#Iowa-based attorney

[vintage1981]

Actress and Author, Lara Parker, of Dark Shadows, Passes at 84

Lara Parker, who found the role of a lifetime at just 28 years old when she was cast by Dark Shadows producer Dan Curtis as the beautiful, vengeful and altogether evil witch Angelique Bouchard Collins, died October 12 in her sleep in Los Angeles following a battle with cancer. She was 84.

Her death was announced by producer Jim Pierson of Dan Curtis Productions, on behalf of Parker’s family.

“I’m heartbroken, as all of us are who knew and loved her,” said her Dark Shadows co-star and longtime friend Kathryn Leigh Scott in a statement. “She graced our lives with her beauty, talent and friendship, and we are all richer for having had her in our lives.”

Parker was born Mary Lamar Rickey on Oct. 27, 1938, in Knoxville, Tennessee. Her father, Albert, was an attorney, and her mother, Ann, was active in civic groups.

She graduated from Central High School in Memphis and attended Vassar — she roomed with Jane Fonda there — and Rhodes College in Memphis, where at 19 she served as Wink Martindale’s assistant on his WHBQ-TV show, Dance Party. She then earned a master’s degree from the University of Iowa.

Parker, who also authored four popular Dark Shadows-related novels from 1998-2016, arrived on the supernatural soap opera in 1967, not long after Canadian actor Jonathan Frid had been cast as vampire Barnabas Collins. Frid’s storyline changed the show from a moody, Gothic Jane Eyre-type serial into a flat-out horror show.

During breaks in production, Parker acted on Broadway in September 1968 in Woman Is My Idea, which lasted just five performances, and in the early Brian De Palma film Hi, Mom! (1970), starring Robert De Niro.

And toward the end of the daytime serial, she and fellow castmembers including John Karlen, Kate Jackson, David Selby and Grayson Hall appeared in the poorly received MGM film Night of Dark Shadows (1971).

In 1972, Parker relocated to Los Angeles and went on to appear on episodes of such shows as Medical Center, Kojak, The Rockford Files, Police Woman, Kolchak: The Night Stalker (as a witch) and The Incredible Hulk, where she played David Banner’s first wife in a flashback sequence in the pilot.

In her later years, Parker turned to writing and teaching — her novels include Angelique’s Descent (1998), The Salem Branch (2006), Wolf Moon Rising (2013) and Heiress of Collinwood (2016). The books proved popular among Dark Shadows‘ still-devoted, conventions-attending fan base, as well as devotees of romance and horror genre novels.

Parker kept in touch with her co-stars including Scott, Selby, Roger Davis, the late John Karlen and others throughout her life, particularly once the conventions became annual events in the late 1980s through the 1990s and up to the 50th anniversary celebration in 2017.

Many of the original cast, including Parker, recorded a series of Dark Shadows audio dramas in the 2000s released by Big Finish Productions. They also reunited for a “Smartphone Theatre” Zoom-style, Covid-era performance of A Christmas Carol in 2021 and, on Halloween night 2020, a YouTube/Zoom Dark Shadows cast reunion.

Parker is survived by second husband Jim Hawkins, daughter Caitlin, sons Rick and Andy, and their wives Miranda and Celia; and grandson Wesley.

[coochiequeens]

A male in office was going to let a child rapist free but a woman defeated him in last Novembers election and is now keeping him locked up. This is why every vote counts means more than just the presidential election.

By Genevieve Gluck January 31, 2024

A serial child rapist who had previously secured a release from prison after identifying as transgender has finally been deemed a “sexually violent predator” under Iowa state law. A judge has determined that Joseph Matthew Smith, who now uses the name Josie Maria Dunham or Josie Smith, should be confined in a secure facility indefinitely, quashing a previous ruling that claimed Smith was no longer a sexual risk due to being on feminizing hormones.

Newly-elected Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird is behind the push to keep Smith in custody, having recently defeated the nation’s longest-tenured attorney general, Tom Miller, in a November election.

In 2020, Miller endorsed the move that saw Smith released from custody. Bird then condemned his judgement in the matter, running ads during her campaign slamming Miller as sympathetic to the sexual predator.

A petition filed in December in Buena Vista County District Court requested a civil trial in order to determine whether Smith should be re-classified as a sexually violent predator with a high chance of re-offending.

“[Smith]’s mental abnormality makes him more likely than not to engage in predatory acts constituting sexually violent offenses if not confined in a secure facility,” the petition reads. “[Smith] should be committed to the custody of the Department of Human Services to be held in a secure facility for control, care, and treatment until such time as his mental abnormality has so changed that he is safe to be at large in the community.”

In December 2015, Smith was convicted in Buena Vista County of lascivious acts with a child. At the time, Assistant Attorney General Andrew Schoonhoven determined that Smith suffers from “at least one mental abnormality, specifically the mental abnormality of pedophilic disorder,” which predisposes Smith to “commit sexually violent offenses to a degree constituting a menace to the health and safety of others.”

A pre-sentence psychological report was prepared by the State’s expert, Dr. Jeffrey Davis, a psychologist from the University of California.

Davis recommended that Smith be confined at the Cherokee Civil Commitment Unit for Sex Offenders (CCUSO) for an indefinite period based on what he determined to be a high likelihood of sexual re-offending. The report noted that Smith had told a state forensic psychologist he had molested as many as 15 children under the age of 13, the youngest being a 1-year-old baby. He added that he believed Smith was more likely to commit a sexual assault than 92% of male sex offenders.

There has not been even one recorded case of a female patient having been committed to the CCUSO in the unit’s 25-year history, reports the Cherokee Chronicle Times. But there have been at least three trans-identified males in the civil commitment unit. One of those patients, a man named Christian Schiebel who uses the feminine name Tina Keller, told the Storm Lake Times-Pilot he was advised by his attorney that a transgender identity would increase his chances of release.

Smith made international headlines in 2020 after being released from prison just 4 years into an indefinite prison sentence. He had been convicted of sexually assaulting an 11-year-old resident at Midwest Christian Services (MCS), a treatment facility for juveniles following another conviction for sexually assaulting a 14-year-old when he was a teenager.

