SCOTT HALL et al. v. MICHAEL BELLO INSURANCE AGENCY, Inc.
This case can also be found at N.J. Super. , A.2d
(NOTE: This decision was approved by the court for publication.)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
DOCKET NO. ATT5
SCOTT HALL and LORA HALL,
MICHAEL BELLO INSURANCE AGENCY,
HIGHLANDS INSURANCE COMPANY,
CHASE MANHATTAN MORTGAGE
Argued February 16, - Decided: June 13,
Before Judges Wefing, Fall and Payne.
On appeal from Superior Court of New
Jersey, Law Division, Morris County,
Gregory K. Mueller and Allan Maitlin
argued the cause for appellants
(Lebson & Mueller and Sachs Maitlin
Fleming Greene & Mullen attorneys;
Mr. Mueller on the brief).
Michael B. Oropollo argued the cause for
respondent Highlands Insurance Company
(Harwood Lloyd attorneys; Mr. Oropollo of
counsel and on the brief, Peter E. Mueller
and Paul E. Kiel on the brief).
David R. Cosgrove argued the cause for
respondent Michael Bello Insurance
Company (Stevens & Schwab attorneys;
Mr. Cosgrove on the letter brief).
Leon B. Piechta appeared for defendant Will Frasse (O'Donnell & Piechta attorneys).
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Plaintiffs Scott and Lora Hall owned a home in Mountain Lakes that, in May , sustained fire damage. They made a claim through their insurance broker, the Michael Bello Insurance Agency, but learned that homeowners insurance coverage bound and thought to have been placed by the Bello Agency with Highlands Insurance Company allegedly had never become effective because Highlands claimed it had never received the insurance application and policy premium payment. Additionally Highlands asserted that the binder issued by the Bello Agency to the Halls was ineffective because the Agency had exceeded the monetary limits of its binding authority under its agency agreement with Highlands. Suit was accordingly filed by the Halls against the Bello Agency, the agent writing the coverage, Will Frasse, and Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corporation, which they alleged, negligently failed to notify them that there was no hazard insurance in force that covered their mortgaged home and its contents. Thereafter, on December 2, , the Bello Agency and Frasse filed a third-party complaint against Highlands, and Highlands was made a direct defendant by the Halls in an amended complaint filed on January 14,
However, in accordance with the request of the State of Texas, by order dated November 6, and entered pursuant to Tex. Ins. Code Ann. art. , Highlands, a Texas domiciliary, was placed in receivership by the District Court of Travis County, Texas, the Commissioner of Insurance of the State of Texas was appointed Receiver, and a permanent injunction was imposed on actions contrary to the Receiver's direction. Among other things, the November 6 order barred policyholders and claimants asserting claims or causes of action against Highlands from "[m]aking any claim, charge or offset, or commencing or prosecuting any action, appeal, or arbitration, including administrative proceedings, or obtaining any preference, judgment, attachment, garnishment or other lien, or making any levy against" Highlands, Highland's property or the Receiver except as permitted by Tex. Ins. Code Ann. art.
The Texas court's order was filed by New Jersey counsel for Prime TEMPUS, Inc., the Special Deputy Receiver for Highlands, in the Superior Court of New Jersey on April 1, pursuant to the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (UEFJA), N.J.S.A. 2AA to See also Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. art. to Highlands, relying on the Texas order, thereupon moved for a stay of the actions against it asserted in the Hall matter, and its motion was granted. However, in accordance with the procedures that we set forth in Aly v. E.S. Sutton Realty, N.J. Super. , (App. Div. ), the judge authorized the Halls to move before the Presiding Judge of the Civil Part to vacate the stay on grounds of hardship. The Halls sought such relief, but it was denied by the court, which found that the Halls had not demonstrated hardship sufficient to warrant that extraordinary remedy. The Halls then moved before us for leave to appeal, which we granted.
On appeal, the Halls present the following arguments:
THE STAY ORDER SHOULD BE VACATED TO AVOID THE POSSIBILITY OF INCONSISTENT VERDICTS, TO AVOID A WASTE OF JUDICIAL RESOURCES AND IN THE INTERESTS OF FAIRNESS.
NEITHER FULL FAITH AND CREDIT NOR COMITY REQUIRES ENFORCEMENT OF THE TEXAS INJUNCTION.
TEXAS HAS NOT ADOPTED THE UNIFORM INSURERS LIQUIDATION ACT OR ITS EQUIVALENT AND THE INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT BE ENFORCED IN NEW JERSEY.
THE TEXAS INJUNCTION, IF ENFORCEABLE IN NEW JERSEY, DOES NOT REQUIRE A STAY OF THE NEW JERSEY ACTION.
We affirm the order granting a stay of litigation against Highlands.
We first address the Halls' argument that neither full faith and credit nor comity requires New Jersey's courts to recognize the stay issued by the Texas court. In large measure, that argument has already been considered by us in Aly, supra, N.J. Super. at Our conclusion there, that the Constitution's full faith and credit clause, U.S. Const. art. IV, 1, as implemented by 29 U.S.C.A. , was inapplicable to the interlocutory injunction entered by the Pennsylvania court to permit rehabilitation of Legion Insurance Company, whereas principles of comity required deference to the Pennsylvania court's order for a time adequate to serve the needs of rehabilitation, resolves many of the arguments presented by the Halls in this case, and requires little repetition here.
