7). Clause (c)(3)(B)(ii) provides appropriate protection for the intellectual property of the non-party witness; it does not apply to the expert retained by a party, whose information is subject to the provisions of Rule 26(b)(4). A growing problem has been the use of subpoenas to compel the giving of evidence and information by unretained experts. Experts are not exempt from the duty to give evidence, even if they cannot be compelled to prepare themselves to give effective testimony, e.g., Carter-Wallace, Inc. v. Otte, 474 F.2d 529 (2d Cir. 1972), but compulsion to give evidence may threaten the intellectual property of experts denied the opportunity to bargain for the value of their services. See generally Maurer, Compelling the Expert Witness: Fairness and Utility Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure , 19 GA.L.REV. 71 (1984); Note, Discovery and Testimony of Unretained Experts, 1987 DUKE L.J. 140. Arguably the compulsion to testify can be regarded as a “taking” of intellectual property. The rule establishes the right of such persons to withhold their expertise, at least unless the party seeking it makes the kind of showing required for a conditional denial of a motion to quash as provided in the final sentence of subparagraph (c)(3)(B); that requirement is the same as that necessary to secure work product under Rule 26(b)(3) and gives assurance of reasonable compensation. The Rule thus approves the accommodation of competing interests exemplified in United States v. Columbia Broadcasting Systems Inc., 666 F.2d 364 (9th Cir. 1982). See also Wright v. Jeep Corporation, 547 F. Supp. 871 (E.D. Mich. 1982). As stated in Kaufman v. Edelstein, 539 F.2d 811, 822 (2d Cir. 1976), the district court's discretion in these matters should be informed by “the degree to which the expert is being called because of his knowledge of facts relevant to the case rather than in order to give opinion testimony; the difference between testifying to a previously formed or expressed opinion and forming a new one; the possibility that, for other reasons, the witness is a unique expert; the extent to which the calling party is able to show the unlikelihood that any comparable witness will willingly testify; and the degree to which the witness is able to show that he has been oppressed by having continually to testify. . . .” Clause (c)(3)(B)(iii) protects non-party witnesses who may be burdened to perform the duty to travel in order to provide testimony at trial. The provision requires the court to condition a subpoena requiring travel of more than 100 miles on reasonable compensation. Subdivision (d). This provision is new. Paragraph (d)(1) extends to non-parties the duty imposed on parties by the last paragraph of Rule 34(b), which was added in 1980. Paragraph (d)(2) is new and corresponds to the new Rule 26(b)(5). Its purpose is to provide a party whose discovery is constrained by a claim of privilege or work product protection with information sufficient to evaluate such a claim and to resist if it seems unjustified. The person claiming a privilege or protection cannot decide the limits of that party's own entitlement. A party receiving a discovery request who asserts a privilege or protection but fails to disclose that claim is at risk of waiving the privilege or protection. A person claiming a privilege or protection who fails to provide adequate information about the privilege or protection claim to the party seeking the information is subject to an order to show cause why the person should not be held in contempt under subdivision (e). Motions for such orders and responses to motions are subject to the sanctions provisions of Rules 7 and 11. A person served a subpoena that is too broad may be faced with a burdensome task to provide full information regarding all that person's claims to privilege or work product protection. Such a person is entitled to protection that may be secured through an objection made pursuant to paragraph (c)(2). Subdivision (e). This provision retains most of the language of the former subdivision (f). “Adequate cause” for a failure to obey a subpoena remains undefined. In at least some circumstances, a non-party might be guilty of contempt for refusing to obey a subpoena even though the subpoena manifestly overreaches the appropriate limits of the subpoena power. E.g., Walker v. City of Birmingham, 388 U.S. 307 (1967). But, because the command of the subpoena is not in fact one uttered by a judicial officer, contempt should be very sparingly applied when the non-party witness has been overborne by a party or attorney. The language added to subdivision (f) is intended to assure that result where a non-party has been commanded, on the signature of an attorney, to travel greater distances than can be compelled pursuant to this rule. Committee Notes on Rules—2005 Amendment This amendment closes a small gap in regard to notifying witnesses of the manner for recording a deposition. A deposition subpoena must state the method for recording the