Despite his record of sexual offending, on January 9, 2020, the Iowa Attorney General’s office filed a motion to dismiss a petition requesting that the serial pedophile be considered a sexually violent predator. The Iowa Attorney General office’s defended the decision by citing Smith’s reduced testosterone levels as a result of hormone treatments. Attorney general spokesman Lynn Hicks stated that “an offender’s hormone levels are an important part of substantiating an offender’s likelihood of recidivism.”

Officials claimed Smith was at a lower risk of re-offending due to an altered testosterone level, and that he “no longer had the sex drive of a man.”

Smith had been receiving hormones related to his self-declared gender identity while being held at Newton Correctional Facility, where, in January 2016, he began serving an indefinite sentence after being convicted of molesting a child. In October 2017, he first expressed a desire to “get started on transgender classification” and started using female pronouns.

Hicks also claimed that an expert had determined that Smith was not at a risk of re-offending due to his gender identity. An Iowa district court judge therefore granted the motion to dismiss “in the interests of justice.”

In January of 2020, Smith was released on parole; but by October of 2021, he had already violated the terms of his strict conditions by using an unauthorized electronic device and seeking out sex. Despite the violation, Smith was not remanded to custody, and was instead allowed to continue to live in the small city of Sloan, Iowa.

In January 2022, Christine Louis, administrative law judge for Iowa Correctional Services, sentenced Smith to two more years in prison, as he had again violated the terms of his parole. During an inspection in January, Smith’s parole officer discovered child pornography on his phone which depicted boys and girls aged between five and eight years old. Smith requested leniency, but was ultimately denied.

[beardedmrbean]

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — New Hampshire’s attorney general on Monday ordered national Democratic party leaders to stop calling the state’s unsanctioned presidential primary “meaningless,” saying doing so violates state law.

The cease-and-desist notice came three days after the co-chairs of the Democratic National Committee’s rules committee told New Hampshire party leaders to “educate the public that January 23rd is a non-binding presidential preference event and is meaningless.” In a letter to Chairman Ray Buckley, they also called the primary “detrimental” and said “non-compliant processes can disenfranchise and confuse voters.”

But Attorney General John Formella said it’s the DNC that is in danger of harming voters. Formella, appointed by Republican Gov. Chris Sununu, did not say whether he is considering criminal charges, but his office later said he hasn't ruled it out. He released a statement saying the comments amount to an illegal attempt to deter voters from participating in the primary and cited state laws against criminal solicitation and voter suppression. The latter, a felony, makes it illegal to attempt to deter someone from voting based on fraudulent, deceptive or misleading information.

“Regardless of whether the DNC refuses to award delegates to the party’s national convention based on the results of the January 23, 2024, New Hampshire democratic Presidential Primary Election, this New Hampshire election is not “meaningless,’” Formella said. Statements to the contrary are false, deceptive and misleading.”

New Hampshire’s secretary of state scheduled the primary in accordance with a state law that requires both the Republican and Democratic primaries to be held at least seven days before any similar contest. But that put the state at odds with the DNC’s calendar, which starts with a primary in South Carolina on Feb. 3 followed by Nevada. Aimed at giving Black and other minority voters a larger, earlier role, the schedule also moves Michigan into the group of early states voting before Super Tuesday on March 5, when most of the rest of the country holds primaries.

President Joe Biden, who sought the changes, kept his name off the ballot in New Hampshire, though Democrats have organized a write-in campaign on his behalf.

Republicans will kick off the nominating process with the Iowa caucus on Monday. New Hampshire’s primary eight days later will be a crucial opportunity for GOP candidates to show they can remain competitive against former President Donald Trump, the early front-runner for their party’s presidential nomination.

A spokesperson for the DNC declined to comment Monday. Buckley, the New Hampshire chairman, released a statement reiterating that the secretary of state followed the law in picking the date.

“Well, it's safe to say in New Hampshire, the DNC is less popular than the NY Yankees,” he said. “Nothing has changed, and we look forward to seeing a great Democratic voter turnout on January 23rd.”

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Chris Geidner at Law Dork:

When it comes to the Biden administration’s long-awaited Title IX sex discrimination education rule, which went into effect Thursday, America truly is two nations. Due to a series of lower-court injunctions, the Education Department is blocked from enforcing the rule, which includes LGBTQ school protections, in 26 states across the country.

The steps that led us to such a place over the past 50 days tell both a story of how much anti-transgender animus has made its way into the federal courts — and a story of how irrelevant the U.S. Supreme Court has made itself and its rulings through its repeated actions disregarding, minimizing, or outright reversing those rulings. The 423-page rule that went into effect Thursday defines sex in the sex discrimination ban of Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 as including both sexual orientation and gender identity. This is reasoning that, the Biden administration argues, follows from the Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964’s sex discrimination ban includes bans on both sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination.

The rule also includes provisions addressing “sex-separated facilities” and “hostile-environment harassment,” both of which include language that provides protections for transgender students. The rule does much more, however, including setting for the standards for schools to use in handling sex-based harassment complaints, pregnancy protections, and setting forth general obligations under the landmark law. That rule is now in effect, but the Education Department is blocked from enforcing it in Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming. (As discussed below, the department is also blocked from enforcing the rule in more than 2,500 specific schools across the country — many of which are in the 24 states that do not have an injunction in place.) The Supreme Court, moreover, has allowed this to happen without even ruling as of mid-day Thursday on the Justice Department’s requests in two of the cases to pare back the injunctions during appeals.

[...]

What happened?

A series of lawsuits were filed challenging the rule, mostly brought by Republican attorneys general but also brought by some far-right organizations and primarily arguing that the rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act due to the three provisions addressing gender identity and transgender protections. They were almost all filed in jurisdictions that would increase the likelihood of a far-right judge hearing the case — and a more conservative appeals court considering appeals. The efforts paid off. Some of the most conservative district court judges in the nation heard the challenges and granted preliminary injunctions against enforcement of the rule — including U.S. District Judges Terry Doughty, Reed O’Connor, and Matthew Kacsmaryk, known for their far-right rulings on efforts to combat misinformation on social media, the Affordable Care Act, and mifepristone, respectively, all of which were reversed by the Supreme Court. In addition to those three judges in Texas and Louisiana, four others — U.S. District Judges Danny Reeves, John Broomes, Rodney Sippel, Jodi Dishman — issued injunctions from their courts in Kentucky, Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma, respectively.