We emphasize, however, our recognition that, because regulation of the business of insurance has been left to the states and is not the subject of unifying federal control, interference by a state with the rehabilitation of an insurer domiciled elsewhere by failing to recognize a stay of litigation "threatens to adversely interfere with the process of rehabilitation of the insurer to the detriment of [the insurer's] policyholders nationwide," invites retaliatory action when a New Jersey domiciled insurer faces rehabilitation, and raises the risk of "a chaotic rush on the assets of an insurer" just when the receiver is seeking to marshal and conserve the insurer's assets and fiscally re-order the company. Aly, supra, N.J. Super. at As the New Jersey Commissioner of Insurance, appearing as amicus curiae in Aly noted,
[a] stay imposed during the period of rehabilitation or, if ultimately that process is unsuccessful, any further stay entered for purposes of liquidation, is designed to protect the interests of policyholders, creditors of the insurer and the public in general by affording the Rehabilitator both the time and the tools needed to efficiently utilize the available resources of the insurer to restore it to financial health.
[Aly, supra, N.J. Super. at (footnote omitted).]
The adoption by New Jersey of the Uniform Insurers Liquidation Act (UILA), N.J.S.A. C-1 to , applicable to liquidations and rehabilitations (N.J.S.A. C-1c), manifests this State's recognition of the importance of centralizing the management of delinquency proceedings in the courts of one state and avoiding interference with that management. The UILA, promulgated in , was designed, through the formulation of uniform procedures for use in reciprocal states, to eradicate problems caused by the wide distribution of insurer assets and liabilities throughout the states and then-existing differences in the statutes of various states with respect to the treatment of special deposits, preferred claims, securities, set-offs, and the administrative and judicial procedures to be followed when rehabilitation or liquidation of a troubled insurer is required. See Prefatory Note, Uniform Insurers Liquidation Act, 13 U.L.A. ( & Supp. ).
The purpose, thus, of the UILA is to provide for a uniform, orderly and equitable method of making and processing claims against financially troubled insurers and to provide for fair procedures for rehabilitating the business of such insurers and, if necessary, distributing their assets.
[In re Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co., N.J. Super. , (App. Div. ).]
As a United States District Court judge has observed in the context of insurer liquidation:
The need for giving one state exclusive jurisdiction over delinquency proceedings has long been recognized in the courts.
Experience has demonstrated that, in order to secure an economical, efficient, and orderly liquidation and distribution of the assets of an insolvent corporation for the benefit of all creditors and stockholders, it is essential that the title, custody, and control of the assets be intrusted to a single management under the supervision of one court. Hence other courts, except when called upon by the court of primary jurisdiction for assistance, are excluded from participation. This should be particularly true as to proceedings for the liquidation of insolvent insurance companies, for the reasons adverted to by Mr. Justice Cardozo in Clark v. Williard, U.S. , [, 54 S. Ct. , , 78 L. Ed. , ()][e.g., that insurance companies, being excluded from bankruptcy, would be required to "submit to dismemberment, however great the waste or inequality," if receivers are not appointed with powers to conserve and distribute assets].
[Ballesteros v. N.J. Prop. Liability Ins. Guaranty Ass'n, F. Supp. , (D.N.J.), aff'd, F.2d (3d Cir. ) (quoting Motlow v. Southern Holding & Securities Corp., 95 F.2d , (8th Cir.), cert. denied, U.S. , 59 S. Ct. 68, 83 L. Ed. ()).]
The UILA permits the entry of injunctions such as that entered by the Texas court. N.J.S.A. C
Although Texas has not adopted the UILA, no principled reason has been advanced to support the argument that a Texas injunction entered in an insurance rehabilitation proceeding should for that reason be ignored in this State, thereby disordering the process of rehabilitation that the Insurance Commissioner of Texas has undertaken.
The Halls argue additionally on appeal that the Texas injunction should be accorded no deference because they were not afforded notice of and an opportunity to be heard in that rehabilitation proceeding. At the outset, we note that no greater rights would have been accorded to them if the insurer to be placed in rehabilitation had been domiciled in New Jersey and thus subject to the UILA. See N.J.S.A. C-5 (authorizing the entry of an injunction "without notice"). Moreover, that neither the procedures of Texas nor New Jersey, though lacking in notice, are constitutionally infirm has been established without effective challenge in Ballesteros, supra, F. Supp. at There, in the context of a similar challenge to the order of a New York court, Judge Sarokin, after noting that a rehabilitation action is an in rem proceeding, id. at , stated:
Plaintiff's argument . . . misconceives the nature of a rehabilitation proceeding, which is designed to immediately preserve the assets of an impaired company. . . . If notice were required to be issued to all policyholders, and all policyholders had a right to participate in the hearing, the attendant delay would defeat the policyholders' interest in preventing the dissipation of the company's assets. Because the interests of policyholders are represented by the Superintendent and protected by the state court, due process is not violated by the failure to give notice of the rehabilitation proceedings to the policyholders.
[Id. at ]
See also, Janak v. Allstate Ins. Co., F. Supp. , (W.D. Wisc. ). None of the cases upon which the Halls rely in expressing a contrary view concern insolvency proceedings, and are thus distinguishable.
The Halls also argue that the Texas receivership action is "unfair, arbitrary and makes no legal sense" in that third-party claims are being paid, whereas first-party claims such as theirs are stayed. But no evidence has been presented to us that would suggest that the Halls have ever sought to present their claim against Highlands to the Special Deputy Receiver, as mandated by Tex. Ins. Code Ann. art. , despite the fact that, as of May , a claims filing deadline has not been set. Thus, the Halls can have no knowledge as to how their claim would have been treated by the Receiver if it in fact had been properly presented. "Receipt of the required proof of claim is a condition precedent to the payment of any claim." Tex. Ins. Code Ann. art. 3(a).
Moreover, we note that, upon receipt of proof of claim, a receiver has the discretion to approve or reject that claim, and upon rejection, a claimant may file an action against the receiver in the court hearing the receivership proceeding. Tex. Ins. Code Ann. art. 3(h). Entry of an injunction in the Highlands rehabilitation proceeding did not result in a permanent ban on policyholder claims, but merely required that they be presented to the Receiver in accordance with Texas law.