testimony. Rule 30(b)(2) directs that the party noticing a deposition state in the notice the manner for recording the testimony, but the notice need not be served on the deponent. The deponent learns of the recording method only if the deponent is a party or is informed by a party. Rule 30(b)(3) permits another party to designate an additional method of recording with prior notice to the deponent and the other parties. The deponent thus has notice of the recording method when an additional method is designated. This amendment completes the notice provisions to ensure that a nonparty deponent has notice of the recording method when the recording method is described only in the deposition notice. A subpoenaed witness does not have a right to refuse to proceed with a deposition due to objections to the manner of recording. But under rare circumstances, a nonparty witness might have a ground for seeking a protective order under Rule 26(c) with regard to the manner of recording or the use of the deposition if recorded in a certain manner. Should such a witness not learn of the manner of recording until the deposition begins, undesirable delay or complication might result. Advance notice of the recording method affords an opportunity to raise such protective issues. Other changes are made to conform Rule 45(a)(2) to current style conventions. Changes Made After Publication and Comment. Only a small style change has been made in the proposal as published. Committee Notes on Rules—2006 Amendment Rule 45 is amended to conform the provisions for subpoenas to changes in other discovery rules, largely related to discovery of electronically stored information. Rule 34 is amended to provide in greater detail for the production of electronically stored information. Rule 45(a)(1)(C) is amended to recognize that electronically stored information, as defined in Rule 34(a), can also be sought by subpoena. Like Rule 34(b), Rule 45(a)(1) is amended to provide that the subpoena can designate a form or forms for production of electronic data. Rule 45(c)(2) is amended, like Rule 34(b), to authorize the person served with a subpoena to object to the requested form or forms. In addition, as under Rule 34(b), Rule 45(d)(1)(B) is amended to provide that if the subpoena does not specify the form or forms for electronically stored information, the person served with the subpoena must produce electronically stored information in a form or forms in which it is usually maintained or in a form or forms that are reasonably usable. Rule 45(d)(1)(C) is added to provide that the person producing electronically stored information should not have to produce the same information in more than one form unless so ordered by the court for good cause. As with discovery of electronically stored information from parties, complying with a subpoena for such information may impose burdens on the responding person. Rule 45(c) provides protection against undue impositions on nonparties. For example, Rule 45(c)(1) directs that a party serving a subpoena “shall take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the subpoena,” and Rule 45(c)(2)(B) permits the person served with the subpoena to object to it and directs that an order requiring compliance “shall protect a person who is neither a party nor a party's officer from significant expense resulting from” compliance. Rule 45(d)(1)(D) is added to provide that the responding person need not provide discovery of electronically stored information from sources the party identifies as not reasonably accessible, unless the court orders such discovery for good cause, considering the limitations of Rule 26(b)(2)(C), on terms that protect a nonparty against significant expense. A parallel provision is added to Rule 26(b)(2). Rule 45(a)(1)(B) is also amended, as is Rule 34(a), to provide that a subpoena is available to permit testing and sampling as well as inspection and copying. As in Rule 34, this change recognizes that on occasion the opportunity to perform testing or sampling may be important, both for documents and for electronically stored information. Because testing or sampling may present particular issues of burden or intrusion for the person served with the subpoena, however, the protective provisions of Rule 45(c) should be enforced with vigilance when such demands are made. Inspection or testing of certain types of electronically stored information or of a person's electronic information system may raise issues of confidentiality or privacy. The addition of sampling and testing to Rule 45(a) with regard to documents and electronically stored information is not meant to create a routine right of direct access to a person's electronic information system, although such access might be justified in some circumstances. Courts should guard against undue intrusiveness resulting from inspecting or testing such systems. Rule 45(d)(2) is amended, as is Rule 26(b)(5), to add a procedure for assertion of privilege or of protection as trial-preparation materials