The Biden Administration’s Title IX rule went into effect yesterday, but in 26 states and in over 2,500 schools across America, the new rule is being blocked from enforcement.

[contemplatingoutlander]

The complaint charged that despite Pfizer’s representations that its COVID-19 vaccine was 95% effective, more Americans died from the virus in 2021 — after the vaccine became available — than died in 2020. Paxton alleged that the true effectiveness of the vaccine amounted to a mere 0.85%.

This is a frivolous lawsuit based on Paxton cherry picking data and using it in dishonest ways.

The Pfizer vaccine has proven its effectiveness in real world analyses. For instance, both Pfizer and Moderna vaccines were proven effective in this study of "136,532 individuals in the Mayo Clinic health system (Arizona, Florida, Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin)" based on COVID infection, hospitalization, and ICU admission rates, beginning a week after the 2nd vaccine shot.

The real-world vaccine effectiveness of preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection was 86.1% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 82.4%–89.1%) for BNT162b2 and 93.3% (95% CI: 85.7%–97.4%) for mRNA-1273. BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 were 88.8% (95% CI: 75.5%–95.7%) and 86.0% (95% CI: 71.6%–93.9%) effective in preventing COVID-19-associated hospitalization. Both vaccines were 100% effective (95% CIBNT162b2: 51.4%–100%; 95% CImRNA-1273: 43.3%–100%) in preventing COVID-19-associated ICU admission. [color emphasis added]

Or as one person (acumenata) in the above Law & Crime article's comments section wrote:

The short answer [about why Paxton is suing Pfizer] is because he sucks at math, sucks at logic, and didn't read his state's own 2021 reports: Texas has seen nearly 9,000 COVID-19 deaths since February. All but 43 were unvaccinated people. https://www.texastribune.or... Unvaccinated Texans make up vast majority of COVID-19 cases and deaths this year, new state data shows https://www.texastribune.or... Texas must contend with outsized death toll from COVID-19 and anti-vaccine attitudes https://kinder.rice.edu/urb... [color emphasis added]

Aside from all of this, why is Ken Paxton still allowed to serve as Texas Attorney General? Why has he not yet been tried for his two felony fraud charges? Why is he allowed to file one frivolous lawsuit after another based on right-wing disinformation?

[edited]

[mariacallous]

This was a big week in American politics. It began with a devastating poll showing that Donald Trump was beating Joe Biden in a presidential match up in five out of six swing states. Then, on Tuesday, the voters spoke for the last time until the Iowa caucuses happen in mid-January and delivered the Democrats a very good night in multiple states that underscored the continuing power of the abortion issue. And on November 8, the five remaining challengers to former President Donald Trump met in their final debate of the year, an event that revealed the continuing struggle of Republicans opposed to renominating Trump to coalesce around an alternative to him.

What have we learned from these events?

1. Biden’s unpopularity does not mean that voters won’t vote for Democrats.

Our political system is obsessively focused on the President of the United States — his prospects, preferences, personnel, and health. During election years, there is considerable attention to his poll numbers and overall political standing. But as the special elections in 2021, the midterm elections in 2022, and now the off-year elections of 2023 have shown, President Biden’s unpopularity has failed to have the devastating effects on Democratic candidates that were widely predicted by pundits. For example, in September, analysts at FiveThirtyEight looked at 30 special elections that took place before the 2023 November elections, mostly state legislative seats. They calculated the seat’s base partisanship — their historical tendency towards one party or another — and then looked at the vote margin for Democrats running in those seats. On average, Democratic candidates in these races did about 11 points better than their historical average.

On election night 2023, Democrats won control of the Virginia legislature following a campaign in which the incumbent Governor Glenn Youngkin spent a lot of money and pulled out all the stops in an attempt to get a legislature which could help him enact a conservative agenda and catapult him into the presidential race. Instead, the opposite happened, and Democrats retained control of the Senate and gained control of the House of Delegates. We looked at the most competitive races (according to ABC News) in the Virginia Senate and House of Delegates to see what kind of a swing there was.

Because of redistricting, we can’t compare the 2023 vote precisely to the 2019 vote. But thanks to the Virginia Public Access project, we can compare how Senate and House candidates performed against the vote in their district for governor in 2021. In these 13 close Senate and House districts, the Republican Governor Youngkin won all but one in 2021, but in 2023, Republicans won seven (one remains too close to call), and Democrats won five. Democrats managed to flip a few seats — enough to retain control of the Senate and take control of the House of Delegates.

In the seven districts where Republicans won, their margin shrank compared to Youngkin’s vote in 2021. For instance, in Senate District 27, Republican Tara Durant performed 6.31 percentage points worse than Youngkin did in 2021, winning by only 2.19% of the vote compared to Youngkin’s margin of 8.5%.

A presidential star may have dimmed in Virginia, but one was born in Kentucky, where Democratic Governor Andy Beshear won re-election in a very Republican state, increasing his share of the vote from 49.2% in 2019 to 52.5% and winning several counties that had voted for Donald Trump in 2020. But Beshear will remain a lonely man. Every other statewide race in Kentucky went to Republicans. The votes for Attorney General and Agriculture Commissioner were virtually unchanged from four years before. The Republican Secretary of State saw a substantial increase in his vote but the Republican candidate for state treasurer saw a small decrease in his vote. In Mississippi, the statewide races from governor on down saw Republicans winning by almost the exact margins they won in 2019. So don’t put either state in the Democratic column for 2024.

So, why the big difference between polls showing Biden in trouble and elections where Democrats do well? The easiest answer is that there is, perhaps, no relationship between the two; down-ballot Democrats might continue to do well in off-year and midterm elections, and Biden could lose nevertheless. A second possibility is that the polls are just wrong on a systematic basis due to single-digit response rates and their difficulty in measuring voter turnout. A third possibility is that the cost of living is a very powerful motivator and that voters blame the president but not other office holders for this problem. A fourth possibility is that voters just don’t like Biden because of personal characteristics such as his age and the perception that he is not a strong leader.