Contrary to the Halls' arguments, Texas does not distinguish between third-party liability claims and first-party claims for purposes of payment, both constituting Class 2 claims. See Tex. Ins. Code Ann. art. 8(a)(2)(B)(i) (defining the class, in relevant part, as consisting of "[a]ll claims by policyholders, beneficiaries, insureds, and liability claims against insureds covered under insurance policies and insurance contracts issued by the insurer"). Further, the November 6 order authorized the Receiver to pay approved Class 2 claims under policies of insurance pursuant to Texas Ins. Code Ann. art. 8(b), but declared that "[n]o payments shall be made on any claims that are not approved by the Receiver."
The claim against Highlands filed on behalf of Fuller-Austin Insulation Company and paid by the Receiver following a settlement markedly reducing its amount, to which the Halls refer as exhibiting evidence of unfairness, was a Class 2 claim, as would be the Halls' claim. The Halls present no proof that payment of the Fuller-Austin claim in any way affects their ability to recover on their own claim, which as we have stated, remains unperfected. The Halls' forecast that payment of the Fuller-Austin claim would lead to the liquidation of Highlands has not yet been proven true (although Highlands remains in rehabilitation). Indeed, it can be argued that the payment significantly enhanced Highlands' financial position, since it caused the dismissal of a garnishment action that had frozen $,, of Highlands' assets.
As a final matter, the Halls claim that enforcing a stay of their claim against Highlands exposes them to the risk of inconsistent verdicts when their action against the Bello Agency and Frasse is tried and fails to promote judicial efficiency. We note that this risk can be eliminated by entry of a stay applicable to all defendants, relief that the Halls have never sought and apparently do not wish.
As a consequence of the foregoing, we find no grounds for distinguishing the Halls' position from that occupied by the claimants in Aly or for finding the rehabilitation scheme of Texas so different from that of New Jersey that principles of comity are rendered inapplicable.
When we turn to the issue of whether the Halls have demonstrated a hardship sufficient to warrant interference with the ordered scheme of insurer rehabilitation overseen by the Texas court, we find insufficient evidence to support so drastic a step.
In reaching this conclusion, we are guided by the discussion of the types of hardship warranting relief found in Aly, supra, N.J. Super. at , each of which, we find, was of catastrophic proportion. Although we recognize that the illustrations utilized there are not all-inclusive and that circumstances constituting hardship other than those that we have enumerated may arise, and while we recognize and appreciate the Halls' distress, we do not find such circumstances here.
The Halls are both well-educated. They retain their relative youth and their essential health. Their financial circumstances are reasonably secure and, if augmentation is required, no evidence suggests an inability on the part of Lora Hall to resume work in the financial industry that she voluntarily terminated more than six years ago. Although they have not received any insurance proceeds as the result of their claim against Highlands, the Halls did receive approximately $, from another insurer on their fire loss claim, which amount does not appear to have been utilized for repairs. The sale of the Halls' fire-damaged house for $1,,, although undoubtedly at a price lower than would have been realized if intact, still resulted in a profit to the Halls of approximately $, At the time of Lora Hall's deposition in this matter, the Halls lived in a three-bedroom rented residence in Mountain Lakes, the town where they lived prior to the fire. Despite the Halls' claim that this residence is not comparable to their prior home, they can in no way argue that they have been deprived of essential shelter. As a final matter, we agree with the judge who denied the Halls' hardship application when he found that the Halls' private decision to forego children at this time because of uncertainties resulting from their failure to obtain an insurance recovery from Highlands and from this litigation does not constitute the type of true hardship that would permit a lifting of the Texas stay to permit the Halls' unperfected claim to be heard.
The order of the trial court enforcing the stay of litigation entered in the Highlands rehabilitation proceeding is therefore affirmed.
The Bello Agency's binding authority on policies of the sort the Halls allegedly procured was $, Coverage bound by Bello Agency employee Will Frasse consisted of $, for the dwelling, $38, for other structures, $, for personal property, and $76, for loss of use, for a total of $,
The order contained a finding of jurisdiction by the court over the parties (the State of Texas and Highlands) and the subject matter, a legal principle confirmed by the United States Supreme Court in Underwriters Natn'l Assur. Co. v. N.C. Life and Accident and Health Ins. Guaranty Ass'n, U.S. , S. Ct. , 71 L. Ed. 2d ().
The Commissioner appointed Prime TEMPUS, Inc., a Texas corporation, as Special Deputy Receiver with powers and duties identical to those of the Receiver. Texas Ins. Code Ann. art. 2(a).
Underwriters, supra, upon which Highlands relies in arguing that the November order was entitled to full faith and credit, is distinguishable because the order at issue there, approving the plan of rehabilitation, was final in nature.
The UEFJA defines an enforceable "foreign judgment" as "any judgment, decree, or order of a court of the United States or of any other court which is entitled to full faith and credit in this State." N.J.S.A. 2AA A foreign judgment filed in New Jersey has the same effect as a New Jersey judgment. N.J.S.A. 2AA
See McCarran-Ferguson Act, 15 U.S.C.A. (permitting regulation of the business of insurance by the several States.)
A reciprocal state is defined in New Jersey as "any state other than this State in which in substance and effect the provisions of the Uniform Insurers Liquidation Act . . . are in force, including the provisions requiring that the commissioner or equivalent insurance supervisory official be the receiver of a delinquent insurer." N.J.S.A. C-1f.