after production. The receiving party may submit the information to the court for resolution of the privilege claim, as under Rule 26(b)(5)(B). Other minor amendments are made to conform the rule to the changes described above. Changes Made After Publication and Comment. The Committee recommends a modified version of the proposal as published. The changes were made to maintain the parallels between Rule 45 and the other rules that address discovery of electronically stored information. These changes are fully described in the introduction to Rule 45 and in the discussions of the other rules. [Omitted] The changes from the published proposed amendment are shown below. [Omitted] Committee Notes on Rules—2007 Amendment The language of Rule 45 has been amended as part of the general restyling of the Civil Rules to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic only. The reference to discovery of “books” in former Rule 45(a)(1)(C) was deleted to achieve consistent expression throughout the discovery rules. Books remain a proper subject of discovery. Former Rule 45(b)(1) required “prior notice” to each party of any commanded production of documents and things or inspection of premises. Courts have agreed that notice must be given “prior” to the return date, and have tended to converge on an interpretation that requires notice to the parties before the subpoena is served on the person commanded to produce or permit inspection. That interpretation is adopted in amended Rule 45(b)(1) to give clear notice of general present practice. The language of former Rule 45(d)(2) addressing the manner of asserting privilege is replaced by adopting the wording of Rule 26(b)(5). The same meaning is better expressed in the same words. Changes Made After Publication and Comment. See Note to Rule 1, supra. Committee Notes on Rules—2013 Amendment Rule 45 was extensively amended in 1991. The goal of the present amendments is to clarify and simplify the rule. The amendments recognize the court where the action is pending as the issuing court, permit nationwide service of subpoena, and collect in a new subdivision (c) the previously scattered provisions regarding place of compliance. These changes resolve a conflict that arose after the 1991 amendment about a court's authority to compel a party or party officer to travel long distances to testify at trial; such testimony may now be required only as specified in new Rule 45(c). In addition, the amendments introduce authority in new Rule 45(f) for the court where compliance is required to transfer a subpoena-related motion to the court where the action is pending on consent of the person subject to the subpoena or in exceptional circumstances. Subdivision (a). This subdivision is amended to provide that a subpoena issues from the court where the action is pending. Subdivision (a)(3) specifies that an attorney authorized to practice in that court may issue a subpoena, which is consistent with current practice. In Rule 45(a)(1)(D), "person" is substituted for "party" because the subpoena may be directed to a nonparty. Rule 45(a)(4) is added to highlight and slightly modify a notice requirement first included in the rule in 1991. Under the 1991 amendments, Rule 45(b)(1) required prior notice of the service of a "documents only" subpoena to the other parties. Rule 45(b)(1) was clarified in 2007 to specify that this notice must be served before the subpoena is served on the witness. The Committee has been informed that parties serving subpoenas frequently fail to give the required notice to the other parties. The amendment moves the notice requirement to a new provision in Rule 45(a) and requires that the notice include a copy of the subpoena. The amendments are intended to achieve the original purpose of enabling the other parties to object or to serve a subpoena for additional materials. Parties desiring access to information produced in response to the subpoena will need to follow up with the party serving it or the person served to obtain such access. The rule does not limit the court's authority to order notice of receipt of produced materials or access to them. The party serving the subpoena should in any event make reasonable provision for prompt access. Subdivision (b). The former notice requirement in Rule 45(b)(1) has been moved to new Rule 45(a)(4). Rule 45(b)(2) is amended to provide that a subpoena may be served at any place within the United States, removing the complexities prescribed in prior versions. Subdivision (c). Subdivision (c) is new. It collects the various provisions on where compliance can be required and simplifies them. Unlike the prior rule, place of service is not critical to place of compliance. Although Rule 45(a)(1)(A)(iii) permits the subpoena to direct a place of compliance, that place must be selected under Rule 45(c). Rule 45(c)(1) addresses a subpoena to testify at a trial, hearing, or deposition. Rule 45(c)(1)(A) provides that compliance may be required within 100 miles of where the person subject to