One thing is clear: The Biden campaign would be ill-advised to over-interpret the significance of these recent Democratic victories for the president’s prospects in 2024.

2. Where the right to choose is in question, the abortion issue is very powerful and helps the Democrats.

In those places where Democrats did well, the explanation was pretty simple: As in previous elections, if voters perceive that a woman’s right to abortion is on the ballot in some fashion, pro-choice candidates do well. In Kentucky, where a six-week ban on abortion and a trigger law was upheld by the State’s Supreme Court, access to abortion is difficult, despite the defeat of a constitutional amendment denying any protections for abortion by a large margin in November 2022.

The abortion issue remains top of mind in Kentucky, and Beshear’s campaign for governor focused heavily on it, hammering his Republican opponent for his opposition to exceptions to an outright ban on the procedure.

In Virginia, abortion is currently legal up until the end of the second trimester. But Gov. Youngkin pushed for an abortion ban after 15 weeks that included exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother. Democrats ran on this issue in almost all the competitive districts, and voters apparently rejected Youngkin’s proposal, which he termed a sensible compromise around which Republicans and the country could coalesce.

Those who persist in believing that the abortion issue doesn’t have continuing strength should look at another, even more powerful lesson from Tuesday night. The abortion referendum on the Ohio ballot, amending the state’s constitution to establish a right to “carry out one’s own reproductive decisions… including on abortion,” would preserve the right to abortion up to 23 weeks. The Ohio referendum won with 56.6% of the vote, garnering support from one in five Republicans and carrying 18 counties that Trump had won in 2020.

The Ohio referendum was the latest victory of the pro-choice movement in solidly conservative states. In Kansas, the pro-choice referendum garnered 59% of the vote; in Montana and Kentucky, 53%. In Michigan, a swing state, the pro-choice position got 56% of the vote, and in the liberal states of Vermont and California, it got 73% and 68% of the vote.

3. The Republican debate revealed both Republican divisions on abortion and the impact of President Biden’s weak standing in national polls on the Republican race.

Chris Christie argued that abortion should be left to the states while Tim Scott advocated a national ban on the procedure after 15 weeks, a stance that is likely to be more popular in the Republican primary contests than in the general election. Nikki Haley argued that such a ban has no chance of gaining enough support in the Senate and renewed her plea for a consensus-based approach to the issue, a stance that would play better in the general election than among socially conservative Iowa Republicans. For his part, Ron DeSantis ducked, contenting himself with criticizing the weakness of Republican efforts in state referendum contests.

Meanwhile, the man who wasn’t on the stage — former president Trump — has made it clear that he regards abortion as a political loser for Republicans and will do his best to deemphasize it as a national issue in 2024. If he is the Republican nominee, Democrats are unlikely to let him off the hook and will remind voters of his central role in selecting three Supreme Court justices who voted to overturn Roe v. Wade.

No matter whom the Republicans select as their standard-bearer, the issue will remain important in the national debate, although probably not as central as it has been in the states since the Court ended the Roe era. The presidency is a distinctive office whose occupants are held responsible for the economy and national security, not just their stance on social issues. Reflecting this reality, the moderators of the debate led with the conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East, waiting to raise abortion until close to the end of the event. No doubt President Biden’s campaign will try to capitalize on the pro-Democratic tilt of this issue, but he will be judged by his performance in other areas as well. Abortion will be helpful to him in 2024, but it is not the silver bullet that will help him defeat his Republican opponent.

As the debate moderators indicated with their opening question, there is a central question that each of the candidates on stage needed to answer: Why would I be a better nominee than the man who isn’t here tonight? President Biden’s current weak standing in the polls is limiting their responses. Back in the spring, they hoped to be able to argue that while Donald Trump was a fine president, he was likely to lose to Biden in 2024 as he did in 2020. But now, with recent polls indicating that Trump leads Biden nationally and in key swing states, his Republican challengers are forced to offer more substantive answers that risk antagonizing Trump’s supporters.

Nikki Haley went the farthest down this road, criticizing him for allowing the national debt to rise by $8 billion during his presidency and for being “weak in the knees” on Ukraine and other foreign policy issues. Ron DeSantis said that Trump is “a lot different guy than he was in 2016” and held him responsible for a string of Republican losses since then. Chris Christie focused on Trump’s legal difficulties, arguing that “anybody who’s going to be spending the next year and a half of their life focusing on keeping themselves out of jail . . . cannot lead this party or this country.” It remains to be seen whether any of these arguments will gain traction with a Republican electorate that seems inclined to give Trump a pass on all of them.

Indeed, the big winner of last night’s debate may well have been the man who boycotted it. DeSantis performed better than he had in the two previous debates, and Haley — though strong — was less dominant. If DeSantis’s improved showing slows her effort to emerge in Iowa as the principal alternative to Trump, she may not gain the momentum she would need to defeat Trump in New Hampshire, an outcome that would destroy his aura of invincibility and transform the contest for the Republican presidential nomination. The political landscape has been frozen in time for some months now, with an incumbent president and a former president at the top and everyone else vying for attention.

As international events unfold, the question is: Will anyone or anything change this equation, or will we be looking at the widely anticipated rematch?

[northiowatoday]

Waterloo cops "legally justified" in shooting suspect, Iowa Attorney General's office claims

Waterloo DES MOINES — The Iowa Attorney General’s Office issued a report concluding that the June 30, 2024, fatal shooting of Kelvin Plain, Jr. by two Waterloo police officers was “legally justified.” The Attorney General’s conclusion was based on a review and investigation by the Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation. The investigation found that on June 29, 2024, a woman reported that Plain…

[stange-law-firm]

Stange Law Firm Discusses the Benefits of Prenuptial Agreements

Prenuptial agreements (prenups) have become increasingly common in modern marriages. According to a 2022 study by market research firm Harris Poll, 15% of married or engaged couples had signed prenups, a significant rise from the 3% recorded in 2010. Once thought to be necessary only for the wealthy, more couples across the country are realizing the practical benefits of establishing a prenuptial agreement before marriage. Stange Law Firm, a leader in family law with offices across seven states, offers insights into why prenuptial agreements are important for today’s couples.