We do not find it necessary to determine whether Texas is nonetheless a "reciprocal state," a determination that has only been made in Louisiana. See Bonura v. United Bankers Life Ins. Co., So. 2d , (La. Ct. App. ) (finding it was not, but limiting reciprocity, contrary to the broader definition of "reciprocal state" found in the UILA, only to states that had specifically adopted that Act), writ denied, So. 2d (La ). However, the mechanical approach of Bonura was disapproved of by the Supreme Court of Louisiana in All Star Advertising Agency, Inc. v. Reliance Ins. Co., So. 2d , *7 (La. ). New Jersey has applied principles of comity regardless of the status of the domiciliary state. See Aly, supra, (invoking comity without discussion of the fact that Pennsylvania has not adopted the UILA or comparison of its rehabilitation and liquidation statutes with the UILA). See also Murphy v. Ambassador Ins. Co., N.J. Super. , (Ch. Div. ) (finding Vermont to be a reciprocal state despite its differing treatment of preferences).
The Halls urge a tit-for-tat rejection of the Texas injunction because a lower Texas court declined to enforce a stay issued by a Pennsylvania receivership court. Robbins v. Reliance Ins. Co., S.W.3d (Tex. App. - Corpus Christi ), judgment withdrawn, 2 WL (Tex. App. ). However, we note the contrary determination of the Texas Supreme Court in Bard v. Charles R. Myers Ins. Agency, S.W.2d (Tex. ) (recognizing an injunction issued by a Vermont receivership court), which, we find, was ineffectively distinguished by the court in Robbins.
Highlands notes that a creditor in a bankruptcy proceeding is not entitled to notice and a hearing prior to entry of an automatic stay. 11 U.S.C.A. (a).
The Halls are thus mistaken in their argument that the November order permits their New Jersey action to continue, so long as the Receiver is made a party. Further, we seriously doubt our power in the present circumstances to exercise jurisdiction over Highlands' Receiver, whose contacts with New Jersey for purposes of jurisdiction remain unarticulated and seemingly unexplored. We note that it is the Receiver who has, by virtue of the November order, been vested with title to all of Highlands' assets of any kind or nature, and has been authorized to conduct the business of Highlands.
The Fuller-Austin claim arose out of an August 1, California judgment against Highlands in the amount of $57,, plus pre- and post-judgment interest, entered in a declaratory judgment action filed to determine Highlands' liability for allowed, pending and future asbestos claims against the Fuller-Austin Settlement Trust. Following entry of judgment, Fuller-Austin garnished $,, of Highlands' funds in the control of State Street Bank in Missouri. The Bank refused to release any of those funds without Fuller-Austin's consent. After entry of the order of rehabilitation, and filing of Fuller-Austin's proof of claim, that claim was settled for $30,,, and payment of that amount was authorized by the Receiver, with the approval of the Texas court, which occurred on July 28,
Summary judgment was granted to defendant Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corporation.
We decline to distinguish that aspect of Aly discussing hardship applications on the grounds suggested by Highlands, e.g., that the Texas injunction is permanent whereas the Pennsylvania injunctions in Aly were of relatively short duration, and the injunction at issue in Aly covered actions against both the insurer and its insureds, whereas the latter is not covered by the Texas injunction. Neither factor was significant to our decision in that case.
The Halls' income in was reported as $,; in as $,
APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
State Employee Salary Book
Salary Book data is presented in original form as received from the Department of Administrative Services without additional verification or editing. This information is provided by the Department of Administrative Services pursuant to Code of Iowa Section 8A(2).
- Fiscal Year is July 1 - June 30 of the following year.
- Salary 1 represents the employees base pay at the end of the fiscal year. A "BW" represents the employees biweekly base pay.
- Salary 2 represents the employees annual gross pay for the fiscal year.
|ADAMS, HEATHER L||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||4, BW||,|
|ALBJERG, PAIGE DIANE||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||WINNESHIEK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 1||2, BW||57,|
|ALLISON, JENNIFER S||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||MARSHALL||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 2||3, BW||,|
|ANDERSON, JULIA RENEE||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||SECRETARY/RECEPTIONIST||1, BW||43,||0|
|ANDERSON, STACEY A||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||INVESTIGATOR 4||3, BW||57,||0|
|ARNOLD, RICHARD D||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POTTAWATTAMIE||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 2||3, BW||,|
|AUGUSTINE, NICOLE JEAN||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 1||3, BW||79,|
|BAHE, VICKI A||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ACCOUNTANT 2||2, BW||68,||0|
|BAILEY, ALAN M||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||STORY||COMPLIANCE OFFICER 2||3, BW||90,||0|
|BAKKE, THOMAS ERIK||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 2||2, BW||67,||0|
|BARRETT, CAROLINE A||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||3, BW||69,|
|BAUMANN, JOEL ANAND||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POWESHIEK||LAW CLERK||HR||1,||0|
|BELL, BECKY L||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||MADISON||SLIP RETIREE||TERMINATED||42,||0|
|BELLUS, BENJAMIN E||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||4, BW||,||0|
|BENNETT, MICHAEL L||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||4, BW||,||0|
|BERGMAN, JONATHAN DAVID||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||4, BW||,|
|BERGMAN, WAYNE J||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||4, BW||,||0|
|BICKELHAUPT, LISA M||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||STORY||INVESTIGATOR 4||3, BW||69,||0|
|BLAKE, NATHANAEL JAMES||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL||5, BW||,|
|BOCCELLA, JOHN N||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||STORY||INFO TECH SPECIALIST 5||4, BW||,||0|
|BOLLUYT, LAURIE L||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||DALLAS||ADMIN ASSISTANT 2||2, BW||25,|
|BOWLING, MARK LEE||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||SCOTT||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 1||3, BW||79,|
|BRANNEN, STEPHAN A||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 1||3, BW||79,|
|BROWN, SCOTT D||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ATTORNEY SUPERVISOR||5, BW||,|
|BROWN-WAECH, GRETCHEN MARIE||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||PROGRAM PLANNER 3||2, BW||63,|
|BULLER, TYLER JOHN||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||3, BW||97,|