the subpoena resides, is employed, or regularly conducts business in person. For parties and party officers, Rule 45(c)(1)(B)(i) provides that compliance may be required anywhere in the state where the person resides, is employed, or regularly conducts business in person. When an order under Rule 43(a) authorizes testimony from a remote location, the witness can be commanded to testify from any place described in Rule 45(c)(1). Under Rule 45(c)(1)(B)(ii), nonparty witnesses can be required to travel more than 100 miles within the state where they reside, are employed, or regularly transact business in person only if they would not, as a result, incur "substantial expense." When travel over 100 miles could impose substantial expense on the witness, the party that served the subpoena may pay that expense and the court can condition enforcement of the subpoena on such payment. Because Rule 45(c) directs that compliance may be commanded only as it provides, these amendments resolve a split in interpreting Rule 45's provisions for subpoenaing parties and party officers. Compare In re Vioxx Products Liability Litigation, 438 F. Supp. 2d 664 (E.D. La. 2006) (finding authority to compel a party officer from New Jersey to testify at trial in New Orleans), with Johnson v. Big Lots Stores, Inc., 251 F.R.D. 213 (E.D. La. 2008) (holding that Rule 45 did not require attendance of plaintiffs at trial in New Orleans when they would have to travel more than 100 miles from outside the state). Rule 45(c)(1)(A) does not authorize a subpoena for trial to require a party or party officer to travel more than 100 miles unless the party or party officer resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person in the state. Depositions of parties, and officers, directors, and managing agents of parties need not involve use of a subpoena. Under Rule 37(d)(1)(A)(i), failure of such a witness whose deposition was properly noticed to appear for the deposition can lead to Rule 37(b) sanctions (including dismissal or default but not contempt) without regard to service of a subpoena and without regard to the geographical limitations on compliance with a subpoena. These amendments do not change that existing law; the courts retain their authority to control the place of party depositions and impose sanctions for failure to appear under Rule 37(b). For other discovery, Rule 45(c)(2) directs that inspection of premises occur at those premises, and that production of documents, tangible things, and electronically stored information may be commanded to occur at a place within 100 miles of where the person subject to the subpoena resides, is employed, or regularly conducts business in person. Under the current rule, parties often agree that production, particularly of electronically stored information, be transmitted be electronic means. Such arrangements facilitate discovery, and nothing in these amendments limits the ability of parties to make such arrangements. Rule 45(d)(3)(A)(ii) directs the court to quash any subpoena that purports to compel compliance beyond the geographical limits specified in Rule 45(c). Subdivision (d). Subdivision (d) contains the provisions formerly in subdivision (c). It is revised to recognize the court where the action is pending as the issuing court, and to take account of the addition of Rule 45(c) to specify where compliance with a subpoena is required. Subdivision (f). Subdivision (f) is new. Under Rules 45(d)(2)(b), 45(d)(3), and 45(e)(2)(B), subpoena-related motions and applications are to be made to the court where compliance is required under Rule 45(c). Rule 45(f) provides authority for that court to transfer the motion to the court where the action is pending. It applies to all motions under this rule, including an application under Rule 45(e)(2)(B) for a privilege determination. Subpoenas are essential to obtain discovery from nonparties. To protect local nonparties, local resolution of disputes about subpoenas is assured by the limitations of Rule 45(c) and the requirements in Rules 45(d) and (e) that motions be made in the court in which compliance is required under Rule 45(c). But transfer to the court where the action is pending is sometimes warranted. If the person subject to the subpoena consents to transfer, Rule 45(f) provides that the court where compliance is required may do so. In the absence of consent, the court may transfer in exceptional circumstances, and the proponent of transfer bears the burden of showing that such circumstances are present. The prime concern should be avoiding burdens on local nonparties subject to subpoenas, and it should not be assumed that the issuing court is in a superior position to resolve subpoena-related motions. In some circumstances, however, transfer may be warranted in order to avoid disrupting the issuing court's management of the underlying litigation, as when that court has already ruled on issues presented by the motion or the same issues are likely to arise in discovery in many districts. Transfer