The Focus of Stange Law Firm

At the forefront of Stange Law Firm is attorney Kirk Stange, a seasoned practitioner in family law. As the head of the second-largest family law firm in the United States, Kirk Stange has seen firsthand how contentious marital disputes can turn into lengthy legal battles. Stange Law Firm, headquartered in Clayton, Missouri, now has 25 offices across Missouri, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Nebraska, Oklahoma and Kansas. The firm’s extensive experience in handling divorce cases makes them a valuable resource for couples considering the benefits of a prenuptial agreement.

Kirk Stange’s work has not gone unnoticed. He has been recognized on Missouri Lawyers Media’s POWER List for Family Law, and his knowledge on prenuptial agreements culminated in his book, Prenuptial Agreements Line by Line. Through his years of experience, Kirk has developed a deep understanding of how prenuptial agreements can streamline divorce proceedings, offering couples a sense of security and protection for their assets.

Why Couples Should Consider a Prenup

One of the most significant reasons to consider a prenuptial agreement is the ability to simplify divorce proceedings. According to Kirk Stange, “A prenuptial agreement can resolve divorce issues such as property and debt division, spousal maintenance, and attorney’s fees.” In many cases, the division of assets and debts can become the most contentious part of a divorce. Disagreements over houses, vehicles, retirement funds, and other financial assets often lead to extended court battles. A well-crafted prenuptial agreement allows couples to agree on these terms in advance, avoiding the potential stress and financial burden of prolonged legal disputes.

Prenuptial agreements are not only beneficial for couples with substantial wealth. They can protect any couple from the complexities of dividing joint property and debts. Cars, real estate, and investments are common points of contention during divorce proceedings, and a prenuptial agreement allows couples to define ownership and distribution of these assets beforehand.

In cases where there are no children, a prenuptial agreement can potentially resolve all major divorce-related issues. Kirk Stange explains, “Where there are no kids, a well-crafted prenuptial agreement can fully resolve all the issues in a divorce.” This not only saves time and resources but also reduces the emotional toll often associated with lengthy divorce litigation.

The Limits of Prenuptial Agreements

While prenuptial agreements can simplify many aspects of divorce, they are not a catch-all solution. For instance, Kirk Stange notes, “Where there are kids, the only issues that would remain on the table would be child custody and child support-related issues.” Family courts retain the authority to decide matters related to child custody and support based on what is in the best interests of the children. Prenuptial agreements cannot predetermine child-related arrangements, and couples should be prepared to navigate these decisions through the court system if necessary.

However, by addressing financial matters, prenuptial agreements can allow couples to focus more on resolving child-related issues without the added pressure of dividing assets. This can provide a smoother and less stressful process for both parties.

Is a Prenup Right for Every Couple?

While the rise in prenuptial agreements suggests that more couples are considering this legal protection, it may not be the best option for everyone. Couples with little to no assets or debts may not see the necessity of a prenup, while others may be uncomfortable discussing the prospect of divorce before marriage. However, for couples with significant financial interests or those who want to avoid potential conflicts in the future, a prenuptial agreement can be a wise choice.

It’s essential for couples to discuss their goals and expectations before making a decision. Consulting an experienced family law attorney, such as those at Stange Law Firm, can provide valuable insights into the pros and cons of prenuptial agreements. An attorney can help draft a fair and enforceable agreement that protects both parties while fostering open communication about financial matters.

Conclusion

In today’s evolving marital landscape, prenuptial agreements are becoming more common, and for good reason. They offer couples a practical way to protect their assets, avoid lengthy legal battles, and reduce the stress of divorce proceedings. Stange Law Firm, under the leadership of Kirk Stange, is dedicated to helping couples navigate these important decisions with skill and compassion. Whether you’re considering a prenuptial agreement or facing a divorce, Stange Law Firm is there to provide the guidance and support needed to make informed decisions for your future.

Note: The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Stange Law Firm is responsible for the content with their headquarters’ office at 120 South Central Avenue, Suite 450, Clayton, Missouri 63105.

[simonhopes]

Why Seek Medical Attention After a Des Moines Car Accident

There are a lot of reasons you may refuse treatment following a car accident in Des Moines. Maybe you feel your injuries do not warrant a visit to the emergency room or an ambulance ride. Or perhaps you still want to talk to the police or your insurer. But it is important to seek medical attention after an accident to ensure your safety and protect your rights. RSH Legal - Iowa Personal Injury Lawyers will tell you that your visit to a doctor will create medical documentation of your injuries. This documentation can show a link between the accident and your injuries. Below are reasons you should see a doctor as soon as possible after a car accident:

Prevent Your Injuries from Getting Worse

A lot of injuries in a car accident can aggravate when not diagnosed and treated right away. Delaying a doctor’s visit can prolong your recovery period and increase your medical expenses.

Establish a Connection Between Your Injury and the Car Accident

An important part of building a solid car accident claim is proving that the crash led to new injuries or exacerbated an existing injury. Insurers may find ways to challenge the nature and extent of your injuries. Not seeking immediate medical attention could lead to the denial of your claim.

Facilitate a Treatment Plan

The monetary compensation you may get is based partly on your current and future medical expenses because of the accident. To calculate a reasonable amount of settlement, you must know your diagnosis and treatment plan.

Create a Paper Trail

Your car accident attorney in Des Moines can only file a claim if you sustained damages like bodily injury and lost income. They can use some documentation to prove such damages like your medical records and the official police report.

Meet Legal Deadlines

Injured parties can file a car accident claim in civil court within two years of the accident or injury date. Remember that this is not a deadline to reach out to a lawyer. Your lawyer needs time to collect documentation, investigate the accident, and build a solid case. It’s not in your best interest to wait to talk to a lawyer. After all, the majority of attorneys provide free initial consultations.

As an injured car accident victim, you must not compare your injuries to other people’s injuries. A broken bone cannot be considered a mere sprain. Injuries in car accidents can put you out of work temporarily or permanently. Such injuries do not just interfere with your ability to make a living but also cause physical, psychological, and emotional distress. You may not be able to pursue hobbies, engage in your favorite pastimes, or stay active in community activities. To prevent some of these consequences, you should get treated as soon as possible.