|BURKHISER REYNOLDS, KAYLA LOUISE||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 2||2, BW||67,|
|CARROLL, GEORGE A||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||4, BW||,|
|CEDERDAHL, JAMES ANDREW||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||3, BW||89,|
|CHAMBERS, BRIDGET A||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||HAMILTON||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||4, BW||,||0|
|CHAPRAZOV, HRISTO ASENOV||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||4, BW||,||0|
|CHRISTENSEN, BETTY JEAN||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||ADAIR||LEGAL SECRETARY 3||TERMINATED||30,||0|
|CMELIK, KEVIN R||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ATTORNEY SUPERVISOR||5, BW||,||0|
|COOK JR, RICHARD GENE||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 1||3, BW||79,|
|COONEY, MEREDITH CHRISTINE||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||3, BW||89,|
|COPLEY, CALEB JOHN||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||SCOTT||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 2||3, BW||48,||0|
|CORBIN, TERESA MARIE||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||PARALEGAL||1, BW||48,||0|
|CRAWFORD, SHELLIE KATHLEEN||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||DALLAS||PARALEGAL||1, BW||48,||0|
|CRETSINGER, KEISHA FAITH||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||STORY||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||4, BW||,|
|CROW, CHRISTINA K||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||STORY||LEGAL SECRETARY 3||2, BW||56,||0|
|CULLEN, ERIN SASS||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||DUBUQUE||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 2||3, BW||,|
|DAMANTE CUMMINGS, CHERI L||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||JOHNSON||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||4, BW||,||0|
|DANITZ HART, WENDI MICHELLE||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||LEGAL SECRETARY 3||2, BW||56,||0|
|DAWSON, LUCAS W||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||3, BW||89,|
|DEAVERS, LAURA I||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||SECRETARY/RECEPTIONIST||1, BW||40,||0|
|DEFOREST, SHELLEY L||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||MARION||PUBLIC SERVICE MANAGER 1||4, BW||,||0|
|DEIST, CHRISTOPHER J||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 2||2, BW||59,|
|DICKEY, ELIZABETH A||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||WARREN||LEGAL SECRETARY 3||2, BW||56,||0|
|DIELEMAN, TRICIA L||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||4, BW||,|
|DIRTH, ERIC MICHAEL||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 1||2, BW||54,|
|DIXIT, ANAGHA||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 2||2, BW||67,|
|DOLL, JOLENE K||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||LEGAL SECRETARY 3||2, BW||54,||0|
|DRISH, AUDRA J||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||PARALEGAL||2, BW||49,||0|
|ESBROOK, JORDAN G||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POWESHIEK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||4, BW||,|
|EWING, ANDREW S||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||3, BW||68,|
|FALZBOT, KIMBERLEY SUE||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||MARION||INVESTIGATOR 4||3, BW||74,||0|
|FERGUSON JR, ANTHONY||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||PROGRAM PLANNER 3||2, BW||63,|
|FERGUSON, THOMAS J||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||BLACK HAWK||SLIP RETIREE||TERMINATED||94,|
|FIALA, KATIE A||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||4, BW||79,|
|FINCK, KRISTLE A||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||WARREN||LEGAL SECRETARY 3||2, BW||52,||0|
|FLICKINGER, BENJAMIN J||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||STORY||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||3, BW||51,||0|
|FLOREZ, AMANDA MARIE||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||LEGAL SECRETARY 3||1, BW||47,||0|
|FOLEY, JONATHAN||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||STORY||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||4, BW||,||0|
|FORMAKER, ROBIN||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||STORY||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||4, BW||,|
|FORREST, ROBERT J||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||WAPELLO||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 2||3, BW||80,|
|GANNON, MATTHEW L||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||4, BW||,|
|GARCIA, REBECCA SUE||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||PROGRAM PLANNER 2||2, BW||49,||0|
|GARDNER, TABITHA J||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||HR||68,||0|
|GILLESPIE, MATTHEW KENNETH||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||WARREN||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 2||TERMINATED||59,|
|GLICK, CINDY L||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||MARION||LEGAL SECRETARY 3||1, BW||44,||0|
|GOERLITZ, NOAH J||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||DALLAS||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||3, BW||93,|
|GORDON, TOBY J||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||4, BW||36,||0|
|GORHAM, DAVID S||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ATTORNEY SUPERVISOR||5, BW||,|
|GOSNELL, KATHI L||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||INVESTIGATOR 4||3, BW||79,||0|
|GRADY, PETER J||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||MARSHALL||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||TERMINATED||22,|
|GRAHAM, KRISTEN NOELLE||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||WARREN||LEGAL SECRETARY 2||1, BW||47,||0|
|GRAY, BRANDON JAMES||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||4, BW||,|
|GRAY, KATHERINE||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||DALLAS||LEGAL SECRETARY 3||2, BW||49,||0|
|GROSS, MELISSA L||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||SCOTT||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 2||3, BW||80,|
|HALL, SHARON K.||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||4, BW||,||0|
|HAMILL, ROBERT LEE||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||PUBLIC SERVICE MANAGER 1||3, BW||86,|
|HAMMERAND, DOUGLAS D||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||WARREN||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||4, BW||,|
|HANSEN, CHRISTINA F||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 2||3, BW||,|
|HANSON, KYLE P||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||4, BW||,||0|
|HARMS, SARAH R||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||INVESTIGATOR 4||2, BW||68,|
|HART, JENNIFER M||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||BOONE||PARALEGAL||2, BW||59,||0|
|HAU, TIMOTHY M||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||3, BW||97,|
|HAVERMANN, JADE C||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||CARROLL||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 2||3, BW||,|
|HECKART, SCOTT M||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||WAPELLO||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 2||3, BW||79,|