is appropriate only if such interests outweigh the interests of the nonparty served with the subpoena in obtaining local resolution of the motion. Judges in compliance districts may find it helpful to consult with the judge in the issuing court presiding over the underlying case while addressing subpoena-related motions. If the motion is transferred, judges are encouraged to permit telecommunications methods to minimalize the burden a transfer imposes on nonparties, if it is necessary for attorneys admitted in the court where the motion is made to appear in the court in which the action is pending. The rule provides that if these attorneys are authorized to practice in the court where the motion is made, they may file papers and appear in the court in which the action is pending in relation to the motion as officers of that court. After transfer, the court where the action is pending will decide the motion. If the court rules that discovery is not justified, that should end the matter. If the court orders further discovery, it is possible that retransfer may be important to enforce the order. One consequence of failure to obey such an order is contempt, addressed in Rule 45(g). Rule 45(g) and Rule 37(b)(1) are both amended to provide that disobedience of an order enforcing a subpoena after transfer is contempt of the issuing court and the court where compliance is required under Rule 45(c). In some instances, however, there may be a question about where the issuing court can impose contempt sanctions on a distant nonparty. If such circumstances arise, or if it is better to supervise compliance in the court where compliance is required, the rule provides authority for retransfer for enforcement. Although changed circumstances may prompt a modification of such an order, it is not expected that the compliance court will reexamine the resolution of the underlying motion. Subdivision (g). Subdivision (g) carries forward the authority of former subdivision (e) to punish disobedience of subpoenas as contempt. It is amended to make clear that, in the event of transfer of a subpoena-related motions, such disobedience constitutes contempt of both the court where compliance is required under Rule 45(c) and the court where the action is pending. If necessary for effective enforcement, Rule 45(f) authorizes the issuing court to transfer its order after the motion is resolved. The rule is also amended to clarify that contempt sanctions may be applied to a person who disobeys a subpoena-related order, as well as one who fails entirely to obey a subpoena. In civil litigation, it would be rare for a court to use contempt sanctions without first ordering compliance with a subpoena, and the order might not require all the compliance sought by the subpoena. Often contempt proceedings will be initiated by an order to show cause, and an order to comply or be held in contempt may modify the subpoena's command. Disobedience of such an order may be treated as contempt. The second sentence of former subdivision (e) is deleted as unnecessary. Changes Made After Publication and Comment. As described in the Report, the published preliminary draft was modified in several ways after the public comment period. The words "before trial" were restored to the notice provision that was moved to new Rule 459a)(4). The place of compliance in new Rule 45(c)(2)(A) was changed to a place "within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed or regularly conducts business." In new Rule 45(f), the party consent feature was removed, meaning consent of the person subject to the subpoena is sufficient to permit transfer to the issuing court. In addition, style changes were made after consultation with the Standing Committee's Style Consultant. In the Committee Note, clarifications were made in response to points raised during the public comment period. ‹ Rule 44.1. Determining Foreign LawupRule 46. Objecting to a Ruling or Order › Toolbox LII on your phone: Apple iOS - Download on the App Store Wex: Civil Procedure: Overview AddThis Sharing Buttons Find a Lawyer Lawyers near Phoenix, Arizona Lawyers: get listed for free! Bob Willis Construction Law, Personal Injury, Nursing Home Abuse & Neglect, Insurance Defense, Arbitration & Mediation, Products Liability Mesa, AZ Dwane Cates Criminal Law, Domestic Violence, DUI & DWI, Juvenile Law, White Collar Crime Phoenix, AZ Peter H. Westby Bankruptcy, Business Law, Collections, Divorce, Elder Law, Estate Planning, Family Law, Foreclosure Defense, Landlord Tenant, Probate, Real Estate Law Phoenix, AZ Matthew Harrison Business Law, Construction Law, Estate Planning, Insurance Claims, Personal Injury, Real Estate Law, Environmental Law, Consumer Law, Insurance Defense, Criminal Law Gilbert, AZ Alex Lane Criminal Law, DUI & DWI Phoenix, AZ See More Lawyers All lawyers ABOUT LII CONTACT US ADVERTISE HERE HELP TERMS OF USE PRIVACY
from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps http://bit.ly/2atbEPr
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)