[dankusner]

Coalition of AGs backs Paxton, aide in complaint

18 express concern over allowing action against Brent Webster to move forward

Attorney General Ken Paxton celebrated the support from a coalition of state attorneys general Monday in an ongoing professional misconduct complaint against one of his top aides stemming from Texas’ legal effort to delay several states’ certification of their 2020 presidential election results.

With a motion filed with the Texas Supreme Court on Friday, 18 attorneys general expressed their concern over allowing disciplinary action against Brent Webster, Paxton’s first assistant attorney general, to move forward, arguing that the punishment would be a step in violating the discretion of the attorney general’s office to pursue legal actions.

Webster, along with Paxton, faces a disciplinary complaint from the Commission for Lawyer Discipline, a standing committee of the State Bar of Texas, based on allegations that the official filed a baseless claim before the U.S. Supreme Court in an attempt to force a delay in certifying presidential election results in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia and Wisconsin.

Writing that its interest in the case is “ensuring that State Attorneys General are permitted to exercise the discretionary authority conferred on them by their State Constitutions without improper interference or distractions,” the coalition said the work of Paxton’s office is beyond the State Bar commission’s purview and is protected by constitutional separation of power.

“Any attempt by the judiciary — or by entities subject to the judiciary’s control — to restrict the Attorney General’s discretionary choices interferes with the exercise of the Attorney General’s constitutional authority and violates fundamental separation-of powers principles,” the coalition’s amicus brief states. Paxton responds to filing

Responding to the filing Monday, Paxton thanked his Republican counterparts for defending Webster and chastised the State Bar commission, saying it was pursuing the disciplinary cases as acts of political retribution.

“Thank you to my fellow attorneys general for siding with law and order,” Paxton posted on the social media platform X.

“The State Bar is using a disgraceful tactic: weaponizing politically- motivated lawfare to intimidate elected leaders and their staff from upholding the Constitution when it inconveniences their political agenda.”

Originating from a series of filings challenging the 2020 presidential election results — which the Supreme Court tossed out as moot — the complaints against Webster and Paxton allege that the state’s top attorneys knowingly made false arguments to the court.

“In those pleadings, Webster made several representations that were dishonest, as they were not supported by any charge, indictment, judicial finding, or credible or admissible evidence,” the commission’s complaint against Paxton’s top deputy states. Paxton received the same rebuke in a similar but separate case, which is under the Texas 5th Circuit Court of Appeals’ consideration.

Specifically, the commission has argued in court filings that Paxton and Webster violated several rules of procedure and conduct though “false statements of material fact or law to a tribunal,” engaging in conduct “involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation” and bringing a proceeding forward without having a reasonable belief that it is not frivolous.

However, in their friend-of-the-court brief, the attorneys general wrote that infractions worthy of punishment typically include disobeying the court, abusing the discovery process “or flouting court orders without any plausible legal justification for their actions.”

“Such conduct is far afield from the conduct complained of here,” wrote the attorneys general for Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah and West Virginia.

The Supreme Court, in its finding, can side with Weber, toss out the case and negate a previous court’s ruling to allow the proceeding to move forward, or it can allow the complaint to continue, which could lead to a punishment ranging from a reprimand up to disbarment. Ken Paxton’s other legal woes

Outside of the misconduct complaints, Paxton continues to face a whistleblower case against him at the Supreme Court over his firing of four former agency employees who allege that they were wrongfully terminated after approaching the FBI in 2020 to report possible misconduct by Paxton in helping a campaign donor.

That case is ongoing.

Paxton has tried again to settle the wrongful termination lawsuit as the whistleblowers have pushed the court to enforce a previously scheduled series of depositions by Paxton and his top aides.

In a separate case in which Paxton was accused of securities fraud, in March he accepted an 18-month pretrial intervention through which he will face no charges if he meets the deal’s requirements, including performing 100 hours of community service in Collin County, enrolling in 15 hours of legal ethics training and paying $271,000 in total restitution to investors who put money in a Dallas-area tech startup based on Paxton’s solicitations without disclosing that he would profit from their investments.

[lboogie1906]

Milton Carver Davis (born March 29, 1949) is a lawyer who researched and advocated for the pardon of Clarence Norris, the last surviving Scottsboro Boy.

He graduated from Tuskegee University and received his JD from the University of Iowa College of Law. He was an American Political Science Foundation Graduate Fellow, a Ford Foundation Graduate Fellow, and a Herbert Lehman Foundation International Scholar.

He gained international acclaim when as the Assistant Attorney General for Alabama he partnered with Donald Watkins to research and advocate for a full pardon of Clarence Norris, the last known surviving Scottsboro Boy based on innocence. Governor George Wallace granted the parole in 1976 as the first time in the state’s history that a pardon had been granted based upon innocence.

He was the 29th General President of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity. He created the Fraternity’s World Policy Council as a think tank to expand the organization’s involvement in politics and social and current policy to encompass important global and world issues. The World Policy Council has published white papers on the Politics of Nigeria, the War on Terrorism, Hurricane Katrina, the Millennium Challenge Account, and Extraordinary Rendition. #africanhistory365 #africanexcellence #alphaphialpha #sigmapiphi

[lawyersdatascraping]

Iowa Bar Association Lawyers Email List

Iowa Bar Association Lawyers Email List

Extracting lawyer data from Iowabar.org and accessing the Iowa Bar Association Lawyers Email List are both valuable resources for businesses and individuals involved in law firm marketing. These resources provide access to a comprehensive database of legal professionals, facilitating efficient communication, cost-effective marketing strategies, and enhanced research capabilities. The accuracy and currency of the contact information offer significant advantages to anyone looking to connect with these professionals.

Access a wide-ranging database of Iowa Bar Association lawyers swiftly with Lawyersdatalab.com's efficient scraping tool. Extract detailed lawyer information, including email addresses, from Iowabar.org to enrich your marketing and outreach strategies. Utilize this invaluable resource to grow your network and enhance your business. Don't hesitate to try it out today!