|HERNANDEZ, BRENDA||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||INVESTIGATOR 1||1, BW||47,|
|HERON MCCOWN, LAURIE D||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||DALLAS||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||3, BW||97,|
|HERRING, CINDY M||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||WEBSTER||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 1||3, BW||79,|
|HICKS, LYNN ROBERT||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||EXEC OFF 3||4, BW||,|
|HILL, KRISTI L||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ACCOUNTANT 4||3, BW||98,|
|HILL, WILLIAM A||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||4, BW||,|
|HINES, LINDA J||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||4, BW||,||0|
|HIXSON, ANDREA SMITH||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||LINN||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 1||2, BW||68,|
|HORN, JAMES B||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||4, BW||,|
|HOWARD, BRYNNE LEAH||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||PUBLIC SERVICE MANAGER 1||TERMINATED||71,|
|HUGG, JOHN||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||INFO TECH SPECIALIST 5||4, BW||,||0|
|HUGHES, MAUREEN FRANCES||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||4, BW||,|
|HUMES, ADAM P||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ATTORNEY SUPERVISOR||5, BW||,|
|IREGUI, TAYLOR ANN||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||LEGAL SECRETARY 2||TERMINATED||17,||0|
|ISENHART, KIRSTIN R L||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||INVESTIGATOR 4||3, BW||75,|
|JACOBE, CYNTHIA L||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||LEGAL SECRETARY 3||2, BW||56,||0|
|JACOBS, WILLIAM J||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 2||3, BW||80,|
|JOHNSON, ERICA CAITLYN||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||LEGAL SECRETARY 1||1, BW||38,||0|
|JOLLY, MEGHAN RENEE||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||PARALEGAL||2, BW||53,||0|
|JUDGE, LISA D||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||WARREN||INVESTIGATOR 1||2, BW||55,||0|
|KAUFMAN, KEVIN E||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||SCOTT||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||4, BW||,|
|KERR, SUSAN M||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||INVESTIGATOR 4||3, BW||79,||0|
|KLOCKE, AMY ELLIS||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||WOODBURY||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 2||3, BW||,|
|KLUXDAL, KIMBERLY J||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||INVESTIGATOR 4||3, BW||76,||0|
|KOCH, AARON W||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||INVESTIGATOR 4||2, BW||67,||0|
|KODIAGA, ISRAEL||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||3, BW||96,|
|KRAEMER, GRETCHEN E||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ATTORNEY SUPERVISOR||5, BW||,|
|KRICKBAUM, KATHERINE MARIE||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||4, BW||58,||0|
|KRISKO, SUSAN R||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||WARREN||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||4, BW||,|
|KRON, LAURA FELDMAN||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||3, BW||65,|
|LAKIN, DREW JORDAN||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||CLINTON||LAW CLERK||TERMINATED||4,||0|
|LAMBERTI, MEREDITH L||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||3, BW||70,||0|
|LANG, KATHRYN KAE||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||3, BW||89,|
|LARSEN, EMMA KAY||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||PARALEGAL||1, BW||41,||0|
|LARSON, CONNIE M||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||LEGAL SECRETARY 3||2, BW||58,||0|
|LARSON, JACOB J||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||4, BW||,||0|
|LEAKE, MATTHEW G||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||PARALEGAL||1, BW||43,||0|
|LEE, CONNIE L ANDERSON||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||LEGAL SECRETARY 3||2, BW||56,||0|
|LEONARD, NICOLE LEE||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||3, BW||98,|
|LICHT, AMY C||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||4, BW||,|
|LINKVIS, MICHELLE ELIZABETH||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||4, BW||,|
|LOCKARD, CANDIS J.||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||INVESTIGATOR 4||TERMINATED||21,||0|
|LOVAN, SOUKSAMONE||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN 3||2, BW||54,|
|LUNDQUIST, JOHN R||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||4, BW||,|
|MADIGAN, PATRICK T||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||4, BW||,||0|
|MARTIN, ELIZABETH M||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||PROGRAM PLANNER 2||2, BW||51,|
|MARTIN, SHERRI S||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||LINN||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 1||3, BW||79,|
|MCATEE, OLIVIA MARIE ROSE||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||DALLAS||INVESTIGATOR 2||1, BW||40,|
|MCCARTHY, KEVIN M||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL||5, BW||,||0|
|MCDONALD, MICHAEL A||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||DALLAS||PROGRAM PLANNER 3||2, BW||50,|
|MEALS, AMANDA S||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||PARALEGAL||2, BW||56,||0|
|MELOHN, JANELLE M||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||STORY||PUBLIC SERVICE MANAGER 2||4, BW||,|
|MERZ, HOLLY G||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||INVESTIGATOR 4||3, BW||79,||0|
|MEYER, KIMBERLY LESLIE||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||BLACK HAWK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 1||3, BW||75,|
|MILLER, LORI LYNN||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||BLACK HAWK||PUBLIC SERVICE MANAGER 1||3, BW||87,|
|MILLER, MAX MERRICK||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||4, BW||,|
|MILLER, THOMAS J||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ATTORNEY GENERAL||, YR||,|
|MILLER, ZACHARY CARL||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||3, BW||70,||0|
|MORITZ, MARY LYNN||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN 3||1, BW||48,|
|MOSS, MICHAEL J||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||WARREN||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||4, BW||,|
|MUKKADA, JOB THOMAS||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 2||2, BW||67,|
|MULLINS, DARREL L||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||4, BW||,||0|
|NAGEL, ALAN W||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 2||2, BW||67,||0|
|NASET, VALERIE S||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||SLIP RETIREE||TERMINATED||39,||0|
|NEHRING, JOSEPH HOWARD||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 2||TERMINATED||29,|
|NELSON, JEFFREY W||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||4, BW||,||0|
|O'BRIEN, PAMELA R||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||INVESTIGATOR 2||TERMINATED||31,||0|
|OETKEN, TONYA A||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||4, BW||,||0|
|OGDEN, THOMAS JAMES||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||3, BW||89,||0|
|OLSON, SUSAN M||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||PROGRAM PLANNER 3||2, BW||69,|
|OTTING, GARY J||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||4, BW||,||0|
|PAGEL, SHANNON L||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 1||3, BW||79,|
|PARKER, MICHAEL J||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||SCOTT||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||4, BW||,|
|PARR, RHONDA L||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||LEGAL SECRETARY 3||2, BW||26,||0|
|PARROTT, BENJAMIN M||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||4, BW||,||0|
|PASHLER, BRYCE A||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||4, BW||,|
|PEARSON, WILLIAM ROBERT||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||4, BW||,||0|
|PENLAND, KATHERINE REEL||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||3, BW||90,|
|PEPPER, WILLIAM A||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||SCOTT||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 2||3, BW||80,|
|PERALES, ALBERTO||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||CLINTON||INVESTIGATOR 4||3, BW||79,|
|PETERSON, JEREMY S||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||4, BW||,|
|PETERSON, MARY ELLEN||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||WARREN||LEGAL SECRETARY 2||1, BW||44,||39|
|PETERZALEK, JEFFREY C||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||4, BW||,|
|PETTIT, RHONDA EILEEN||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||WARREN||PARALEGAL||2, BW||59,|
|PHILLIPS, CHARLES K||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||4, BW||,|
|PHILLIPS, DONNA J||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||PROGRAM PLANNER 3||3, BW||79,|
|PINA, ALEJANDRA||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||LEGAL SECRETARY 3||1, BW||16,||0|
|PLATZ, MONTY C||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||4, BW||98,|
|PORTER, JESSICA RENEE||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||PARALEGAL||2, BW||58,||0|
|PROSSER, ANDREW B||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||4, BW||,|
|QUIGLEY, MARTHA LEE||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||GUTHRIE||INVESTIGATOR 4||3, BW||74,||0|
|RAMIREZ, JESSE THOMAS||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||3, BW||58,|
|RAMSEY-KACENA, ELLEN RUTH||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||LINN||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||4, BW||82,||0|
|RANSCHT, DAVID M||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||3, BW||89,|
|REEL SCHMIDT, LISA ANNE||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||4, BW||,||0|
|REGISTER, TESSA M||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 2||2, BW||59,|
|REINKOESTER, GENEVIEVE MARIE||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||DALLAS||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||4, BW||,||0|
|REYNOLDS, JESSICA ANNE||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||STORY||ATTORNEY SUPERVISOR||5, BW||49,||0|
|ROBERTS, JEANNINE LOUISE||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||LINN||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 1||3, BW||79,|
|ROGERS, AARON JAMES||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||4, BW||,|
|ROUSSEAU, MATTHEW S||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||4, BW||,|
|RUTHERFORD, AMANDA R||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||4, BW||,|
|SANDER, JULIE ANN||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||PARALEGAL||2, BW||26,|
|SCARPINO, NATALIE NICOLE||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||PROGRAM PLANNER 2||2, BW||59,|
|SCHIPPERS, KAYCEENA J||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||PARALEGAL||2, BW||56,||0|
|SCHMIDT, ALLISON A||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 2||TERMINATED||20,|
|SCHULING, MATTHEW ARTHUR||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POTTAWATTAMIE||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 1||2, BW||68,|
|SCHWAKE, SHANA R||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||BLACK HAWK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 1||3, BW||79,|
|SCOTT, SARA M||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||HR||9,||0|
|SEIBECK, JENNA J||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 1||3, BW||74,|
|SHEAHAN, RYAN PATRICK||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||4, BW||53,|
|SIEFERT, NICHOLAS E||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||4, BW||,|
|SLOVEN, LOUIS S||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||3, BW||70,||0|
|SMITH, CHANTELLE C.||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||4, BW||,|
|SOICH, SHERYL A||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||4, BW||,||0|
|SPECKETER, ELIZABETH DIANE||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||BUENA VISTA||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 1||2, BW||72,|
|STARK, STEPHEN P||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||WARREN||COMPLIANCE OFFICER 2||3, BW||91,||0|
|STEFFENSMEIER, LAURA CATHELYN||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||4, BW||98,|
|STEINDORF, MARGARET ANNE||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 2||2, BW||66,||0|
|STEWARD, DAVID S||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||MADISON||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||4, BW||,|
|STOEFFLER, ANNA T||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||LAW CLERK SENIOR||2, BW||13,||0|
|SULLIVAN, STEPHEN PATRICK||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||4, BW||,||0|
|SWAIN, SHONNA K||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||INVESTIGATOR 4||3, BW||79,||0|
|TABOR, ERIC J||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL||5, BW||,|
|TARTIC, JASMINA||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||PARALEGAL||2, BW||59,||0|
|TERRONES, BARRIE J||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||STORY||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||4, BW||,|
|THIBODEAU, MICHAEL KENNY||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||4, BW||,|
|THINNES CULVER, MARICLARE||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||4, BW||,|
|THOMAS, SARAH L||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||PARALEGAL||2, BW||59,||0|
|THOMPSON, JEFFREY S||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL||5, BW||,|
|TIMKO, SARAH CHRISTINE||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||4, BW||,|
|TRACY, MOLLY ELIZABETH||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 1||2, BW||63,|
|TRAYNOR, KRISTI A||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||TERMINATED||45,|
|TRIICK, MARY ALISSA||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||3, BW||72,||0|
|TROUT, MARTHA E||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||4, BW||,||0|
|TROWERS, DION DUWAYNE||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||SCOTT||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||4, BW||86,|