Benefits of Iowa Bar Association Lawyers Email List

The Iowa Bar Association Lawyers Email List offered by LawyersDataLab.com presents several key benefits for legal professionals and businesses:

1. Targeted Outreach: Access a comprehensive database of Iowa Bar Association lawyers, allowing for precise targeting based on practice areas, specialties, geographic locations, and more.

2. Networking Opportunities: Connect with legal professionals across Iowa, fostering potential collaborations, referrals, and partnerships within the legal industry.

3. Marketing Campaigns: Utilize the email list for targeted marketing campaigns, promoting legal services, events, webinars, and other relevant offerings to a receptive audience.

4. Increased Visibility: Enhance brand visibility and recognition among legal professionals in Iowa, establishing credibility and trust within the legal community.

5. Efficiency and Cost-Effectiveness: Save time and resources by accessing a pre-verified and updated email list, ensuring efficient communication and maximizing ROI for marketing initiatives.

6. Compliance and Data Integrity: LawyersDataLab.com ensures data compliance with legal regulations and maintains data integrity through regular updates and verification processes, providing reliable and accurate information.

7. Market Insights: Gain valuable insights into the legal landscape in Iowa, including emerging trends, legal challenges, and opportunities for growth, enabling informed decision-making and strategic planning.

Overall, the Iowa Bar Association Lawyers Email List from LawyersDataLab.com empowers legal professionals and businesses to streamline their marketing efforts, expand their networks, and capitalize on opportunities within the legal sector in Iowa.

Our State Bar Association Mailing Lists include:

Scraping Lawyers Data from Msba.org

Scraping Lawyers Data from Njsba.com

Scraping Lawyers Data from isba.org

Scraping Lawyers Data from Nebar.com

Scraping Lawyers Data from Nebar.com

Scraping Lawyers Data from Wyomingbar.org

Scrape Attorneys Database from Wisbar

Scraping Lawyers Data from Iowabar.org

Sbnm.org Lawyers Email List

Lawyers Data Scraping from Lsba.org

Scraping Lawyers Data from Msbar.org

Keywords:

Iowa Bar Attorney Email Database

Iowa Bar Association Attorney Email List

Scraping Lawyers Data from Iowabar.org

Iowa Bar Association Attorneys Database

Iowabar.org Lawyers Email List

To request the Iowabar.org Lawyers Email List and Iowa Bar Lawyers Email List, kindly reach out to us via email at info@lawyersdatalab.com. We look forward to assisting you!

Website: Lawyersdatalab.com

Email: info@lawyersdatalab.com

[beardedmrbean]

Indiana can now enforce a law banning minors from seeking gender-transitioning treatments after a federal appeals court ruled to remove a temporary injunction issued by a judge last year, which kept the ban from going into effect last summer.

A three-judge panel from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago handed down the decision on Tuesday. Two of the judges were appointed by presidents Reagan and Trump, while the third judge was appointed by President Biden.

The bill, which was signed by Republican Gov. Eric Holcomb on April 5, 2023, was set to become law on July 1, 2023, but was blocked by a judge a month prior following a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana.

U.S. District Court Judge James Patrick Hanlon issued the injunction, which halted the parts of the law prohibiting minors from accessing hormone therapies and puberty blockers, and prohibiting Indiana doctors from communicating with out-of-state doctors about transgender-related treatments for minors. The law's ban on gender-transitioning surgeries for minors was still allowed to take effect.

On Tuesday, the ACLU of Indiana issued a written statement in response to the appeals court's ruling, describing it as "heartbreaking" for transgender minors, their families and doctors.

"As we and our clients consider our next steps, we want all the transgender youth of Indiana to know this fight is far from over," the statement read. "We will continue to challenge this law until it is permanently defeated and Indiana is made a safer place to raise every family."

Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita did not share those sentiments and praised the court's decision in a post on X, formerly Twitter, Tuesday evening.

"Our commonsense state law, banning dangerous and irreversible gender-transition procedures for minors, is now enforceable following the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeal’s newest order. We are proud to win this fight against the radicals who continue pushing this horrific practice on our children for ideological and financial reasons," he wrote.

The ACLU of Indiana filed the lawsuit last year on behalf of four minors undergoing gender-transitioning treatments and a doctor providing such care. The organization argued that the ban violates the Constitution's equal protection guarantees and strips parents of the right to make medical decisions for their children.

The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Medical Association, among other medical groups, claim minors can safely seek gender-transitioning treatments if they are being administered properly.

Representatives from the state's only hospital-based gender health program at Riley Hospital for Children in Indianapolis told legislators last year that doctors do not perform or provide referrals for genital surgeries for minors, according to The Associated Press. The hospital was not involved in the lawsuit opposing the ban.

Twenty-two other states have also enacted laws restricting or banning gender-transitioning treatments for minors. They are: Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and West Virginia.

The bans are in limbo in some of those states as a federal court ruled Arkansas' ban is unconstitutional and temporary injunctions were placed on the laws in Idaho and Montana.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Trudy Ring at The Advocate:

Twenty-six Republican state attorneys general are urging the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the anti-transgender sports laws in Idaho and West Virginia. The AGs of Idaho and West Virginia have already asked the high court to review rulings that blocked them from enforcing their laws barring trans athletes from competing under their gender identity in school sports. The justices, who are in recess for the summer, haven’t said if they’ll take the case. The AGs calling on the court to uphold the laws filed friend-of-the-court briefs, known formally as amicus curiae, August 14. Such briefs are filed by people and organizations that are not directly involved in a case but want to express an opinion on it. The attorneys general of Alabama, Arkansas, Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming signed on to the Idaho brief, and the same ones, with the exception of West Virginia and the addition of Idaho, signed on to the West Virginia brief — that’s because Idaho and West Virginia, respectively, are the states directly involved.

They assert that such laws are needed to assure equal opportunities for cisgender girls and women in sports. “Amici States all have laws or policies like Idaho’s that restrict girls’ sports teams to biological females,” the Idaho brief reads. “Basing the distinction on biology rather than gender identity makes sense because it is the differences in biology — not gender identity — that call for separate teams in the first place: Whatever their gender identity, biological males are, on average, stronger and faster than biological females. If those average physical differences did not matter, there would be no need to segregate sports teams at all.”