|UPDEGRAFF, ANNE E.||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||DALLAS||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||4, BW||,|
|VAN COMPERNOLLE, DAVID M||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POWESHIEK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||4, BW||,||0|
|VANDENBRANDEN, MONICA A||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||INVESTIGATOR 4||2, BW||68,|
|WALKER, JUSTIN D||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||4, BW||,|
|WALKER, RUTH C||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||WARREN||INVESTIGATOR 4||3, BW||79,|
|WALLACE, H LORAINE||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||4, BW||,|
|WALLIN, MARC A||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||DALLAS||INVESTIGATOR 4||3, BW||79,||0|
|WATSON, JODI R||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||PARALEGAL||2, BW||10,||0|
|WATTS, REGINA RENEE||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||PROGRAM PLANNER 2||2, BW||64,|
|WEBER, MEGAN A||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||PARALEGAL||1, BW||43,||0|
|WEBER, MOLLY MCCONVILLE||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||DALLAS||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||4, BW||,|
|WEBER-NELSON, ELISE MARIE||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||INVESTIGATOR 3||2, BW||54,|
|WEGNER, SHARON MARIE||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||3, BW||89,|
|WEISER, MALLORY ELIZABETH||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 2||3, BW||78,||0|
|WHITNEY, JESSICA J||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ATTORNEY SUPERVISOR||5, BW||,|
|WICKMAN, MARY K||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||4, BW||,||0|
|WILLIAMS, PAXTON JAMAIL||M||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||3, BW||93,|
|WILLITS, EMILY MARIE||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ATTORNEY SUPERVISOR||5, BW||,|
|WILSON, NATASHA NICOLE||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 3||TERMINATED||24,|
|WISEMAN, MERRY C||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||DES MOINES||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 1||3, BW||79,|
|WITTMUS, LISA A||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||EXEC SECRETARY||2, BW||71,||0|
|WOOD, TERRA KRISTIN||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||BLACK HAWK||ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL 2||3, BW||95,|
|WRIGHT, ARICA CAMIL||F||ATTORNEY GENERAL||POLK||LEGAL SECRETARY 2||1, BW||40,||0|
- 2003 gmc yukon dashboard
- 2013 toyota 4runner
- Office metal cabinet
- Earthbound save files
- Mew best moveset
Scott A. Hall, Partner
To recommend or link to this lawyer as a trusted attorney, we have provided a list of sample links. Please choose the one that meet your needs.
Image Link 1
Corresponding HTML Codes
Image Link 2
Corresponding HTML Codes
Image Link 3
Corresponding HTML Codes
Image Link 4
Corresponding HTML Codes
Image Link 5
Corresponding HTML Codes
Image Link 6
Corresponding HTML Codes
Image Link 7
Corresponding HTML Codes
Image Link 8
Corresponding HTML Codes
Text Link 1
Corresponding HTML Codes
Text Link 2
Corresponding HTML Codes
Carney Appleby Law was founded by James W. Carney. Upon his graduation from Drake Law School and the receipt of his law license in , Jim Carney hung his shingle and began his firm in the general practice of law. Through hard work, dedication, and many, many early mornings and long nights, Jim has built one of the premier lobbying and personal injury practices in the state of Iowa. Jims list of loyal legislative clients is long and distinguished, and his list of trial victories and reported Iowa cases is equally impressive. Through more than four decades of practice, Jim has remained true to his mission: to provide first-rate advocacy for his clients with purpose and professionalism.
In , George W. Appleby joined the firm, making partner shortly thereafter. George had been practicing law in the public and private sectors since Georges criminal defense of both state and federal defendants, his litigation and appellate practice, and his natural penchant for legislative and administrative advocacy made him a natural fit for the firm. Over the years George has excelled in his lobbying activities and his appellate advocacy, making both a mainstay of his daily practice. Before retiring in , George had expanded his civil litigation portfolio to include personal injury, medical malpractice, and a plethora of other civil trial matters.
In , Scott A. Hall joined the partnership. Scott had worked with Jim and George as a law clerk all through his days at Drake Law School, and as an Associate attorney for nearly all his years of private practice. Scotts property-based practice immediately filled a need for the firm, and his abilities within transactional and litigation scenarios continues to be an asset to the firm and its clients.
In , Douglas L. Struyk joined the partnership. Doug is an absolutely vital and integral part of Carney Appleby Laws legislative lobbying practice. He brings decades of executive, legislative, administrative, government relations, and public policy experience to the firm. In addition to Dougs impressive legislative resume, he also contributes heavily with the firms civil litigation and administrative law functions.
All of the partners are born Iowans with strong ties to the state. The four partners of Carney Appleby Law are proud to be Iowa attorneys and are proud to know and work with Iowa attorneys all across the state.
If you or yours are in need of competent, experienced representation before the legislature, state or federal courts, or any other tribunal, the attorneys of Carney Appleby Law are here to fulfill that need.
Hall iowa scott attorney
But Kolka was dissatisfied. He wanted happiness. To see a loved one and to stop breathing. Such feelings were only with those girls.Scott Hall Talks About The Kliq
I want to see everything, everything: your fingers are rubbing themselves faster and faster and you start to finish: you moan and climb onto the half-bridge. I remove your hand and cover your crack with my mouth: God, what a smell, what a taste: The crack is already a little swollen. From the blood flow: I stroke your clitoris with my tongue, I enter you, then again the clitoris: then I cant stand it and Im in you: warm, sweet, insanely good inside.
You will also like:
- Star wars robot army
- 13 wham news
- Home depot salary georgia
- Oracle salary software engineer
- Uil girls basketball
- 970m vs 1070
- Carve designs swimwear
- Case pen knife
- Vermont castings parts near me
- Dolphin paddle boat parts
- 2k20 myteam cards
I whispered and closed her mouth with a kiss. She did not resist for long and was not active. It was already wet between her legs, apparently, she was thinking about me too. I just slightly parted and lifted her legs and inserted them without any preamble. She didn't even wave, she just flung herself loosely in bed, closed her eyes and presented herself to my insolent attack.