[...]

Arkansas AG Tim Griffin and Alabama AG Steve Marshall are the leaders in filing the briefs. “Like Arkansas, West Virginia has a strong interest in safeguarding the benefits of equal access to athletic opportunities for women and girls,” Griffin said in a press release. “They deserve the opportunity to shine on a level playing field. Biological males should not be robbing females of their opportunity to compete for athletic accolades or scholarships, nor should they be threatening the safety of women in competition. I will continue fighting to protect girls’ sports teams and the opportunities of female athletes.” In Idaho, Lindsay Hecox, a trans woman track athlete at Boise State University, filed a suit challenging the state's law, the first in the nation, shortly after Republican Gov. Brad Little signed it in 2020, along with Kayden Hulquist, a then-senior at Boise High School who is cisgender and was concerned about being subjected to the law’s invasive “sex verification” testing. They are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and its Idaho affiliate, Legal Voice, and Cooley LLP.

Idaho Chief U.S. District Court Judge David C. Nye issued an injunction blocking the ban in August 2020. He noted that it appears to be on shaky constitutional ground. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed his action in 2023. In West Virginia, trans girl Becky Pepper-Jackson, then 11, filed suit challenging the law in 2021, represented by the ACLU, Lambda Legal, and a private law firm. U.S. District Judge Joseph R. Goodwin that year issued a preliminary injunction temporarily blocking enforcement of the law and said she could try out for girls’ sports, noting that the suit “seeks relief only insofar as this law applies to her.” Goodwin also wrote that Pepper-Jackson, who is on puberty-blocking drugs, “has shown that she will not have any inherent physical advantage over the girls she would compete against on the girls’ cross country and track teams. Further, permitting B.P.J. to participate on the girls’ teams would not take away athletic opportunities from other girls.”

26 Republican AGs ask the MAGA majority on SCOTUS to uphold Idaho and West Virginia’s laws banning trans people from playing sports competitions matching their gender identity.

[dertaglichedan]

FBI And Its Foreign Influence Task Force Purged Sources Who Were Onto Biden Corruption

The House needs to do more than question the personnel Grassley identified. It must first open a long-overdue impeachment inquiry into FBI Director Christopher Wray.

he FBI’s Foreign Influence Task Force used a sham assessment opened by FBI headquarters to cull reporting from confidential human sources (CHS) throughout the country related to the Biden family and then falsely brand the intelligence as “foreign disinformation,” Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, revealed Wednesday. 

Wednesday’s explosive news suggests the DOJ and FBI’s Biden-family protection program encompassed many more players than previously known. But it is the involvement of the Foreign Influence Task Force that demands an immediate response by the House, namely the launching of an impeachment inquiry of FBI Director Christopher Wray, under whose watch this task force abused its power — and interfered in a presidential election.

Late Wednesday afternoon, Grassley released a seven-page letter that, while addressed to Wray and Attorney General Merrick Garland, spoke to the American public, telling them of evidence of “significant political bias infecting the decision-making of not only the Attorney General and FBI Director, but also line agents and prosecutors.” 

Grassley’s letter summarized the evidence he has gathered over the last two years, with the assistance of Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., and multiple whistleblowers. There are several significant strands to pull from the Iowa senator’s latest missive, but none more important than the details he revealed about the assessment opened by FBI headquarters’ Supervisory Intelligence Analyst Brian Auten.

In July of last year, Grassley went public with a whistleblower’s “allegations that the FBI developed information in 2020 about Hunter Biden’s criminal financial and related activity but ultimately shut it down based on false assertions that it was subject to foreign disinformation.” According to Grassley’s source, “the basis for shutting the investigative activity down was an August 2020 assessment created by FBI Supervisory Intelligence Analyst Brian Auten,” which an FBI HQ team used “to improperly discredit negative Hunter Biden information as disinformation and caused investigative activity to cease.”

In his Wednesday letter to Garland and Wray, Grassley expanded on the whistleblower’s claims, writing: “In August 2020, and possibly earlier, Supervisory Intelligence Analyst Brian Auten opened the aforementioned assessment, which was used by the Foreign Influence Task Force to seek out CHS holdings at FBI Field Offices across the country relating to the Biden family and falsely discredit them as foreign disinformation.”

[mystlnewsonline]

Missouri Attorney General - Fighting for Pork Producers

Missouri Attorney General Bailey Joins 13 State Coalition Fighting for Pork Producers JEFFERSON CITY, MO (STL.News) Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey announced Friday that he joined 12 states in challenging Massachusetts’ pork ban.  The amicus brief opposes the new law, Question 3, that prohibits states from selling or shipping pork through Massachusetts if they do not meet burdensome hog-housing requirements. “I will always fight to protect Missouri farmers, and that includes the pork industry that is critical to the success of our state,” said Attorney General Bailey.  “I will not stand idly by while rogue progressive activists in Massachusetts attempt to hamper the ability of Missouri farmers to raise their hogs.” Massachusetts’ pork ban goes even further than California’s similar Proposition 12 by prohibiting the shipment of “non-compliant” pork through the state.  Even if Missouri-produced pork meets all state and federal safety and quality standards, it cannot be sold in or even transported through, Massachusetts if it does not also comply with Massachusetts’ impossible hog-housing requirements. The new ban will cost pork producers across the country hundreds of millions of dollars, drive many pork producers out of business, and dramatically raise pork prices.  This new ban also sets a dangerous precedent that would allow states to upend markets across the nation based on their political agendas. The states note, “Massachusetts itself has few hog farmers or pork producers — most live elsewhere.  That means, in effect, that the state is trying to regulate a market in which it lacks expertise and economic stake.” In the amicus brief, the attorneys general assert that the Massachusetts pork ban violates the Constitution, including the following: - Dormant Commerce Clause, which gives the federal government, not state governments, the power to regulate interstate commerce; - Import-Export Clause, which arguably prohibits states from imposing import regulations on products brought in from other states; - Full Faith and Credit Clause, which requires states to respect the laws passed in other states. - Joining Attorney General Bailey in filing the amicus brief are Iowa, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. CLICK HERE for a complete copy of the brief. Read the full article